And I think being better adapted comes from simply being smaller - so the effective focus area of the APS-C sensor may be similar to more reduced area of the full frame sensor.
thanks, it is interesting that the R6 and R5 had reduced AF area, and they corrected with the R6II and R5II
Really? All the crop sensor cameras , including the R7, are the same in that chart, (except for the R100, which can't take extenders with those lenses). Since the R10 was released at the same time as the R7, it would be very strange if it had somehow 'improved' the situation over the R7.
To what?
Really? That's a strange conclusion to draw from this chart.
What is interesting to see is how the converters affect AF with these two particular lenses.
It's a bit more than seeming. With DSLRs, a converter that reduced the maximum aperture to slower than F5.6 would make AF simply not work at AF points that were limited to F5.6, which was almost all of them on almost all DSLRs. A few higher end DSLRs had some AF points that would work at F8 (the central point on the 7DII, for example), but that was it. Put a 2X extender on the 400 F5.6, and it wouldn't AF at all. No seeming about it. The RF mount has revolutionized AF for Canon users (same with Nikon's mount for Nikon users). And things are exactly as rosy as many users, including myself, have always suggested. The AF area reductions involved with the 600 and 800 F11 lenses and extenders have been known since they were released. The fact that Canon has managed to improve on those reductions with the R5II and R6II over the R5 and R6 suggests, if anything, that things are even rosier than previously suggested.
Quite. My 5Ds has 61 AF points but they are all in the central 50% of the image area, which is less than the area covered by those cheap 600mm & 800mm lenses at f/11. But only the central AF point of the 5Ds and four adjacent ones will AF at f/8 and none at all will work at f/11.
It seems that f/9 may be the limit with DSLR AF. f/11 doesn't work, and there just aren't that many people shooting lenses that are f/10 wide open, to report on whether f/10 can work. Every attempt I've made to trick the camera body into thinking the TC wasn't there, f/11 would attempt to focus, but would hunt forever, or park way out of focus.
And I presume that F9, with tricking the camera, will only work with central AF points? Or have you managed to get it to work with outer points?
that says a lot
More likely a byproduct of improving AF in some way, allowing a greater AF area to be used. Or they were just too conservative with the R5 and R6.
My RF 800 F11 with 1.4X extender has never let me down. So yes, AF at F16 is plenty reliable enough. I could never go back to DSLR AF. The RF system is every bit the game changer that people say it is for Canon shooters (and I'm sure the Nikon mirrorless is equally superior to Nikon DSLR).
me neither, hardly ever take my 7d2
indeed, it is the game changer from the overall system perspective, with not only improvements in mirrorless technology, but improvements in Digic X, and improvements in mirrorless lenses.
I just tried to reproduce my memory with the 6D, and a Kenko Pro 300 G 1.4, and the G1 Tamron 150-600, and it just hunted. I am 100% certain I've used AF successfully at f/9 with at least one of my DSLRs; I'll have to try the 7D and 7D2 when I get a chance.
Beautiful shot.
anorcross.smugmug.com
Thanks Alastair, inspiring lens with new views for me.
That depends on the AF sensitivity of the body, but subject illumination and contrast play a very big role, too, as well as the brightness of the EVF live view, which is variable with EVF settings. The R7 has lower AF sensitivity than all the R-series FF cameras from the R5 and later, but it can still focus accurately and reasonably fast at f/22 with the RF800/11 and RF2x in bright daylight with good contrast in the subject. Walk into the forest though, and you will take the TC off in a heartbeat, and even at f/11, focus will be slow because of low projected light onto the sensor, plus the fact that the light is flat and has no micro-shadows in textures like hair, feathers, skin, stone, bark, etc.
