Uriah,
I nearly always let my 1Ds and lenses handle the focus for me, both on and off the tripod, with good results. That said, I often use the feature of the Ds which allows me to select the focus point so I ensure it's placed on the item I wish to be in the "best focus".

When I'm shooting on tripod, I generally auto-focus before making my final composition, then switch the lens to "manual focus" while I compose, meter, etc. That way, taking a meter reading won't alter my careful focus adjustment!

Hope This Helps!

-- Jim

Mark makes good points. That reminds me - it's important to distinguish between letting the camera focus the lens, versus letting the camera decide what part of your image to focus on. I tend to do the former, not the latter.

The 1Ds gives a fair amount of control over these things. For instance, I usually force the camera to use one of its 45 autofocus points. But it's certainly possible to allow the camera to select the autofocus point - which may or may not be the area I wish to 'focus on". What's more, even when I select the autofocus point, I can allow the camera to automatically expand the "activation area" to encompass more than the single autofocus point I've selected. I generally don't allow the camera to do this, since I want more control over the autofocus process. On the other hand, for moving subjects, these options would be much more useful.

Add to all this, the different "modes" offered by the 1Ds: One-Shot AF and AI Servo AF. Focus is a very complex subject with this camera, and one can do a great deal of tailoring to adapt the camera to one's preferred shooting style(s).

Hope This Helps!

-- Jim

Thanks for your remarks guys, lots of helpful information. I have not started using the AF points very much, because I am not really familiar with how they work, but I will look into it.

Quote (Mark Muntean @ April 18 2004,15:10)

Another reason to manually focus is to precisely control your focus plane when concerned about depth of field.  I often photograph people on horseback and would like to see the horse's head (closer) and the rider's face (further away) both in focus.

That is one of a small number of good arguments for using manual focus in certain situations. I have found similarly that for extreme close-ups, using MF helps, because usually the AF chooses the nearest point, and I instead want to focus in the middle of the range of distances to important elements.

Apart from that, a lot of the "manual focus is better" case is reactionary curmudgeonliness. Ironically, as I approach the curmudgeon age group, my eyes benefit from the help of AF more and more!

Also note, as a variant on Howard Smith's point, that almost all modern cameras lack the traditional manual focusing aids in the viewfinder, which tends to make manual focusing distinctly less reliable and accurate than AF can be when it has a clear target (edge) to focus on. To be fair, I have never mastered the zooming LCD tool for MF in some digicams, but it might work well.

I am quite new to photography and I am having issues with focusing. I read in a lot of places where manual focusing is ultimately better than auto focusing, that is if you want to be a good photographer. My problem is that when I take pictures I focus then use my built in light meter and take the picture, by the time I snap the picture though, I am out of focus and I have a lot of problems here. I had a friend suggest to me, that I should shoot auto when I am not using a tripod. My question is, do most photographers shoot auto when not using a tripod, or have you just god used to not moving your body after focusing?
                Uriah

I also use a 1Ds, and usually use auto focus for action / motion, but I usually manually focus for landscape or tripod work when I have the time.  Main issue you pointed out correctly is available time.

As you gain experience, you will learn when the camera auto focus will function well (if so let it do it), and when intervention is suggested.  This is also very true of auto exposure metering.

Another reason to manually focus is to precisely control your focus plane when concerned about depth of field.  I often photograph people on horseback and would like to see the horse's head (closer) and the rider's face (further away) both in focus.  The auto focus will tend to pick one or the other as the focus plane, but the best focus distance for this shot is somewhere in between.  This focus distance plus just the right aperature will render both subjects "just in focus", while keeping the background nicely in blur.  Aperture bracketing helps here.

I have a Sony F707 that I always autofocus.  The short focal length lensand small view finder just doesn't allow me to see well enough to top the autofocus.

I'm not sure if this contributes anything, but one can also separate the focusing and exposure functions through the use of custom functions.  By setting CF-4 to 1 on my EOS-3, I can use the AE lock button on the back of the camera body to focus, then set the exposure with the shutter button or cable release.  I also have CF-13 set to 1, which links focusing point and metering.

Using this setup, I focus on one point and meter on another point without affecting focus.  True, I only have 11 points on which to meter; since I don't suffer from FPPFS (focusing point peeper fixation syndrome), this is not a problem, at least not for me.

As far as I know, all EOS cameras use these same functions in the same way.  I assume that Nikon has similar features.

Of course this approach is not for every situation, nor for everyone.  Probably not for shots of riders on horseback, although it does give you the benefit of setting the focus if you can anticipate where the subject will be at the time of exposure.  And it does eliminate the need to switch between auto and manual focus, and back again.  This simplifies life for me.

Richard

I am a 10-year Nikon user (F-5, N-90s) and do a lot of sports photography -- especially college football.  Autofocus is an imperative for me.  About to take the digital plunge and have virtually decided on the new Canon Mark II.  I know it features an upgraded version of the highly praised Canon 45 point AF system.  I am atracted to the ability of the 45 point system to "cluster" several active AF points, maximizing the sweet spot.  For those familiar with this AF system, how will it compare to the F-5 in terms of focus lockon and tracking?