5D AF sucks---see examples

Started Nov 6, 2008 | Discussions
Rootbeer Senior Member • Posts: 2,311
Duh!

amobi wrote:

Duh! You have great light, and great contrast on the subjects, against a black background!

As if you have a clue as to how to shoot in a tricky environment with a flat lighted subject, in a room that is illuminated just like the subject you are shooting is, with a contrasty background. ...like a teacher in a classroom,...or a particular bicyclist in a pack of riders on an overcast day.. Or shooting in low light..

Thanks for the waste of our time with your pointless post!

Rootbeer Senior Member • Posts: 2,311
Re: A poor workman blames his tools

Richard Ettinger wrote:

Something I learned a long while ago.
--
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

Oh, and I'm sure that applies to intricate camera systems as it does to hammers, right?

Is that what you're saying?

Barnett Contributing Member • Posts: 929
Re: f/4 - Ha, ha, ha....

Cesare Ferrari wrote:

Most focus errors are technique, not the technology. If I were you
and you were really bothered about focus I would be focussig manually
anyhow. This works for me although the viewfinder on 35mm cameras is
small and difficult to judge at times. I guess one of the better
screens for manual focus would be a good buy.

Yes, I often use MF for off-center subjects. My 5D is fitted with the precision focusing screen but I still find it hard to MF accurately. This is especially true when shooting wide open. I have more faith in the 5D center AF point than in my MF abilities. I cannot say the same about the outer AF points though.

As for "technique". When you have a stationary subject (like someone sitting in a chair) and a stationary camera (like me sitting in a chair with both elbows firmly on an armrest) and you put one of the AF points exactly on the subject's eye, all that is left for you to do, is to press the button. Now, there are only so many ways you can press a button - I do not see how technique can have anything to do with it.

And when you find that the center AF point is always spot on, yet the outer AF points randomly front/back focus, you have to assume that it is the camera that is simply not up for the job.

Barnett

genotypewriter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,846
Re: You talk as if you tested a 5D2

Barnett wrote:

You talk as if you have some strange psychological need to defend the
5DMKII, possibly because you have decided to buy it and now cannot
stand people making you doubt your decision? Either that or you have
not heard that the 5DMkII has the same AF sensor as the original 5D?

Neither... I actually tried out the 5D2 and the 5D side by side for AF... and what your claims based on?

Either way, Canon has stated that the 5DMKII has the exact same AF
sensor as the old 5D and it will therefor have the same problems as
the old 5D - only magnified by the higher resolution sensor.

Two problems with your assumption:

1. If you think the AF performance is the same and the higher res is going to accentuate the problem, why use the higher res if you can do with 12MP? Down scale it.

2. There are other electronics that are different in the 5D2 and they migth have a say in the AF performance...

Either way, when I tried the 5D2, I noticed the outer AF points were a bit better than the original 5D... remember, this was side by side using the same lens.

But if you want to believe that the 5DMKII AF will somehow be
magically better than the old 5D then please do not let me stop you
from believing that.

At least I've used a 5D2 and tested one... you're the one whose claims are based on leprechaunian speculations.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

Northern-lights Regular Member • Posts: 495
Re: 5D AF sucks---see examples

There is a difference between AF accuracy and AF speed.

AF accuracy - I think it beats the 1dmk2. My experience with the 5D is it is very sharp when AF locks.

AF speed - slower than 1-series. Action shots are out. However, 5D beats the 1dmk2 in low light focussing. In dark areas, 5D focusses faster.
--
You cannot fail if you have not tried
http://www.flickr.com/photos/justphotography/show/

Nilo Here Regular Member • Posts: 391
... and what is wrong with wanting better AF from a $2k+ camera???

why are people so against asking for better basics from an expensive DSLR?

John Senior Member • Posts: 1,299
Re: 5D AF sucks---see examples

Those look great compared to what I used to get with my two copies of the 1D Mark III.. They did misfocus fast though!!!

Barnett Contributing Member • Posts: 929
Re: You talk as if you tested a 5D2

genotypewriter wrote:

Two problems with your assumption:

1. If you think the AF performance is the same and the higher res is
going to accentuate the problem, why use the higher res if you can do
with 12MP? Down scale it.

True, if you want to down scale the 5DMKII images it will be no worse than the old 5D.

2. There are other electronics that are different in the 5D2 and they
migth have a say in the AF performance...

Speed is not the problem - accuracy is. No amount of processing is going to change the fact that the outer AF points does not have ability to "see" at larger apertures like the center AF point does.

Either way, when I tried the 5D2, I noticed the outer AF points were
a bit better than the original 5D... remember, this was side by side
using the same lens.

Canon says it is the same AND not even as good as the 50D (due to size constraints). But you say it is better. So you are making extraordinary claims here. That requires extraordinary proof. How did you test? What lenses did you use? Show us the pictures.

At least I've used a 5D2 and tested one... you're the one whose
claims are based on leprechaunian speculations.

Keep dreaming.

Barnett

erikstefan Contributing Member • Posts: 821
What about some Sports and BIF

Any camera can do those shots

Now, what about some Sports and BIF.....
Football, rugby, and real birds
Those are where people see 5D is too old

amobi
OP amobi Veteran Member • Posts: 3,136
Re: What about some Sports and BIF

erikstefan wrote:

Any camera can do those shots

Now, what about some Sports and BIF.....
Football, rugby, and real birds
Those are where people see 5D is too old

You guys are making my point. Most people that I know don't shoot football, rugby and birds with 5D. That's not what the camera is made for.

amobi
OP amobi Veteran Member • Posts: 3,136
Re: Duh!

Rootbeer wrote:

amobi wrote:

Duh! You have great light, and great contrast on the subjects,
against a black background!

As if you have a clue as to how to shoot in a tricky environment with
a flat lighted subject, in a room that is illuminated just like the
subject you are shooting is, with a contrasty background. ...like a
teacher in a classroom,...or a particular bicyclist in a pack of
riders on an overcast day.. Or shooting in low light..

Thanks for the waste of our time with your pointless post!

Isn't funny how you keep coming back to this pointless post.

halc
halc Regular Member • Posts: 240
Re: 5D AF sucks---see examples

Nice photos.

1. Hard to tell if in-focus, size quite small.

2. You have very high contrast, spot lighting, not what I would call challenging available lighting situation, where 5D is prone to failure
3. Quite deep DOF forgives a lot
4. Center focus point only?

Remove any/some of these and 5D AF starts to hunt, misbehave and just plain misfocus.

Yes, it can be used properly, but IMHO, takes way too much fiddling to do so, causing not so creative limitations.

But the photos are good and that's what matters, you went around the limitations, congrats for that.

genotypewriter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,846
Re: You talk as if you tested a 5D2

Barnett wrote:

genotypewriter wrote:

Two problems with your assumption:

1. If you think the AF performance is the same and the higher res is
going to accentuate the problem, why use the higher res if you can do
with 12MP? Down scale it.

True, if you want to down scale the 5DMKII images it will be no worse
than the old 5D.

2. There are other electronics that are different in the 5D2 and they
migth have a say in the AF performance...

Speed is not the problem - accuracy is. No amount of processing is
going to change the fact that the outer AF points does not have
ability to "see" at larger apertures like the center AF point does.

You're an electronics engineer but if you ever really made anything you'd know that specs don't dictate real-world performance.

Either way, when I tried the 5D2, I noticed the outer AF points were
a bit better than the original 5D... remember, this was side by side
using the same lens.

Canon says it is the same AND not even as good as the 50D (due to
size constraints). But you say it is better. So you are making
extraordinary claims here. That requires extraordinary proof.

I'm not saying it's better than the 50D because I haven't tested it next to a 50D. I'm saying I noticed an impovement in the corner points, over the 5D.

How did you test? What lenses did you use? Show us the pictures.

Focused on a point A (near) and then a point B (further away). The test was done for myself and in a very limited amount of time, without a CF card. A full blown AF test probably much harder to do than a proper cross platform noise test so don't expect ever to hear much more than "user experiences" on AF performance as you have with all the other cameras released to date... so I recommend that you go and try it out for yourself or stop telling people that what they experienced isn't true because you have a gut feeling.

At least I've used a 5D2 and tested one... you're the one whose
claims are based on leprechaunian speculations.

Keep dreaming.

No thank you.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

Stollen Regular Member • Posts: 347
Major Troll NT

NT

Rootbeer wrote:

Richard Ettinger wrote:

Something I learned a long while ago.
--
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

Oh, and I'm sure that applies to intricate camera systems as it does
to hammers, right?

Is that what you're saying?
--

memento Contributing Member • Posts: 774
Re: ... and what is wrong with wanting better AF from a $2k+ camera???

Because they're zealots and fanboys who don't have a mind of their own to the point that asking more from "their" company is heresy. Tools.

memento Contributing Member • Posts: 774
yes

I remember seeing a 5D box which said "Digital Photography Camera for easy-to-focus tasks only".

Jeez.

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

cameras, computers, cars, everything
--
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
Re: You talk as if you tested a 5D2

I am not telling people anything - Canon said it is the same sensor. Trust me, if it was any better than the old one they would have said so!

You played with the camera in the shop and got a warm fussy feeling. That does not count as a test, especially not a test that refutes the manufacturer's claims. And especially not a claim that makes the camera better than what the manufacturer themselves claim! Sorry.

You have to be very careful when drawing conclusions from such limited testing. It is very easy to see "what you want to see." The only way to avoid this is by doing a much more comprehensive test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter 's_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-blind_experiment

But as a researcher you really should know this.

Barnett

genotypewriter wrote:

Barnett wrote:

genotypewriter wrote:

Two problems with your assumption:

1. If you think the AF performance is the same and the higher res is
going to accentuate the problem, why use the higher res if you can do
with 12MP? Down scale it.

True, if you want to down scale the 5DMKII images it will be no worse
than the old 5D.

2. There are other electronics that are different in the 5D2 and they
migth have a say in the AF performance...

Speed is not the problem - accuracy is. No amount of processing is
going to change the fact that the outer AF points does not have
ability to "see" at larger apertures like the center AF point does.

You're an electronics engineer but if you ever really made anything
you'd know that specs don't dictate real-world performance.

Either way, when I tried the 5D2, I noticed the outer AF points were
a bit better than the original 5D... remember, this was side by side
using the same lens.

Canon says it is the same AND not even as good as the 50D (due to
size constraints). But you say it is better. So you are making
extraordinary claims here. That requires extraordinary proof.

I'm not saying it's better than the 50D because I haven't tested it
next to a 50D. I'm saying I noticed an impovement in the corner
points, over the 5D.

How did you test? What lenses did you use? Show us the pictures.

Focused on a point A (near) and then a point B (further away). The
test was done for myself and in a very limited amount of time,
without a CF card. A full blown AF test probably much harder to do
than a proper cross platform noise test so don't expect ever to hear
much more than "user experiences" on AF performance as you have with
all the other cameras released to date... so I recommend that you go
and try it out for yourself or stop telling people that what they
experienced isn't true because you have a gut feeling.

At least I've used a 5D2 and tested one... you're the one whose
claims are based on leprechaunian speculations.

Keep dreaming.

No thank you.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

Jun2 Senior Member • Posts: 2,237
I wish I can dance with these girls

They are hot.

Jun

 Jun2's gear list:Jun2's gear list
Sony a5000 Sony a6000 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +2 more
genotypewriter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,846
Re: You talk as if you tested a 5D2

Barnett wrote:

I am not telling people anything - Canon said it is the same sensor.
Trust me, if it was any better than the old one they would have said
so!

You played with the camera in the shop and got a warm fussy feeling.
That does not count as a test, especially not a test that refutes the
manufacturer's claims. And especially not a claim that makes the
camera better than what the manufacturer themselves claim! Sorry.

I didn't know that Canon knew about the 1D3's AF problems when it was shipped because they manufactured it.

You have to be very careful when drawing conclusions from such
limited testing. It is very easy to see "what you want to see." The
only way to avoid this is by doing a much more comprehensive test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter 's_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-blind_experiment

But as a researcher you really should know this.

I do... that's why I didn't claim it as gospel. So are you capable of formulating a comprehensive, unbiased, conclusive AF test? I'd like to see you or anyone else do that.

Barnett

genotypewriter wrote:

Barnett wrote:

genotypewriter wrote:

Two problems with your assumption:

1. If you think the AF performance is the same and the higher res is
going to accentuate the problem, why use the higher res if you can do
with 12MP? Down scale it.

True, if you want to down scale the 5DMKII images it will be no worse
than the old 5D.

2. There are other electronics that are different in the 5D2 and they
migth have a say in the AF performance...

Speed is not the problem - accuracy is. No amount of processing is
going to change the fact that the outer AF points does not have
ability to "see" at larger apertures like the center AF point does.

You're an electronics engineer but if you ever really made anything
you'd know that specs don't dictate real-world performance.

Either way, when I tried the 5D2, I noticed the outer AF points were
a bit better than the original 5D... remember, this was side by side
using the same lens.

Canon says it is the same AND not even as good as the 50D (due to
size constraints). But you say it is better. So you are making
extraordinary claims here. That requires extraordinary proof.

I'm not saying it's better than the 50D because I haven't tested it
next to a 50D. I'm saying I noticed an impovement in the corner
points, over the 5D.

How did you test? What lenses did you use? Show us the pictures.

Focused on a point A (near) and then a point B (further away). The
test was done for myself and in a very limited amount of time,
without a CF card. A full blown AF test probably much harder to do
than a proper cross platform noise test so don't expect ever to hear
much more than "user experiences" on AF performance as you have with
all the other cameras released to date... so I recommend that you go
and try it out for yourself or stop telling people that what they
experienced isn't true because you have a gut feeling.

At least I've used a 5D2 and tested one... you're the one whose
claims are based on leprechaunian speculations.

Keep dreaming.

No thank you.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads