5D AF sucks---see examples

Started Nov 6, 2008 | Discussions
Nicolaj Roos Regular Member • Posts: 236
Re: Amobi . . .

Very insightfull and very well written!

Asteroidx Junior Member • Posts: 47
Re: Amobi . . .

The contrast is extremely high - of course it's going to focus easily. Try focusing in a low diffused light setting. I have found that the 5D tends to focus onto high contrast areas in low diffused light settings - which may be the background.

Sal Baker Forum Pro • Posts: 11,489
Re: Amobi . . .

Asteroidx wrote:

The contrast is extremely high - of course it's going to focus
easily. Try focusing in a low diffused light setting.

Why would someone want to shoot in lighting they never need to shoot in just to prove to someone else that their camera doesn't really work well for things they don't shoot?

He didn't make any outrageous claims. Only that his 5D's AF works perfectly for the style of shooting and lighting that's fits his needs.

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T100 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +3 more
tko Forum Pro • Posts: 12,925
but what camera to buy?

"I just wish they'd go out and buy something that DOES meet their needs and quit harping on the issue."

That's the whole problem. No one would be knocking the 5dII is there was something else that did what they wanted - they'd just buy it, like you suggest. But what?

A 50d? Worse noise than the 40d, ISO 1600 is pretty bad.

A Mark III? 10 MP seems awfully tame, is that AF OK now?, about due for a replacement

An Nikon D700? Who wants to switch brands and lenses and learn a new system?

I'd spend another $500-$1000 or so to get a 5d w/a better AF and slightly faster frame rate.

No one is picking on the 5d just for fun. Like is or not, the 50d is Canon's best, affordable (under $5000), all around camera. After that, you have to specialize, and get a sports camera or a wedding camera. Sure, I'm going to buy both and take them on vacation with me?

You'd think if I'm willing to spend $3500 or TRIPLE the price I could get a Canon that was better than the 50d in all respects, not just one or two specific areas.

So, I promise you, as soon as Canon comes out w/a 15 MP mk III at under $4000 street I'll stop whining.

amobi
OP amobi Veteran Member • Posts: 3,136
Re: but what camera to buy?

I don't know what you shoot but to suggest that 5D is not good for a wedding is a joke. I did over 20 weddings this year with two 5Ds with no single issue. I guess I should stop shooting wedding until Cannon comes out with a wedding camera. Some of you guys are unbelievable.
f/1.8

f/2.8

salosd Senior Member • Posts: 1,405
Good shots but how it is AF related? (n/t)
Helmut_S Contributing Member • Posts: 829
Re: all done using center focus? (n/t)

exactly. here is one with the 1D3, at at F1.2, 1/200th, ISO 3200, of a moving subject, a folk dancer, about 10 feet away, with the topmost AF point on her eye/eyebrow in portrait mode. Can your 5D do this?

Dragos Nenciu Regular Member • Posts: 491
Re: all done using center focus? (n/t)

Helmut_S wrote:

exactly. here is one with the 1D3, at at F1.2, 1/200th, ISO 3200, of
a moving subject, a folk dancer, about 10 feet away, with the topmost
AF point on her eye/eyebrow in portrait mode. Can your 5D do this?

-- hide signature --

I know what you mean. Just got a 1dmk3 and find myself amazed that I can finally frame the photos the way I like and just choose a focus point point that fits the framing.

It just makes the whole shooting experience so much better.

I had no focus problems with my 5d using the center point, but I am just so tired of focus recompose.

The 1dmk3 would be great if it was FF and 15mpx. I don't think FF will happen anytime soon as the AF would cover less than it does now and that would not be good for sports/tracking.

How do you find the high iso noise of the 1dmk3?

Personally I don't find a huge diff with the 5d. Seems to be about the same in bright areas maybe 1/2 stop better. And maybe 1/2-1 stop better in the shadows.
I thought it would be more. Maybe I have to learn it's ins and outs more.

brianric Veteran Member • Posts: 8,523
Re: 5D AF sucks---see examples

If all you are using is center point you are OK, but 5D AF sucks when you are doing event type photography, where at best you are using center point 20% of the time.

 brianric's gear list:brianric's gear list
Sony RX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Nikon D500 Olympus E-M1 II Sony a6400 +28 more
Barnett Contributing Member • Posts: 929
f/4 - Ha, ha, ha....

Next time try a fast lens. And then try using any of the outer AF points. Then come tell us how "great" the 5D AF is.

Barnett

Barnett Contributing Member • Posts: 929
Re: Congrats! - Exactly

cmoefc wrote:

You've proven that the camera can take in focus web resolution shots
of center composed high contrast subjects using the center AF point
at f/4.

Exactly. Could not have said it better myself.

Barnett

Tobyprice Contributing Member • Posts: 633
Re: Congrats! - Exactly

Thats good light, and not sure why it demonstrates good focus... anything looks good 300 px wide..
--
http://www.photosinthedark.com

Jamie H. Senior Member • Posts: 2,793
That isnt a tough test for autofocus

All of the subjects are standing in one place or changing plane of focus very slowly.

This is an easy test for AF to pass. Nice images though and I do agree that 5D AF isnt that bad, especially the center focus point. The outer points, however, are downright awful in low light situations. In good light, there is little to complain about though.

-- hide signature --

Amateurs worry about sharpness
Professionals worry about sales
Photographers worry about light

http://archive.jamiehowell.net

Dragos Nenciu Regular Member • Posts: 491
Re: That isnt a tough test for autofocus

Jamie H. wrote:

All of the subjects are standing in one place or changing plane of
focus very slowly.

This is an easy test for AF to pass. Nice images though and I do
agree that 5D AF isnt that bad, especially the center focus point.
The outer points, however, are downright awful in low light
situations. In good light, there is little to complain about though.

-- hide signature --

Actually in my experience I find that the outer points are pretty unreliable even in good light. The center point is good and works well even in low light but a 1 point AF is kind of ridiculous this day and time.

Ken C. Smith Senior Member • Posts: 1,602
tko . . .

It seems to me that every camera-buying decision is a compromise. I loved the 1D mkII image quality, handling, crop factor, AF, AE . . . just about everything was great EXCEPT it was heavier and larger than I would have liked, resolution was a little lower than I would have liked, high ISO performance was good, but I would have liked better, it had a much poorer UI than the current 1 series (or 5D for that matter), the battery was big, heavy and had poor performance in very hot weather. The 5D came out and met some of my concerns about the 1DmkII in terms of size, weight, resolution, UI, better high ISO perfromance -- but there were the trade-offs: less sophisticated AF and AE, and poor weather sealing being the most notable for me.

I had to decide what was most important to me and my type of photography, and then I had to determine whether there were any deal-breakers for me in the 5D. My best guess was that the 5D's plusses outweighed its minus's for ME and there were no absolute deal-breakers. But I did hang on to my 1D mkII for quite awhile before I was convinced that the 5D could meet all of my needs (including my granddaughter's softball games in light rain).

Like you, I would gladly pay an extra $1000 or two for a 5D form factor with 1-series AF, AE and weather sealing (the mythical 3D) -- but it doesn't exist and I still have to take photographs. (With my luck, I'll buy the 5D mkII in December and Canon will announce a $5000 3D-type camera in February -- I'll cry, but I'll survive the shock.)

It seems to me that you, and others who are not content with the 5D mkII, will have to determine if the 5D mkII meets your needs better than any other camera you are willing to buy. If it does, then you need to buy it, learn to love it and stop moaning. If something else has a better mix of features for your photography, then you need to buy it, learn to love it and stop moaning.

Now that those who wish Canon had done more with the 5D upgrade have spent a month and many, many threads bemoaning the fact (and by extension, letting Canon know their feelings) -- it is time to accept reality for what it is, decide what your best option is and then take it. I don't think there will EVER be a perfect camera.

Best Wishes,
Ken

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

tko wrote:

"I just wish they'd go out and buy something that DOES meet their
needs and quit harping on the issue."

That's the whole problem. No one would be knocking the 5dII is there
was something else that did what they wanted - they'd just buy it,
like you suggest. But what?

A 50d? Worse noise than the 40d, ISO 1600 is pretty bad.

A Mark III? 10 MP seems awfully tame, is that AF OK now?, about due
for a replacement

An Nikon D700? Who wants to switch brands and lenses and learn a new
system?

I'd spend another $500-$1000 or so to get a 5d w/a better AF and
slightly faster frame rate.

No one is picking on the 5d just for fun. Like is or not, the 50d is
Canon's best, affordable (under $5000), all around camera. After
that, you have to specialize, and get a sports camera or a wedding
camera. Sure, I'm going to buy both and take them on vacation with me?

You'd think if I'm willing to spend $3500 or TRIPLE the price I
could get a Canon that was better than the 50d in all respects, not
just one or two specific areas.

So, I promise you, as soon as Canon comes out w/a 15 MP mk III at
under $4000 street I'll stop whining.

woolcan Regular Member • Posts: 442
Re: f/4 - Ha, ha, ha....

Barnett wrote:

Next time try a fast lens. And then try using any of the outer AF
points. Then come tell us how "great" the 5D AF is.

Barnett

I used my 5D all weekend shooting the Keeneland Horse sales. I used off center af on all my pics at ISO 6400 and they are good enough for newspaper print. They also look fine for 4 X 6's or 5 X 7's. I wouldn't go much past that.. but the comments about the 5d focusing being no good except the center af is wrong.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards from Kentucky

(Keeping an eye open for the unusual)
http://www.EquiSportPhotos.com

fad
fad Forum Pro • Posts: 17,652
No DSLR is an island

but rather the core a flexible system that can be many different kinds of cameras for multiple uses.

But there is one kind of camera that cannot be put together from any system now on the market, for any price.

That is the super high image quality, low light capable, not excessively big and heavy, state of the art AF camera with high quality, moderately sized zoom lenses.

The 5DII came close, except for Canon's decision not to upgrade AF. The D700 comes close, but does not have the lenses. The 1dsIII is close, but is too big and heavy.

So artistic street photography, event photography, artistic photojournalism, and, of course, walk-around photography of every sort, including vacation shooting, is not covered.

These are all great, world class camera systems, but each one has a hole in its lineup that limits its flexibility for an important purpose.

It's just kind of a shame that the kid of photography that made 35mm famous is just not respected by camera designers.

-- hide signature --
 fad's gear list:fad's gear list
Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon D4S Nikon D810 Nikon D750 +23 more
Barnett Contributing Member • Posts: 929
Re: f/4 - Ha, ha, ha....

woolcan wrote:

I used my 5D all weekend shooting the Keeneland Horse sales. I used
off center af on all my pics at ISO 6400 and they are good enough for
newspaper print. They also look fine for 4 X 6's or 5 X 7's. I
wouldn't go much past that.. but the comments about the 5d focusing
being no good except the center af is wrong.

I am sorry but I did not buy a 12 MP camera for "good enough for newspaper print". Different people have different requirements but my guess is that what you would consider to be "good enough", I would just delete.

If you want to get a sharp photo at the full 12 MP resolution capability of the 5D you have to nail the focus. The 5D simply cannot do this at large apertures using the outer AF points. And good luck trying to get a sharp 20 something MP photo from the 5D Mk II with that same AF sensor...

Barnett

Richard Ettinger Senior Member • Posts: 1,331
Re: A poor workman blames his tools

that's the problem with sarcasm and forums.
--
Canon 40D. Sigma 17-70, Canon 50mm f1.4, canon 135mm 2.8/soft focus, Canon 70-
200 f4L, Canon 24-105L. Ricoh GX-100

 Richard Ettinger's gear list:Richard Ettinger's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R II Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH Leica APO-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 ASPH Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +7 more
Barnett Contributing Member • Posts: 929
Same here

Dragos Nenciu wrote:

Actually in my experience I find that the outer points are pretty
unreliable even in good light. The center point is good and works
well even in low light but a 1 point AF is kind of ridiculous this
day and time.

My experience is the same. With the 85mm f/1.2 I have had the outer AF points back focusing by a mile in bright outdoor light (1/8000s, f/1.2, ISO100). Yet in the same light the center AF point is always spot on.

Barnett

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads