Unintentional 7D Mark II vs R7

Tazz93 wrote:

Zeee wrote:

Tazz93 wrote:

CamerEyes wrote:

Zeee wrote:

Tazz93 wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Adam2 wrote:

Myer wrote:

I don't know the person who was near me who had that problem focusing. I don't know the settings on the R7 and I don't know the person so I won't be able to go any further with the issue he has. Thanks.

And you don't know the person's level of experience, familiarity with the camera, etc.

Having shot both cameras, I can say unequivocally, the R7 focuses more consistently than the 7d(ii) in every circumstance I've subjected it to.

I mostly agree, except for one thing: when you have a subject very close, small or thin, and you have a large-pupil lens, and the camera was previously focused on the background, image-sensor-based AF tends to just yawn like there was nothing there to focus on.

Yeah, I'd agree. The seeming loss of the extreme defocus sensor or algo is the only place were the 7D2 is going to be significantly ahead.

Then you use the pre-focus technique. When the R came out I sold my 5D4 and got it. I also had a 7D2 and it never came out of the bag even with the awful R fps. AF was just too much fun.

Pre-focus, touchscreen to focus, or adjust the focusing barrel of the lens, etc. which I also sometimes have to do with my DSLRs. This is btw largely dependent on the lens based on my observation. My older EF50mm 1.2 struggles, while the new RF24mm does not - maybe partly because it is a macro lens. Just maybe. Not claiming any expertise, just sharing practical experience.

IMO, it is what it is. The mirrorless bodies just struggle there more than DSLRs (DSLRs used various high precision AF points to judge the extreme defocus direction) . There are always going to be things one does better than the other. This could get better as Canon has been working on adding cross pattern points on the sensor to emulate the cross pattern AF sensors of the past.

As far as how to get around it, as mentioned there are many ways, I actually find the quickest way for my photography is to focus on the ground near my subject then bounce back to it.
I agree with CamerEyes in that different lenses have greater difficulties, but I'd chalk that up to the overall AF performance of a lens. Personally, I never liked the way the EF 50 1.2's focused. They were fairly cumbersome, so I can see why he would feel that way. But note the 24mm focal length is likely the biggest factor he is seeing between the lenses he cited. On the flip side of that, the RF 50 1.2 is a focusing beast. Not lightning fast but not slow either. Super accurate and just stays out of the photographer's way.

With an ML? Why not just focus on the body itself? I drop either single, zone or spot anywhere on the body and once in focus I go back to whole area and eye AF. Most of the time I prefer single point for that purpose because the AF area larger so the system has more contrast to work with.

That's it, I use a single point to focus on the ground and then right back to the subject with the full screen tracking. Works pretty good, I almost don't even have to think about it anymore. Definitely not missing shots working around it. I've learned to do it even before its an issue. Pretty much second nature now.

As long as it works. We all have our own methods. No matter the approach as long as we control the computer. 10 years from now we won't be having these conversations.