Canon releases downloadable EOS-1D X Mark II AF Setting Guidebook

>It's like my wife's car

Is it better mirrorless? ;)

What happened is that they're still there.

Things have always been as complex as you want them to be. They're simpler now though.

In this case... if you're worried about complexity, then stick to single point AF. It's easier, simpler and faster than decades ago. Or go manual and put a focusing screen in there, and it's as easy as it was.

I can't understand people complaining about options they don't need to use.

Must be fun shooting high speed sports with the Leica with those puny lenses.

If the focusing system requires a book to explain how to use it I would not call it world class. Brain can only hold so much according to Kelly Bundy. FIFO.

DualSystemGuy, IMO the 7D II is the best example of a successful marketing and timed camera for the company to prop up it's bottom line. And the Canon fan boy's bought it hook line and sinker. What a POS camera in this day and age. I am amazed at the fanboy's for Canon.

I'm a Nikon shooter, but I would welcome this. Part of photography is technical skill, and some people learn from anecdotal scenarios rather than learning concepts. In addition, cameras each have their own tech

If we each invested time learning how PDAF works, this manual makes perfect sense. For others, it will seem like overkill. But I'd rather have more vs less info--especially when autofocus is not exactly the least complicated part of what we all do... :)

So good job Canon. For those who don't like complicated autofocus, I'd offer one rhetorical question: Why buy a Canon 1Dxii? Buy a 5D(xxx) and be happy with it.

Did you actually download the book? It is 148 pages long!!!!!! No thank you!!!! I did not even read it and already know (by previous experience with Canon) that if something is that complicated you will be missing the shots while trying to remember how to focus. I am also Nikon user now for 4 years and AF is very simple.

I think you actually need to read the book, especially case 4 to 6. Just that alone makes my head spin. I will take 3D tracking anytime over that.

What is so difficult to understand about this book? I can use the Canon AF without reading it, similarly to Nikon's. But I use it better with it. There are lots of examples and images, too.

Understanding while reading is not a problem. Applying to each situation is a problem. Understanding and determining which situation is which is a problem. And what happens if there are multiple situations at the same time?

I'm coming to the opinion that DualSystemsGuy is nothing but a troll.

Almost every single comment anywhere is nothing but negativity about canon.

You mean point, focus, reframe and shoot? I did that with my film camera, 20 years ago. But you can only do that if you have a deep depth of field, else you will miss focus, especially with high-res cameras.

May we see some of those best shots?

Don't get me started. Canon needs a wide AF area as much as anyone. One of my pet peeves is the huge number of poorly composed action shots, because (apparently) the photographer doesn't trust anything but the center focus points!

Please, please, Canon, Nikon, and everyone else - don't let the photographer have a *technical* excuse for poor compositions anymore - let it be simply because he doesn't know any better!

I realize one can shoot wider, crop, and even heavily post process, but it's just not the same as getting good framing and DOF right out of the camera - especially in this fast-moving digital age.

There are physical constraints in adding PDAF points away from center that affect ability & accuracy. Similar to why PDAF modules have limited lens speed where AF will completely fail (eg. max F/8 lenses only using the center point). You can see this effect near the 3 minute mark in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnkib7FZ8S8

This is just how phase-detect autofocus works.

APS-C DSLR's (like the 7D or Nikon D500) have wider points mainly because they share a mount with a larger format. But even these outermost points don't work with certain lenses.

Mirrorless often has on-sensor PDAF (which isn't as accurate by itself); but coupled with contrast detect to make hybrid AF, which is fast & accurate.

Wide PDAF on any FF DSLR can be done similarly to how on-sensor PDAF works; but be prepared to spend a LOT more and expect compromised AF accuracy, particularly on the outside.

I personally am fine with focus + recompose on my FF DSLRs because of these physical constraints.

All this calls for a 99II with a pdaf module plus on sensor pdaf points, you can focus practically any where you want.

How is it physically possible for the D500 but not for a full frame body? Which law of physics is different for full frame bodies?

No--it's not completely impossible for FF's. But a D500 uses the same mount that's designed for FF DSLR's--so they have more real estate for the lenses & PDAF sensors. Even then, the widest points only work with certain lenses--the D500 manual even describes which AF points work with which lenses.

You could do this in a FF DSLR, if it was using (for example) a medium format lens &/or mount--and your PDAF was designed to take advantage of this.

It's not impossible for a FF DSLR to have corner-to-corner PDAF points. But it is impossible for current FF DSLR's & their lenses & mounts to provide outermost AF points with high degrees of precision because the images they're getting are so distorted--this is a practical impossibility. And if you especially want these for high-speed sports shooting, they'll be close to useless.

Good way to think about it: a flashlight shining parallel vs perpendicular to the floor--one of these is stretched a lot and you can't align the two.

For reference, I'd recommend taking a look at the coverage areas of FF vs APS-C, and then comparing the AF point spread of say a D5 vs D500.

http://cdn-7.nikon-cdn.com/Images/Learn-Explore/Camera-Technology/D-SLR/2009/DX-FX-Formats/Media/DX-FX-Diagram-NEW.jpg

The D500 really wouldn't have to do much different for corner to corner coverage.

Yes, it would need a physically larger ('thicker') AF module, which may be too big for the flange distance. A significantly larger flange distance reduces angles but makes a camera thicker and requires a whole new mount.

Easy way to picture what's happening: grab a pair of glasses and look through them normally to view some text. Now angle the glasses sharply downward (so that the arms are facing up instead of on your ears). The image of the text gets stretched vertically, and you end up with a lot of diffractive and refractive effects--at some point rendering the text unrecognizable.

This is what happens towards the outside of the frame--one 'phase' will be a clean, straight through image, while the other phase (taken from the opposite side of the lens) would be heavily stretched. The camera also needs to figure out how to align the two for subjects not as linear or black & white as text! :)

Thank you for making me laugh out really loud.

Actually your comment just makes me cry. Seriously what on earth are you smoking. I'd loved to have seen Adams' keeper rate for the NFL or baseball.

CortoPa,
"And what do you think those great talents would have shot with today?

Seriously....."

Kertez: A Leica; Weston & Adams: a Med. format Hasselblad, Phase One or possibly just stick with an 8x10 field camera with sheet film and if in a lazy mood, use a light meter. Why mess with perfection?

CortPA - Those great talents would be using Phase One or Hasselblad's or digital backs on their 4x5. Those guys used either cut film or medium format because 35mm was just too small for their work. A monorail with full tilt, shift, swings, rise and additional manipulations are extremely difficult to carry out on DSLR's.

@PDL - The point is they would have used the best equipment availble for their genre of photography.

They weren't interested in the hipster mentality of "authenticity".

Interesting - the sports photographers of their day (mostly newspaper and such) were using speed graphics. So much for using SLR's. There were some using Leica, but the idea of what we call fast glass and high speed sensors (i.e. film) was a dream. It was not until after WWIII that strobe's came into their own for sports. Most of the sports guys were shooting 16mm movies for high frame rates. Landscape shooters did not really start using 135 format cameras until the emulsions came around after WWII. By the end of WWII Adams, Weston et al were still using large view cameras or MF beasts.

"Kertez: A Leica; Weston & Adams: a Med. format Hasselblad, Phase One or possibly just stick with an 8x10 field camera with sheet film and if in a lazy mood, use a light meter. Why mess with perfection?"

Leica has gone digital; Hasselblad just introduced a mirrorless MF camera (so has Fuji). So much for useless technology, right? The 1DX is not a camera to shoot what those guys were shooting at the time, or would be shooting today. Or maybe, if they lived today, they would use a 1DX and shoot action and sports, who knows?