Definitive 10D AF test

[Mark Gillett]

Could it be you need more practice at this kind og photog?

M

That behavior never bothered me too much before, because the
pictures I sell were shot in studio at f8-11 and the other
pictures... well I didn't really care that much. I had the 10D
since it was first available and know it pretty well. Had I not
decided to make that kind of photo, where focus is both critical
and difficult, I would have remained satisfied with my camera.

So... You may feel safe by saying that MY camera behave that way,
and it's true. But should you some day ask more of YOUR camera,
you might very well call it definitive for you too.

Enjoy your good enough 10D

TM

--
I loved curves, long before Photoshop appeared

 

[TangoMan]

Could it be you need more practice at this kind og photog?

I do! I trew away too many that were motion blurred, yet a high percentage of them were also poorly focussed. See my later post about how to tell what is what in the blurry world of low light low speed high action

I need a better tool so that my good pans are sharply focused and all my static shots are in focus.

 

[howyroark]

So going from F 2.0 to 2.8 is how you're increasing the depth of field? That's not much of an increase.

Also, it helps if you describe all the parameters your shooting with in the beginning, i.e. manual or auto AF point selection, focus mode, etc. it sound more like a DOF problem and camera AF point selection problem to me.

Closed down to 2.8? You realize that 2.8 is just about as wide
open as you can get, right?

None of my lenses are slower than 2.0

--
I loved curves, long before Photoshop appeared

--
Matt

 

[TangoMan]

I don't know what you are trying to do, but if you tought that 2.8 is as wide as it gets, you obviously don't have a lot of low light experience.

So going from F 2.0 to 2.8 is how you're increasing the depth of
field? That's not much of an increase.

Light is limited. A 1/2 sec exposure at f11 won't be sharper. The iso is already at 800 and I don't want less image quality.

Also, it helps if you describe all the parameters your shooting
with in the beginning, i.e. manual or auto AF point selection,
focus mode, etc. it sound more like a DOF problem and camera AF
point selection problem to me.

If you had experience in low light, you might know that only the central sensor as any ability to lock the focus.

Thanks anyway, quit looking for user error and realize that these shooting conditions are more than the 10D can handle reliably.

Closed down to 2.8? You realize that 2.8 is just about as wide
open as you can get, right?

None of my lenses are slower than 2.0

--
I loved curves, long before Photoshop appeared

--
Matt

--
I loved curves, long before Photoshop appeared

 

[howyroark]

So going from F 2.0 to 2.8 is how you're increasing the depth of
field? That's not much of an increase.

Light is limited. A 1/2 sec exposure at f11 won't be sharper. The
iso is already at 800 and I don't want less image quality.

Also, it helps if you describe all the parameters your shooting
with in the beginning, i.e. manual or auto AF point selection,
focus mode, etc. it sound more like a DOF problem and camera AF
point selection problem to me.

If you had experience in low light, you might know that only the
central sensor as any ability to lock the focus.
Thanks anyway, quit looking for user error and realize that these
shooting conditions are more than the 10D can handle reliably.

There is an epidemic of people blaming problems on user error without grounds, but there is also an equal epidemic of people blaming problems on camera defects without the evidence to back it up. I was just trying to get some details before I made that decision...especially when you make comments that make little sense to me. For example, I was only assuming that 2.8 was your widest aperture because the facts weren't presented before hand. And if you think you're increasing your DOF a great deal by going from 2.0 to 2.8 especially on a long zoom lens then please don't make comments about my photographic ability. Also, I am aware that the central AF sensor is the most sensitive, but that does you no good if you don't have it selected. If the less sensitive AF sensors think they have a better lock, then a camera auto selecting focus points will chose it over the center....say if one of the perimeter sensors is over contrast rich subjects in the crowd or the fence in front of the crowd while the central point is over a relatively darkly colored, low contrast cowboy and bull.

Also, taking a 10D from ISO 800 to maybe 1600 is not going to severely decrease your image quality, especially if you do some post processing to clean up what little noise is there.

Closed down to 2.8? You realize that 2.8 is just about as wide
open as you can get, right?

None of my lenses are slower than 2.0

--
I loved curves, long before Photoshop appeared

--
Matt

--
I loved curves, long before Photoshop appeared

--
Matt

 

[Pekka Saarinen]

None.

After reading a thread from Isaac explaining how Canon has two kind
of AF systems, one with low precision for Elans, D-30-60, 10D and
rebels, and one with high precision for the Eos 3, 1N, 1V, 1D and
1Ds, I am hoping that I will have better luck with a body of the
higher AF grade.

AF precision has nothing to do with your problem. The problem is that 10D has too few and too apart sensors for reliable and accurate tracking of anything fast-moving that does not fill the viewfinder almost completely. You can practice and test and perhaps learn some tricks, but bottom line is that 10D AF is not for situations you put it into. For sports prefocusing, quick thumb * reflexes and manual focus are much better than AI servo. Other than that 10D AF is fast and very usable.

--
Pekka
http://photography-on-the.net

 

[John Davis]

You and others are dellusional when you think that other cameras 1D/1Ds have perfect AF systems. You will have to wait a while to get one that is quasi-perfect, and most probably it will need some help from you in tems of tracking eye pupil movement - and it will fail some of the time. Understanding, as I do, how the optics and the AF (any AF) works at their fundamentals, it's pathetic to read about these unrealistic expectations.

John

That behavior never bothered me too much before, because the
pictures I sell were shot in studio at f8-11 and the other
pictures... well I didn't really care that much. I had the 10D
since it was first available and know it pretty well. Had I not
decided to make that kind of photo, where focus is both critical
and difficult, I would have remained satisfied with my camera.

So... You may feel safe by saying that MY camera behave that way,
and it's true. But should you some day ask more of YOUR camera,
you might very well call it definitive for you too.

Enjoy your good enough 10D

TM

--
I loved curves, long before Photoshop appeared

 

[hyslopc]

Looks like you're getting a bit tense, and I can understand why! Lots of people here misunderstanding what you wrote, either intentionally or otherwise. I think GBear was referring to them, though, not you! I could be wrong...

 

[hyslopc]

Basically I don't think AI-Servo can really work well without the "full coverage" 45-point AF that you get in the 1-series. For many subjects, 45-point AF is a drawback, but for shooting fast-moving objects, especially at long distances, it is essential.

 

[hyslopc]

Let's hope the 1D-successor has better high ISO performance, though: the ISO1600 noise is clearly visible even in those tiny shots.

 

[TangoMan]

You assumed too much about my choices. Don't even think of using multiple focus point when the central one can't do it's job properly.

You can't prefocus on a wild horse that as a full arena to run, should I mention. And you can't visually confirm focus in the 10D viewfinder.

Seems like every most people responding to this thread are experts on reading the manual and have little experience...

TangoMan wrote:

AF precision has nothing to do with your problem. The problem is
that 10D has too few and too apart sensors for reliable and
accurate tracking of anything fast-moving that does not fill the
viewfinder almost completely. You can practice and test and perhaps
learn some tricks, but bottom line is that 10D AF is not for
situations you put it into. For sports prefocusing, quick thumb *
reflexes and manual focus are much better than AI servo. Other than
that 10D AF is fast and very usable.

--
Pekka
http://photography-on-the.net

--
I loved curves, long before Photoshop appeared

 

[TangoMan]

Basically I don't think AI-Servo can really work well without the
"full coverage" 45-point AF that you get in the 1-series. For many
subjects, 45-point AF is a drawback, but for shooting fast-moving
objects, especially at long distances, it is essential.

I would be satisfied with one focusing point if it focused correctly and fast.

--
I loved curves, long before Photoshop appeared

 

[hyslopc]

Sorry for the pun - couldn't resist!

I agree with what you're saying: the faster the better. But until we have an AF system that can focus in 0.01 nanoseconds, the best solution for situations like rodeo is to have a dense array of focus points with no gaps between them, aka Canon's 1-series 45-point AF.

There's a massive difference between the typical 3, 5, 7, or 11-point AF and 45-point AF: with 45-point AF, there is no part of the viewfinder that is not covered by a focus point. So as long as the object you want to focus on is the object closest to the camera, you will always get a lock.

See the difference? With the camera setup in 45-point AF mode to automatically focus on the closest object, you will never get a shot focussed on the crowd like you did with your 10D - it's impossible. The only problem you might have is that the camera could focus on the horse's nose when you wanted it to focus on the rider's face, etc. But the focus will always at least be close to what you wanted.

With the 10D, you have to make sure that the AF point you have chosen is pointing at the subject from the time you ask it to focus to the time the shutter opens. With rodeo, that's very difficult.

 

[DavidP #28649]

I can assure you that even on the 1D, there is plenty of viewfinder not convered by a focus point. It only gets worse on the 1Ds (or EOS-3, which I've owned).

with 45-point AF, there is no part of
the viewfinder that is not covered by a focus point.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[Pekka Saarinen]

You assumed too much about my choices. Don't even think of using
multiple focus point when the central one can't do it's job
properly.

Aha, this was yet another "it's 10D's fault" message. So why don't you get you 10D fixed/checked then?

I also forgot mention that your 50/1.8, 100/2 and 100 macro are hardly proper tools for a sport jobs because focusing motor speed does matter.

You can't prefocus on a wild horse that as a full arena to run,
should I mention.

Why not? There is a finite number of directions in most likely will go (it can't fly), and when as you are not very close (for obvious reasons) you achieve more depth of field to cover slight errors (if this means also ISO 1600 then that is what must be used - Neatimage is quite good).

And you can't visually confirm focus in the 10D
viewfinder.

Yes you can. I've done it many times successfully.

Seems like every most people responding to this thread are experts
on reading the manual and have little experience...

Let me make an example of you, how your posts (see your profile) characterizes you. This is your "net presence" according to a quick peek into dpreview posting history:

(a reminder: this is only an example how ridiculous it is to think you know people by their posts here. You are most likely NOT as below)

------------

You live in Montreal, Canada. You mother tongue is french. Probably 20-25 years, no steady job (based on gear list and other posts e.g. about starting a photography business).

You consider yourself a photographer with great skills. But in cold hard reality you are relatively newbie who started digital photography with G3 about 7 months ago (before that you had Elan II). You earned some money with G3 making inkjet prints and bought a 10D. With "pro" gear you rate yourself as a DSLR pro now and so you can not be wrong or take any advice from mortals. This arrogant attitude of "I am intellectually superior" reflects to other subjects, too, as seen in posts you've made about maths, history and languages.

When problems arise and photos are not that great your conclusion is that as you can't do wrong, as you don't need any more practice: all that you need to rise to a star photographer is just better hardware (problem is you can't afford 1D). But the real problem is that you have refused to accept and learn some simple facts of shooting with digital SLR: how shallow 1.6X DoF really is, how lenses really matter, how shutter speed matters more because enlargements are so big, how different it all is from G3 days and compact digital.

You haven't posted a single photo nor have any galleries on net.

And btw, your plan says "D10".

----------

See now?

--
Pekka
http://photography-on-the.net

 

[Pearl Rider]

You assumed too much about my choices. Don't even think of using
multiple focus point when the central one can't do it's job
properly.

Is there a problem with giving it a try? You DO want to get the pictures, don't you? You sound as though you want the camera to fail to do the job. I could be wrong but that's the way it reads.

You can't prefocus on a wild horse that as a full arena to run,
should I mention. And you can't visually confirm focus in the 10D
viewfinder.

Don't you wonder how people got rodeo pictures BEFORE the days of autofocusing cameras? As far as not being able to confirm focus in the viewfinder, yes, it IS quite possible. It may be difficult to do with a rapidly moving object like a bucking horse or bull but it can be done.

Seems like every most people responding to this thread are experts
on reading the manual and have little experience...

I asked you in the beginning of this thread which other cameras you used to shoot an assignment like this and your reply was "None". So what qualifies you as an "expert"? Is this the first time you've shot a rodeo and you're an "expert" already?

 

[hyslopc]

What I meant is that there is no "empty space" between the focus points like there are on all other bodies: the 45 AF points touch each other. Can you please confirm whether this is correct or not, because I am going on what I've read - I don't own a 45-point AF camera yet (I will by the end of the year, though).

with 45-point AF, there is no part of
the viewfinder that is not covered by a focus point.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and
tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[hyslopc]

That was a pretty rough post. You been drinking Koff lately? "Brewed with perkele" is what they say on TV here ;-)...

 

[DavidP #28649]

Ah, OK - that's different. There's plenty of space outside of the 45-pt area that's not covered by an AF point, though.

As far as any "empty space" between AF points, I'd have to say that there's virtually none. There's definitely space between the engravings for each AF point in the focusing screen. But, the actual AF sensor extends outside of these points somewhat. I'm not sure if they actually touch or not. My guess would be that there is some gap between them. But your intended subject would have to be VERY small to fit in that "dead zone" if it exists.

What I meant is that there is no "empty space" between the focus
points like there are on all other bodies: the 45 AF points touch
each other. Can you please confirm whether this is correct or not,
because I am going on what I've read - I don't own a 45-point AF
camera yet (I will by the end of the year, though).

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[Pekka Saarinen]

That was a pretty rough post. You been drinking Koff lately?
"Brewed with perkele" is what they say on TV here ;-)...

No Koff for me, thank you

I tried to write as frankly as I could. Some people need to be brought to ground before they are so high the fall hurts too much. I'd like reserve definition "pro" for serious full time professional photographers who earn their living taking photos - not for part-time freelancers like me, or for one-gig-and-i'm-pro wonderboys like some. Gear does not make you a pro.

--
Pekka
http://photography-on-the.net