- bunch of snips, post too long..
this case it would be hard to tell if the focus was dead on or
slightly off and the very slight blur was due to focus precision
instead of motion.
in my experience, it is relatively easy to tell if the blur is caused by the motion or if it is caused by missed focus - I have one shot from October that shows this very clearly, and would be happy to email you a copy direct (I have no host site, so can't post here directly) - the shot in question was taken with XT, cheap 75-300/4-5.6III on the long end, AF, 1/60, f/16 - center focus point dead on the A-pillar/hood junction - nose of the car is soft, tail is sharp... in this particular case, the AF did miss the target (trailing).. the likelyhood on this shot is that the LENS, not the camera's AF could not cope with the rate of change..
ask the full-time pros, who use top-lline gear... their keeper rate is usually similar to mine.. one really needs to address the whole system (including the lens) before making statements on focus precision of a body. While it is not impossible that the focus precision contributed to some of the failed shots, often it is a case of missed framing or missed positioning or missing the timing on the shutter button(monkey error).
In my case, when I focus 3 times oo the same virtually static
subject, the result is very slightly different every time. I assume
this is due to a predefined precision or acceptable margin of error
set by Canon perhaps to increase the speed. One could say that it
was in focus every time. However, when I shot a distant pattern (a
fence) marginally resolved by the sensor, it was visible only half
the time due to focusing. I did it to test the resolution of EF 50
f/1.4 and I could not, because the lens/sensor combination
outperformed focusing precision on this camera in a very wide range
of apertures.
remember that Canon claims 'within one DOF' for focus accuracy on the XT - this is likely the problem on the shot I described above - I am not certain of the accuracy spec on the higher-rated bodies.
It also never could focus on the moon at night with 200mm.
Possibly I had a poor sample of 350D, although a friend of mine had
the same problem (which is gone in his new 400D). So may be other
samples are better, but it means that I need to buy several cameras
and test them to select one, and this is rather a hassle.
perhaps your samples of the 350 were 'below average'.. there are certainly enough samples out there, it being the best-selling SLR of all time!
This is interesting. Do you think there is a sufficient demand for
a smaller DSLR? Or would the purpose be to push DSLR's into the
target market of compacts? It may be challenging to keep the same
sensor size.
I think there is sufficient demand - the E-400 is proof that there is
some level of demand.. the Canon equivalent would of necessity be thicker front to back because of the longer flange-sensor distance of the EF mount, but the rest of the body could likely be made more compact.. Some of its purpose would be to push DSLRs into the 'compact' market - touting big sensor capability in a small package... I would envision several more EF-S lenses as well, if that were the goal - compact zooms - an 18-105/3.5-5.6 in a similar size (perhaps non-extending) to the 'kit' 18-55, as a do-it-all... this part of the discussion might fit into your other thread speculating on the future of Canon's DSLRs in the 4000D/entry level..
agree with you on hoping they make it mechanically better than the kit lens.. making the sensor smaller, but staying with the EF mount, would make the lens bigger - look at the size of the 10-22 compared to the 'kit'..
Also, in some ways, the 400D does compete with the 40D,
despite the mp difference.. similar target market (entry and
amateur)..
True and they do it on purpose.
So the lineup is like this:
N D40 - C 350D - C 400D - N D80 - C40D (10.4mp, 2007) - N D200 - C 5D
I am not even sure where Canon 30D belongs. Perhaps between Canon
400D and Nikon D80 or else completely out, because I don't know why
anybody would buy it at all. This situation should speed up the
introduction of 40D that should be a very nice camera option.
we are in agreement here - both in your suggested lineup and in 'where the 30D belongs' - clearly the 30D is a freshening of the 20D.. I would put it between the C400 and the N80 at this time because of the build and handling (similar style to the N80) - I expect that the C40D when it comes out will be quite close to the N D200 - a little lower in position, but very close - so that Canon has the D200 bracketed by the 5D and 40D - more choice for the consumer, no
direct competition, and significantly higher-spec than the 400D so as not to repeat the same problem they had with the 20D/350D - basically the same IQ, but two different market segments, the 20D was the loser on that one..
Cheers,
S.
--
- How deep does the Rabbit Hole go? *
My XT IS Full Frame -- APS-C/FF of course!
