I wouldn't say it's an aversion to stepping through the process from the ground up, rather an acknowledgement that the tools of today are different than they were previously, and that learning MF to start with is not the best learning experiencee. Just because many experienced photographers of today learned on MF cameras doesn't mean it's the only or best way to do it. Had there been AF back in the day, many of them probably would have used it then too. Yes MF is a good skill but the presence of AF is so ubiquitous and well-developed in modern cameras that I am just saying that it might be better to start off learning to properly utilize and understand the modern AF system (this includes knowing how to utilize its behavior for maximum advantage and also recognizing and understanding it's limitations) rather than learning MF first then incorporating AF into the flow. It's kind of like saying that in order to "do it properly" you have to start out by shooting film first, and only switch to digital once you've mastered film.
I think "do it properly" is a stretch, because in no way have i indicated a need to do it "because that's the way it's done" but rather articulated why AF doesn't often work and how building into it will help the results of the budding photographer over time. To too many new photographers, AF hit or AF missed, and that's all they know- they might learn when AF is going to have issues, but they don't learn to concentrate on where they want focus and they certainly don't immediately switch to manual when AF won't work because they don't have the skills or confidence that comes with putting it in manual- they probably think you can't possibly AF without a full frame camera, split prism screen and 100% viewfinder.
Fortunately, Nikon keeps coddling to folks like me and putting that M switch on the body.
I don't really know how you can practically use hyperfocal distance technique on a kit lens with no focus distance indicator.
I'd say "proves my point!" here, since you haven't had to work out how to do it, you can't imagine doing it.
It's just like always using an auto-exposure mode- if you're lucky and persistent, but very atypical you'll learn to dial in some compensation when necessary- but it won't help in challenging lighting conditions like learning to actually judge exposure over the scene would. It's obviously up to each person how much they put into learning the mechanics and technical aspects of photography, but to insinuate that because the camera has automatic mechanisms not taking the time to learn the basics of how those mechanisms are derived is somehow "better" seems off-base to me. Hey, not everyone wants to put real time into the mechanics- but if you're starting out, I can't see how striving for anything other than total mastery ends up in total mastery- and once again- having been down the "drop AF for a while" path, I've seen the benefits in my own images. Again, we're just going to have to disagree.
Don't forget that MF back in the day was aided by split prism and ground glass focusing screens. And even though every camera had a nice bright high quality full-frame viewfinder, they still needed these tools to get the best focus. But now you want someone to learn to MF at the outset by trying it through a smaller, dimmer viewfinder and just rely on the AF focus indicator (which you also mention has its share of problems and inaccuracies, all of which still apply to using it as a focus indicator)? I
I've had no issues manual focusing a friend's D40- so while you may have all sorts of reasons you feel it's not doable, I'm going to disagree- it's possible, even when your eyesight isn't what it was at what's likely to be your age
.
More importantly, even a beginning photographer (said friend) had surprisingly few issues doing manual focus when they borrowed my 80-400VR to shoot track and field (no AF-D focus motor in the D40, so it was manual focus or nothing)- and it was their *first* attempt at manual focus, and their first attempt at using a telephoto combined with their first attempt at shooting sports. I wasn't there to help them, and they hit more than they'd likely have hit with a split-prism body in AF mode "back in the day."
understand your argument that MF is a very useful and valuable skill but I think making someone MF all the time on a camera system that was not designed for it will lead to many soft pictures. And I think it would be hard to stick to photography as a beginner if you spent your entire first year or even six months getting primarily soft images and missed focus because you're struggling against your gear that is just not well suited to critical MF. Maybe if he buys a D3x and adds an aftermarket split-prism focusing screen and uses MF-only lenses (with nicely damped focus rings, dsitance indicators, depth of field markings, a fine focusing thread, etc) it could work but otherwise it's going to just lead to frustration.
Again, based on my experiences we're going to have to disagree. I don't think I'm overly gifted in hand-eye coordination, and I don't think my rank beginner friend is either. Last year I brought my portable strobes and battery pack to their house to do some Christmas portraits- I took quite a few shots with their D40 and kit lens- the way you portray it, I'm surprised that any of them had good focus! I shot on manual because the focus points on the D40 weren't where I wanted them, and recomposing changed the subject distance enough that it wouldn't have resulted in as accurate focusing. If I'd taken your words with me, I'd have either not gotten the compositions I wanted (again, there's that visualize the shot thing) or I'd have gotten softer focus from recomposing (which I'd have done if I'd had the luxury of a relatively flat space to fit everyone into.)
The fact is that there's a significant learning curve to get your eye, hand and brain all engaged to make it automatic, and you can't do that in a day, or even a month- that's likely why most of you don't get good results on MF.
I'm not a professional photographer nor am I the best or most experienced hobbyist but I have put time into learning and understanding the fundatmentals of (manual or old-school) photoraphy. Some of it was on a MF SLR, some was on an AF film SLR, much of it was on my DSLR which was the first serious camera I owned for myself. And in fact many of the skills and technique I have gained now would apply equally well to MF film back in the day vs. my modern digital and AF capable system. But if I was just starting out now I don't see why I would not start out by learning to properly utilize and understand the modern tools of photography. And there is a big difference between being a mindless "button pusher" and one who understands how the AF system works and behaves and can utilize it properly.
You make it sound like learning to use manual mode isn't a start on the path to "properly utilize and understand the modern tools" and that's simply untrue.
There's actually not all that much difference between understanding how the AF system works and being a button pusher- because you're either going to get AF on your target or you're not- you can slightly influence that by pushing a few more buttons to change settings- but outside of that, there's not all that much skill involved. I'm not even sure how you'd improperly utilize an AF system.
I know way more about Nikon's AF systems than I ever wanted to know. Yet even under controlled studio lighting conditions with relatively or completely static subjects, Nikon's best DSLRs, and very good lenses, I shoot manual focus more often than not- do you think that's just for fun? Tracking moving subjects like birds in flight, Nikon beats me almost every time- outside of that, I'll win more often than not, especially in the edge cases that make great dramatic images rather than snapshots.