40 D and AF - limits?

I need your comments on 40D and AF (moving objects). I really need much better focus accuracy than 350D, much better. I usually take photos at dogs that runs fast and unpredictable. I wan't to see real-life experience and comments, not pictures on objects that moves very linear and predictable.

Have someone test the limits? Maybe a sport photografer has some experience?

I'm really need to swith camera body soon. I use 70-200 F4 L.

Regards
garbell
http://www.pbase.com/garbell

garbell said:

I need your comments on 40D and AF (moving objects). I really need
much better focus accuracy than 350D, much better.

Click to expand...

"Much better" makes me nervous.

garbell said:

I usually take
photos at dogs that runs fast and unpredictable. I wan't to see
real-life experience and comments, not pictures on objects that moves
very linear and predictable.

Click to expand...

garbell said:

Have someone test the limits? Maybe a sport photografer has some
experience?

Click to expand...

I am an amateur wildlife photographer and find the 40D adept at subjects that are fast and unpredictable but must emphasize that I MISS A LOT OF SHOTS! Is it me or the camera?

But given what you described you should get yourself a MkIII or used MkII/N.

Gene

chisquared said:

garbell said:

I need your comments on 40D and AF (moving objects). I really need
much better focus accuracy than 350D, much better.

Click to expand...

"Much better" makes me nervous.

chisquared said:

I usually take
photos at dogs that runs fast and unpredictable. I wan't to see
real-life experience and comments, not pictures on objects that moves
very linear and predictable.

Click to expand...

chisquared said:

Have someone test the limits? Maybe a sport photografer has some
experience?

Click to expand...

I am an amateur wildlife photographer and find the 40D adept at
subjects that are fast and unpredictable but must emphasize that I
MISS A LOT OF SHOTS! Is it me or the camera?

Click to expand...

-----

Well, the camera can´t do the total job (that would be boring) But I have use the 350D for a while and has to work really hard to get it right and therefore I think that I have a quite good technique.
garbell

R Valentino said:

But given what you described you should get yourself a MkIII or used
MkII/N.

Gene

Click to expand...

´
-----

They are expensive. I'm also a stingy fellow... but I realize that my requirements and lower-budget is not a perfect match. But I know that I can't live with a bad camera.

garbell

I agree. The 40D is much better than my 10D or 30D, so it will be much better than the 350D.

But AI Servo needs predicatability; that's how it works. I think with dog agility, you need a camera that can reaquire focus very quickly when it loses it, and that's where the 1-Series will do much better than any of the xxD bodies.

I bet you're still looking at a 50% keeper rate, but at least with a 1-Series and over 8 fps you'll have a lot more frames to sift through, giving you a lot more total keepers than you have now.

Mark

R Valentino said:

But given what you described you should get yourself a MkIII or used
MkII/N.

Gene

Click to expand...

Mark Salvetti said:

I agree. The 40D is much better than my 10D or 30D, so it will be
much better than the 350D.

But AI Servo needs predicatability; that's how it works. I think
with dog agility, you need a camera that can reaquire focus very
quickly when it loses it, and that's where the 1-Series will do much
better than any of the xxD bodies.

Click to expand...

Is this what Nikon D300 could be better at (at paper, because I have not seen any test yet) for a reasonalbe price difference? Otherwise I have to buy a Caonon 1-serie body and those are quite expensive.
garbell

Mark Salvetti said:

I bet you're still looking at a 50% keeper rate, but at least with a
1-Series and over 8 fps you'll have a lot more frames to sift
through, giving you a lot more total keepers than you have now.

Mark

R Valentino said:

But given what you described you should get yourself a MkIII or used
MkII/N.

Gene

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/40D/index.htm provides an interesting review on the 40D. About halfway down he compares the 40D AF performance to a 1D Mark II and 20D in a real life application.

Greg

edit: sorry just read that you weren't interested in tracking constant velocity objects. Interesting review in any case.

Possibly a D300 could do better then a 40D. I suppose it would depend on how fast the processor is that is controlling the 51 focus points it has... It's always going to be very hard to predict a sudden change in direction that a fast dog could make... As others have said, the way AI focus works, is that it tries to predict where the subject will be next... If the subject changes directions quickly, there really is no way to predict that. I would think that even the best of focusing systems could have a very hard time with that sort of thing. It's my understanding that the Canon 1 Series of cameras have a separate processor just fore AF, not sure if the D300 does that too or not.

garbell said:

Mark Salvetti said:

I agree. The 40D is much better than my 10D or 30D, so it will be
much better than the 350D.

But AI Servo needs predicatability; that's how it works. I think
with dog agility, you need a camera that can reaquire focus very
quickly when it loses it, and that's where the 1-Series will do much
better than any of the xxD bodies.

Click to expand...

Is this what Nikon D300 could be better at (at paper, because I have
not seen any test yet) for a reasonalbe price difference? Otherwise I
have to buy a Caonon 1-serie body and those are quite expensive.
garbell

garbell said:

I bet you're still looking at a 50% keeper rate, but at least with a
1-Series and over 8 fps you'll have a lot more frames to sift
through, giving you a lot more total keepers than you have now.

Mark

R Valentino said:

But given what you described you should get yourself a MkIII or used
MkII/N.

Gene

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I shoot birds in flight and because I have just the 300f4, I don't often get full frame. With the 20D, birds at a distance were not much of a problem if I nailed the exposure. But the 40D jumps focus especially with small subjects and bright skies. When it focuses properly, they are better than my 20D. But I have less keepers and am totally frustrated with what is going on. I think it's the new focus points. Even in one shot, center point [which I like using] I've experienced the 40D even jumping off focus on a still spider for no reason. Birding is a challenge now. I'm bringing mine in to Canon. There are others who have experienced this, but it appears to be just certain lenses. The 40D also does struggle more with teleconverters, [tracking birds in flight] which I had used a 1.4x on my 20D for 420mmIS with no problems. May just need calibration though, but my shooting has lost confidence in getting the shot.
--



Linda's space~ http://soulswithin.u.yuku.com/
You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it. Author Unknown

I wonder how the AF would do on cars as they are smaller. But it was nice to see the improvements made. I'd like to see time to lock focus from when the shutter is half pressed i guess that depends on where the lens started from too like if it was focussed up close and then had to reach infinity

id like to see more focus tests and also exposure tests. those two things are very visible

Will the D300 be comparable to a 1-Series AF? Who knows. We're talking about a pretty rigorous application that won't be obvious in the usual tests.

A new D300 plus grip is going to cost about as much as a used 1DMkII. The MkII's may drop soon now that the MkIII AF appears to be fixed. So the cost difference between the two options will depend on what you lose on the lens exchange.

Mark

may not qualify as "the limits" but.... fwiw, this is from a 30D, and the 40D is better....

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=25770020

I even shoot the 70-200 f/4 about 1/2 the time. I think that the autofocus is WAY better on the 40D. I've shot lots of sequences in AI Servo of whitewater kayaking (objects moving quickly towards or away from camera). So far i've found that the 40D is MUCH better than the 350D in every way...with much better AF (especially in low light).

I haven't regretted upgrading at all. Do it again in a heartbeat! Hope this helps!
Stephen

--
Quit your job, sell everything, and live like you dreamed as a child

so far the only canon i've tried that was great at that was a friend's markiin.

maybe after i send my40D in for calibration i will change my story, but while it seems to lock and track much faster it doesn't center the DOF on the player/animal nearly as well as the 1-series (often 6 or more inches off, usually to teh back, so maybe it's more a calibration issue since it is more to the back and than evenly in front or in back) and of course it grabs focus on the background much more easily than an adjusted 1 series (not that you still dont need some care and skill with a 1 series or any camera).

garbell said:

I need your comments on 40D and AF (moving objects). I really need
much better focus accuracy than 350D, much better. I usually take
photos at dogs that runs fast and unpredictable. I wan't to see
real-life experience and comments, not pictures on objects that moves
very linear and predictable.

Have someone test the limits? Maybe a sport photografer has some
experience?

I'm really need to swith camera body soon. I use 70-200 F4 L.

Regards
garbell
http://www.pbase.com/garbell

Click to expand...

hard to say. on paper it might be the one area where it could potentially blow the 40D away. but it remains to be seen. personally i think the image quality is a good 2/3 stop worse. it does have a few extra features that are nice. unless the AF, is in fact, way better i still think i'd take a 40D since it seems the high iso might well be better on the 40D, but the D300 did get some nice little details added on that canon either left off to save cost or to be cheap fools depending upon the feature you are talking about.

garbell said:

Mark Salvetti said:

I agree. The 40D is much better than my 10D or 30D, so it will be
much better than the 350D.

But AI Servo needs predicatability; that's how it works. I think
with dog agility, you need a camera that can reaquire focus very
quickly when it loses it, and that's where the 1-Series will do much
better than any of the xxD bodies.

Click to expand...

Is this what Nikon D300 could be better at (at paper, because I have
not seen any test yet) for a reasonalbe price difference? Otherwise I
have to buy a Caonon 1-serie body and those are quite expensive.
garbell

garbell said:

I bet you're still looking at a 50% keeper rate, but at least with a
1-Series and over 8 fps you'll have a lot more frames to sift
through, giving you a lot more total keepers than you have now.

Mark

R Valentino said:

But given what you described you should get yourself a MkIII or used
MkII/N.

Gene

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I've owned and shot a lot of stuff using 10D, 30D, 40D and 400D and my experience is that 40D is the best out of these cameras. I've also got to try the 1D series of bodies.

Lessons learned:

Good glass does make a difference. I'm nowadays using the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens and the AF is very fast, both due to the large aperture and the lens' construction. The f/4 version is probably just as good in good light but you will suffer more easily in bad lighting conditions.

In addition to having better AF, one thing that will improve shooting moving subjects with 40D is the better image quality on high ISO shots. I'm using 800 to 1250 ISO sensitivity for running dogs and getting excellent results with the 40D. On the earlier bodies, such sensitivity would have produced too much noise for my taste.

While 40D is better than the other consumer models (including the 350D), it's still a distant cousin of the AF you get in the 1D bodies. So, while you will notice an improvement, don't expect it to be dramatic. You might be better of getting a used 1D than new 40D if your priority is to get a better AF system. You would have less pixels on the 1D but then having more MP is useless if the shots are out of focus.

And last but not least, nothing beats good technique. This includes using correct settings in your camera but also ranges from being able to predict what your subject will do next to the way you breathe during shooting.

sulka

--
Photography at http://www.flickr.com/photos/sulka/

completely agree with you that the 40D is weak with minute objects. but with larger subjects it whips my old 20D's butt. and i don't think it happens only with certain lenses. the problem, i gather from a laborious survey of the postings in this forum, has to do with the size of the AF sensors.

how ironic that it is so very consistently accurate with big subjects but has to have an archilles heel in little ones. i continue to use my 20D for macros and the 40D for portraiture.

With my 70-200 F4L I had no AF Problems with my 350D.. It was always accurate and fast.

On my 40D, now all my lenses, even the 24-70 F2.8 from Sigma is fast and accurate. The AF on the 40D is way better than the one on the 350D. With a 70-200 F4L I didn't notice much change, but with the other lenses it is amazing
--
http://www.dawnii.lu

What lens have you used on the 350?