Reading mode: Light Dark

CP5700 low focus problems a myth

Go to last post
Backdoctor

Backdoctor

Forum Pro
Messages
13,938
Reaction score
11
Location
FL, US
I must agree with you Harris, I've also had no problems with the 5700 focus. I came from using a CP900 which I did feel was a little slow focussing in low light - the CP5700 is 1000% better. I think it does very well in low light considering the lens aperture.
Harris said:
The cp 5700 has been plagued by low focus myths. I almost avoided
the camera due to this. I took some pictures Halloween of my
grandson, most in the dark, and many on the move. They may not be
the best composed pictures, but the focus system worked fine. Let
me know if you feel they look out of focus.

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor/gallery/happy_halloween

Harris
--
Harris
http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor
Click to expand...
 
Harris I have to agree with you. I have added the Nikon SB-80 DX flash and it lights the place up. I think half the kids in America went out as spiderman, two of my grandsons went out as the same.
--
Tanglefoot1947
 
With all of us going out with our expensive digital cameras, wasn't it good to know that there were so many spidermans out there to protect us.

Harris
Tanglefoot1947 said:
Harris I have to agree with you. I have added the Nikon SB-80 DX
flash and it lights the place up. I think half the kids in America
went out as spiderman, two of my grandsons went out as the same.
--
Tanglefoot1947
Click to expand...
--
Harris
http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor
 
... this thread actually proves it. This is also a good example of what I'd been saying in other threads. I saw the pictures, saw how out of focus some of them were, read the other comments, and not one other person commented on the OOF shots. In fact, the gist of the comments here agree that they're good images. I've seen the same thing happen in other threads too. Pictures that are noisy and soft are accepted as good. Harris, I'm not here to bash you, your family, your photography, or anything like that. Your premise is that the 5700 focuses well by low light and the images you show for examples don't reflect that premise. If I were to post some of my OOF images at such small sizes, they'd look sharper too. But the image of Li'l Spidey (a cutie by the way) straight on is OOF. I have a similar shot also take by very low light and it is VERY sharp...



I'm just stating my opinion and not spoiling for a fight.
 
Was just wondering about some of the non-camera particulars of each picture, such as, hand held or tripod, porch light on or off. Also, it looks to me like Spiderman on the porch is posed and the Spiderman on the sidewalk is a fidgety trick-or-treater. I'm just interested in some of the non-camera particular. M-kay?

D.R.Barnhart
 
The one straight on is oof, but there for family, I thought it was cute. There are others there taken in little to no light that have focus. All I am saying is the large number of posts on poor focus in low light is more based on lack of skill than the camera. The camera can be tricky in low light. It is not for people looking for a easy point and shoot camera. I am still learning how to use it properly. Mostly doing so by making mistakes, rereading the manual and looking at threads here

Harris
Terry Thorn said:
... this thread actually proves it. This is also a good example of
what I'd been saying in other threads. I saw the pictures, saw how
out of focus some of them were, read the other comments, and not
one other person commented on the OOF shots. In fact, the gist of
the comments here agree that they're good images. I've seen the
same thing happen in other threads too. Pictures that are noisy and
soft are accepted as good. Harris, I'm not here to bash you, your
family, your photography, or anything like that. Your premise is
that the 5700 focuses well by low light and the images you show for
examples don't reflect that premise. If I were to post some of my
OOF images at such small sizes, they'd look sharper too. But the
image of Li'l Spidey (a cutie by the way) straight on is OOF. I
have a similar shot also take by very low light and it is VERY
sharp...



I'm just stating my opinion and not spoiling for a fight.
Click to expand...
--
Harris
http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor
 
All hand held, no poses - just caught him holding still at that time, most of them were on the move. The one getting candy, not sure if there was a porch light, I believe just the light from thru the glass door

Harris
D.R. Barnhart said:
Was just wondering about some of the non-camera particulars of each
picture, such as, hand held or tripod, porch light on or off.
Also, it looks to me like Spiderman on the porch is posed and the
Spiderman on the sidewalk is a fidgety trick-or-treater. I'm just
interested in some of the non-camera particular. M-kay?

D.R.Barnhart
Click to expand...
--
Harris
http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor
 
Harris said:
The one straight on is oof, but there for family, I thought it was
cute. There are others there taken in little to no light that have
focus. All I am saying is the large number of posts on poor focus
in low light is more based on lack of skill than the camera. The
camera can be tricky in low light. It is not for people looking for
a easy point and shoot camera. I am still learning how to use it
properly. Mostly doing so by making mistakes, rereading the manual
and looking at threads here

Harris
Click to expand...
That wasn't the case with my 5700. The one I had was very slow to focus in low light and kinda iffy at it. I don't feel it was my fault at all. As the case in point, I got the 5700 and the 602 at the same time and didn't experience these problems with it as I did with the 5700. It's focus was dead on and quick. I see many posts here attributing problems with the 5700 to the people using the camera rather than placing any of the blame on the camera itself. I feel that's just a defensive measure. I would just like to see people who want to blast these "myths" posting images from the 5700 capable of doing so. I don't see the logic in trying to depict the 5700 ability to focus well in low light and then place OOF pictures to illustrate the point. Also, focusing on a lighted pumpkin wouldn't be a good example either.
 
D.R. Barnhart said:
Was just wondering about some of the non-camera particulars of each
picture, such as, hand held or tripod, porch light on or off.
Also, it looks to me like Spiderman on the porch is posed and the
Spiderman on the sidewalk is a fidgety trick-or-treater. I'm just
interested in some of the non-camera particular. M-kay?

D.R.Barnhart
Click to expand...
If you're referring to my Spidey on the porch, he wasn't posing. He'd placed some of his "booty" on the wall to check out and his mama called his name and I took the shot at that time. These also weren't posed and some of the kids were moving...



 
Was your camera (what kind?) hand held, porch light on or off? I'm just trying compare techniques, not cameras. I've already made my choice of which camera, now I want to learn to use it better.

D.R.Barnhart
 
Member said:
That wasn't the case with my 5700. The one I had was very slow to
focus in low light and kinda iffy at it.
Click to expand...
I think it is very possible that yours might have needed adjustment (or been broken). I had two 5700s at one point. I ordered a replacement for my original one, only to find out that there was nothing wrong with the original anyway (turned out to be a bad CF card!).

Anyway, the point is, I was able to compare both 5700s side-by-side. One had noticeably faster/quicker low light focusing than the other. Sitting in the same room, pointing at the same view, one would almost always outperform the other. Both were "acceptable", in my view. But one was noticeably better. I have a feeling that Nikon isn't doing the QA it should be doing on these 5700s. Ah... market pressures and all that!

BTW, I ran the hot/stuck pixel tests on both too. One had numerous hot pixels at speeds as high as 1/60th second, with much more at slower speeds. The other had NONE all the way down to 2 seconds!

Luckily, the one with the hot pixels was the same one that didn't focus as good. Guess which one I sent back? :)

-Frank
 
Frank S said:
Frank S said:
That wasn't the case with my 5700. The one I had was very slow to
focus in low light and kinda iffy at it.
Click to expand...
I think it is very possible that yours might have needed adjustment
(or been broken). I had two 5700s at one point. I ordered a
replacement for my original one, only to find out that there was
nothing wrong with the original anyway (turned out to be a bad CF
card!).

Anyway, the point is, I was able to compare both 5700s
side-by-side. One had noticeably faster/quicker low light focusing
than the other. Sitting in the same room, pointing at the same
view, one would almost always outperform the other. Both were
"acceptable", in my view. But one was noticeably better. I have a
feeling that Nikon isn't doing the QA it should be doing on these
5700s. Ah... market pressures and all that!

BTW, I ran the hot/stuck pixel tests on both too. One had numerous
hot pixels at speeds as high as 1/60th second, with much more at
slower speeds. The other had NONE all the way down to 2 seconds!

Luckily, the one with the hot pixels was the same one that didn't
focus as good. Guess which one I sent back? :)

-Frank
Click to expand...
... there's quite a few other instances of others with the same problem to dismiss it as a "myth". The 5700 images presented here certainly didn't blast the "myth".
 
Again, the pictures are there for my family as well. I didnt say every picture was trying to prove the low focus capabilities.

Harris
Terry Thorn said:
Harris said:
The one straight on is oof, but there for family, I thought it was
cute. There are others there taken in little to no light that have
focus. All I am saying is the large number of posts on poor focus
in low light is more based on lack of skill than the camera. The
camera can be tricky in low light. It is not for people looking for
a easy point and shoot camera. I am still learning how to use it
properly. Mostly doing so by making mistakes, rereading the manual
and looking at threads here

Harris
Click to expand...
That wasn't the case with my 5700. The one I had was very slow to
focus in low light and kinda iffy at it. I don't feel it was my
fault at all. As the case in point, I got the 5700 and the 602 at
the same time and didn't experience these problems with it as I did
with the 5700. It's focus was dead on and quick. I see many posts
here attributing problems with the 5700 to the people using the
camera rather than placing any of the blame on the camera itself. I
feel that's just a defensive measure. I would just like to see
people who want to blast these "myths" posting images from the 5700
capable of doing so. I don't see the logic in trying to depict the
5700 ability to focus well in low light and then place OOF pictures
to illustrate the point. Also, focusing on a lighted pumpkin
wouldn't be a good example either.
Click to expand...
--
Harris
http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nikoolix
Interesting successful repair of AF-S 80-200mm 2.8 focus motor problem
Replies
2
Views
4K
RealVSK
R
I
Change my Mind (or not) switching OM-1II TO G9II
2
Replies
37
Views
27K
IDontSpeakMonkey
I
schmidtbence92
Meike EF-R 0,71 speedbooster "frontfocus" issues between mirrorless and old EF lenses!
Replies
0
Views
1K
schmidtbence92
schmidtbence92
A
Seriously considering selling off S9+L-Mount Lenses to get OM3
Replies
8
Views
17K
AlmostDoctor
A
Meeces
The XF500/X-T5 goes to the Blue Angels airshow . . .
Replies
8
Views
3K
Morris0
Morris0

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top