My G2 AF experience after 5,000 pics

Eric Haglund

Veteran Member
Messages
3,163
Reaction score
1
Location
WI, US
Someone asked me on another thread how I was coping with the AF these days given my earlier, vocal rants. ;-) So I thought I would reply to the group as a whole so newbies can perhaps gain some insight.

First off, I came from a film point and shoot world with beam type of AF. My opinion remains that a good beam AF is superior to the contrast AF as implemented in the G2. To wit, my Yashica T4 beam AF will successfully focus on a person where the G2 may likely focus on the high contrast stuff behind the person. I've learned that I had to rethink the way I took photos. I was NOT happy to do this with an $800 camera but I DID do it. Here's how I get better results:

1- Firstly, I am very suspicious of the AF and take extra measures and precautions if shooting subjects which stand out from background items.

2- If shooting people, I will get AF lock on their feet where they touch the ground. Or their legs against a chair if they are sitting on a chair, etc.

3- I make sure there is NO distant background in the AF square (unless, of course, it's a landscape and the whole pic is distance background). If I can't do this I aim at the ground where the subject meets the ground.
4- I make sure the subject does not move in the slightest while I get AF lock.
5- Did I mention that I aim at the ground alot? ;-)

These above items have helped me greatly, I very rarely go for an AF lock on the person's torso, head, etc. I'm typically looking for a one-dimensional scene that is the same distance away or aiming at the ground for AF lock, seems silly but I go with what works.

My life's experience has been that when things don't make sense, it's usually because there is more than one factor messing things up. And there is. Here's the other problem I've found which compounds poor AF performance and makes it difficult to diagnose: MF distance and EXIF values are whacked out. Big time. One of the problems I initially had was I would get an AF lock on something, hold in MF and it would show infinity. Since the person was 6 feet away, I would say "infinity my butt" to myself, reframe the pick, hold the MF button and I would repeat and repeat and repeat and it would show infinity infinity infinity. I was assuming that the camera was not focusing properly. However, after seeing other people posting similar problems and after much analysis of posted pics as well as my own, I've realized that just because the MF scale says it focused on infinity, doesn't always mean it actually did . Some pics that showed infinity on the MF scale would report many other values than 66m in EXIF and be in perfect focus. Others will show 66m in EXIF yet after analyzing the photo, it is obvious that in fact, it did NOT infinity focus. So I do not fully trust the MF scale, it seems to be whacked out but I can't put my finger on the EXACT circumstances other than at wide angle it seems really prone to screw up. I really wish Canon would address this so I could trust the MF scale again but I suppose they have bigger fish to fry.

In any case, that is my story and I'm sticking to it at this point although I may discover some other factor(s). Your experiences may vary. I still get inexplicable OOF shots and I still get true infinity focus on close subjects but not nearly as often as I used to. But I won't be trading my G2 in on anything soon because I love every other aspect of this camera.

--
Eric
Disclaimer: Snapshooter, and proud of it ;-)
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde
 
I have an S40 but your "focus on the feet" idea sounds like a good one, I think I will try it.

I appreciate your comprehensive suggestions and ideas.

Damon
Someone asked me on another thread how I was coping with the AF
these days given my earlier, vocal rants. ;-) So I thought I
would reply to the group as a whole so newbies can perhaps gain
some insight.

First off, I came from a film point and shoot world with beam type
of AF. My opinion remains that a good beam AF is superior to the
contrast AF as implemented in the G2. To wit, my Yashica T4 beam AF
will successfully focus on a person where the G2 may likely focus
on the high contrast stuff behind the person. I've learned that I
had to rethink the way I took photos. I was NOT happy to do this
with an $800 camera but I DID do it. Here's how I get better
results:

1- Firstly, I am very suspicious of the AF and take extra measures
and precautions if shooting subjects which stand out from
background items.
2- If shooting people, I will get AF lock on their feet where they
touch the ground. Or their legs against a chair if they are sitting
on a chair, etc.
3- I make sure there is NO distant background in the AF square
(unless, of course, it's a landscape and the whole pic is distance
background). If I can't do this I aim at the ground where the
subject meets the ground.
4- I make sure the subject does not move in the slightest while I
get AF lock.
5- Did I mention that I aim at the ground alot? ;-)

These above items have helped me greatly, I very rarely go for an
AF lock on the person's torso, head, etc. I'm typically looking for
a one-dimensional scene that is the same distance away or aiming at
the ground for AF lock, seems silly but I go with what works.

My life's experience has been that when things don't make sense,
it's usually because there is more than one factor messing things
up. And there is. Here's the other problem I've found which
compounds poor AF performance and makes it difficult to diagnose:
MF distance and EXIF values are whacked out. Big time. One of the
problems I initially had was I would get an AF lock on something,
hold in MF and it would show infinity. Since the person was 6 feet
away, I would say "infinity my butt" to myself, reframe the pick,
hold the MF button and I would repeat and repeat and repeat and it
would show infinity infinity infinity. I was assuming that the
camera was not focusing properly. However, after seeing other
people posting similar problems and after much analysis of posted
pics as well as my own, I've realized that just because the MF
scale says it focused on infinity, doesn't always mean it actually
did . Some pics that showed infinity on the MF scale would report
many other values than 66m in EXIF and be in perfect focus. Others
will show 66m in EXIF yet after analyzing the photo, it is obvious
that in fact, it did NOT infinity focus. So I do not fully trust
the MF scale, it seems to be whacked out but I can't put my finger
on the EXACT circumstances other than at wide angle it seems really
prone to screw up. I really wish Canon would address this so I
could trust the MF scale again but I suppose they have bigger fish
to fry.

In any case, that is my story and I'm sticking to it at this point
although I may discover some other factor(s). Your experiences may
vary. I still get inexplicable OOF shots and I still get true
infinity focus on close subjects but not nearly as often as I used
to. But I won't be trading my G2 in on anything soon because I love
every other aspect of this camera.

--
Eric
Disclaimer: Snapshooter, and proud of it ;-)
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde
 
...to try to get good shots, but it's not normal and Canon should help us with that.

2 solutions: They help us from the existing software or they update it.

I've never seen any answer from Canon. The only thing interisting for them is our $ or £ or €...

Normal for a company, but I whish it continues for them...

http://www.pbase.com/jice

Jice
 
we have chosen to get soft pics with G2 or G3 so they need PS sharpening.
The amount of sharpening is to be decided by yourself instead
of the others brands,who do it into the camera but it adds artifacts...

I don't know if it's the truth but it's what I've read and trust.

Canon! nothing to tell us ?? ;o() ...................................
 
Soft and OOF are two different issues. I agree with Canon's low level of sharpening.

--
Eric
Disclaimer: Snapshooter, and proud of it ;-)
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde
we have chosen to get soft pics with G2 or G3 so they need PS
sharpening.
The amount of sharpening is to be decided by yourself instead
of the others brands,who do it into the camera but it adds
artifacts...

I don't know if it's the truth but it's what I've read and trust.

Canon! nothing to tell us ?? ;o() ...................................
 
Would you consider these OOF or soft:

http://www.pbase.com/image/6708193: Looks like the focus is on the dog's head towards the right.

http://www.pbase.com/image/6708420: Looks like focus is on baby's right ear but I doubt the photographer aimed at the ear.

http://www.pbase.com/image/6709193: Compare this w/ http://www.pbase.com/image/6709195 . Perhaps the subject moved.

http://www.pbase.com/image/6709181: Perhaps this is soft but still looks fuzzy.

http://www.pbase.com/image/6709170: No idea where it's focused at. The shirt doesn't look to be in focus.
Soft and OOF are two different issues. I agree with Canon's low
level of sharpening.
--
  • da V
 
Argh, I keep forgetting to re-title the subject line before posting.

Thx for posting your experience.

Would you consider these OOF or soft:

http://www.pbase.com/image/6708193: Looks like the focus is on the dog's head towards the right.

http://www.pbase.com/image/6708420: Looks like focus is on baby's right ear but I doubt the photographer aimed at the ear.

http://www.pbase.com/image/6709193: Compare this w/ http://www.pbase.com/image/6709195 . Perhaps the subject moved.

http://www.pbase.com/image/6709181: Perhaps this is soft but still looks fuzzy.

http://www.pbase.com/image/6709170: No idea where it's focused at. The shirt doesn't look to be in focus.
Soft and OOF are two different issues. I agree with Canon's low
level of sharpening.
--
  • da V
 
I wouldn't worry about retitlinig the subject. Ok, the following are my opinions, I'm not an expert but I'll tell you what I see.
Argh, I keep forgetting to re-title the subject line before posting.

Thx for posting your experience.

Would you consider these OOF or soft:

http://www.pbase.com/image/6708193: Looks like the focus is on the
dog's head towards the right.
The dog and your closest leg seem to be at the limit of the DOF zone. F2.8 at that distance has a pretty narrrow DOF. Additionally, 1/50th shutter can introduce motion blur. Very cute dog BTW.
http://www.pbase.com/image/6708420: Looks like focus is on baby's
right ear but I doubt the photographer aimed at the ear.
Look at the baby's right ear (left in the picture) and the fabric behind the baby's head. Sharp, you can even see hairs. But the baby's face and the closest fabric is OOF. I think again your seeing a very narrrow DOF in action here and the DOF starts in the middle of the baby's head and extends backwards/away.
Yeah, something went wrong there, perhaps someone did move.
http://www.pbase.com/image/6709181: Perhaps this is soft but still
looks fuzzy.
Very fuzzy. It's hard to say what went wrong with that one. Does the 230 have an AF assist light? It may not have had anything bright enough to focus on. What's in the lower left of the pic? Is that in focus?
http://www.pbase.com/image/6709170: No idea where it's focused at.
The shirt doesn't look to be in focus.
Very hard to say here. She's got some red-eye so I assume the flash fired in this shot? Look at the Smirnoff bottle, does it look like focus ended right at the bottle?

The one commonality here is your shutter speed- 1/60th or less on all accounts. That's not terribly slow but it's slow enough to introduce motion blur if you stab at the shutter release instead of touch off the shot gently. How are your bright light shots, ie: shutter speeds above 100th?

--
Eric
Disclaimer: Snapshooter, and proud of it ;-)
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde
Soft and OOF are two different issues. I agree with Canon's low
level of sharpening.
--
  • da V
 
Eric,

I appreciate your great efforts taking the time to explain your helpful AF-technique in such a detail (to the newbies). Actually, since the G1 came into the market two years ago, people on this forum have been discussing this topic and sharing their experience in getting better focus with each other. So, you know very well what I was talking about in the old thread, right:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=3494826

You said:

“One of the problems I initially had was I would get an AF lock on something, hold in MF and it would show infinity. Since the person was 6 feet away, I would say "infinity my butt" to myself, reframe the pick, hold the MF button and I would repeat and repeat and repeat and it would show infinity infinity infinity. I was assuming that the camera was not focusing properly. However, after seeing other people posting similar problems and after much analysis of posted pics as well as my own, I've realized that just because the MF scale says it focused on infinity, doesn't always mean it actually did .”

6 feet proximately equal 2 meters, right? I was surprised and could hardly believe this would be true, since on my old G1 (over 12000 shots within 2 years) I have never experienced such odd things. Each time I noticed G1’s MF showed infinity during my subject was near than two meters I knew something must be wrong and got a “reasonable” display after repeating my focusing process (similar tricks as yours), although G1’s MF scale was less readable than G2’s.

“My life's experience has been that when things don't make sense, it's usually because there is more than one factor messing things up.”

Highly appreciated. It doesn’t help very much, only to complain about the weakness of today’s DC and to try to escape to another model of the same price class. Sure, the AF problem would be less serious if you would be ready to pay 5 or 6 times more. Sure the AF problem will have been resolved in 10 years. But, we need an affordable and reliable DC today. For me, it’s not a bad DC, if it makes the same failure in the same situation (e.g. needs contrast for AF, intends to overexpose etc). A bad DC would make different failures in the same situation.
(Former) G1 veteran, Yang
 
These aren't my pics but others who have recently posted. I'm using them as examples to figure out whether the camera is at fault and regardless of who's at fault, how to correct them.
http://www.pbase.com/image/6708193 : Looks like the focus is on the
dog's head towards the right.
The dog and your closest leg seem to be at the limit of the DOF
zone. F2.8 at that distance has a pretty narrrow DOF. Additionally,
1/50th shutter can introduce motion blur. Very cute dog BTW.
The dog hairs aren't very sharp and they have no contrast. Here I would focus on its eye or rotate the camera to a vertical posn and focus on its collar. Or focus at the dog's feet as you suggested before.
http://www.pbase.com/image/6708420 : Looks like focus is on baby's
right ear but I doubt the photographer aimed at the ear.
Look at the baby's right ear (left in the picture) and the fabric
behind the baby's head. Sharp, you can even see hairs. But the
baby's face and the closest fabric is OOF. I think again your
seeing a very narrrow DOF in action here and the DOF starts in the
middle of the baby's head and extends backwards/away.
I would focus at the intersection of the collar and the baby's chin.
http://www.pbase.com/image/6709181 : Perhaps this is soft but still
looks fuzzy.
Very fuzzy. It's hard to say what went wrong with that one. Does
the 230 have an AF assist light? It may not have had anything
bright enough to focus on. What's in the lower left of the pic? Is
that in focus?
The 230 does have an AF assist. The bumper does look to be in focus. In this scenario, then care should be made so that the AF assist is on.
Very hard to say here. She's got some red-eye so I assume the flash
fired in this shot? Look at the Smirnoff bottle, does it look like
focus ended right at the bottle?
The bottle doesn't look to be totally in focus. It seems that there was movement (either subject or photographer). But if there is movement by the photographer, I don't see the directional blur.
The one commonality here is your shutter speed- 1/60th or less on
all accounts. That's not terribly slow but it's slow enough to
introduce motion blur if you stab at the shutter release instead of
touch off the shot gently. How are your bright light shots, ie:
shutter speeds above 100th?
Personally, I have had pics above 100th that for some reason, the camera chose the wrong subject to focus on. One was a person sitting in front of a lake and the camera chose to focus on the lake behind him.

In conclusion,
  • choose a good contrast
  • use a faster shutter speed (faster than 60th) if possible even if there's some slight subject movement
  • For big apertures (2.8), keep in mind the DOF.
I'm not a big fan of this vertical contrast AF at all - it works well for inanimate objects but not some people pics. The active focus AF, on the other hand, has some limitations but for most people pics, it works much better.

They should have some variation of the Fuji s602 AF - a mix of the active AF and vetical contrast. But the key difference is that I want to be able to turn off the contrast AF, basically relegating the AF to be a point and shoot WHEN I want it to.

--
  • da V
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top