New Canon full frame?

Well, multiple people who've used one in the real world seem to think it is practical. And as I've already said people's shooting styles vary massively, I'm more likely to have great shots if I take 2000 frames and 50% are in focus than if I take 500 and they're all in focus. Your opinion on what's acceptable isn't

Are you similarly upset by all the photos you bin because somebody blinked, there's some flare, the metering was wrong, the composition isn't great or because it plain isn't a compelling shot? Seeing an amazing image that's fuzzy should be a stab in the heart because you didn't do better - the answer is not always a better camera, you don't improve by blaming your tools.

Anyway, given that people who own and use the camera commercially think it's just great, why don't we quit arguing about the AF of a camera you don't own or have any intention of owning and move on?
 
Our 5D and 5D mk2 focusing system has always been acceptable, never mind blowing and occasionally frustrating. The 1Ds is better and the 5D mk3 auto focus is totally awesome. I'll be glad to change over from the mk1 and mk2 when funds allow but it's not like it's THAT big a thing, you learn how to handle your equipment (she mentioned) and then it's not a problem, just a nice extra when you move on to a body with better features.

I can understand if you're a sports shooter or wildlife tog but for me doing documentary weddings it's not really a thing. Everyone is going to have different needs so chosen equipment will reflect that I guess.
 
Last edited:
I'm now feeling more compelled than ever to buy a 7D or 5D Mark II after reading this thread.
 
jonneymendoza said:
IMO its useless in half if not most cases. Sometimes you only get one chance to nail that killer shot. would you rest all that once in a life time shot on the outer points when its a 50/50 chance it will fail?
Click to expand...

That's a complete straw man though

*If* this hypothetical situation was a concern, then you have to have a D4 or a 1DX and hope for the best because they're not infallible either. In reality, if you have that once in a lifetime opportunity then the thing which will make the most difference is how good you are.

95% of the time *you* will screw that shot up because you chose the wrong AF or metering mode, didn't compose it well, chose the wrong perspective or lens or aperture.

That one shot is about vision and a little luck. The technology doesn't matter, if you're up to it then any camera you know well will do the job. I know there are guys who'll take that shot better with an iPhone than I will with a D4. Then there are plenty of example of pros nailing that 'one shot' with a 5Dii or an H4D (if you want to talk about less than state of the art AF).

So yes, if that imaginary once in a lifetime shot existed, I would trust it to the outer AF points on a 5Dii because I know of all the things that could screw it up through misjudgement or just bad luck, the quality of the AF system is the least concern.

But those great shots don't happen by accident, they happen because you think ahead, visualise, plan, maximise your chances and then get a little lucky. Doing all that will get you far more 'once in a lifetime' shots than a better AF system ever will.
 
bigredshark said:
Well, multiple people who've used one in the real world seem to think it is practical. And as I've already said people's shooting styles vary massively, I'm more likely to have great shots if I take 2000 frames and 50% are in focus than if I take 500 and they're all in focus. Your opinion on what's acceptable isn't
Click to expand...

Taking 2000 pictures where >90% are in focus will provide more great images.

bigredshark said:
Are you similarly upset by all the photos you bin because somebody blinked, there's some flare, the metering was wrong, the composition isn't great or because it plain isn't a compelling shot? Seeing an amazing image that's fuzzy should be a stab in the heart because you didn't do better - the answer is not always a better camera, you don't improve by blaming your tools.
Click to expand...

I'm annoyed every time a great shot is ruined, inconsistent AF isn't acceptable to me, yes any of those other reasons are unacceptable or disappointing, but we are specifically talking about AF. I don't have any issues with metering etc. because I know my camera's metering inside and out. Rarely need to use exposure comp. either, because I know when to use spot metering and when to use matrix metering. Much of it,is how you set up your camera, 90% of the time I'm spot metering, for the remaining 10% I have the Fn button set to temporally switch to matrix.

bigredshark said:
Anyway, given that people who own and use the camera commercially think it's just great, why don't we quit arguing about the AF of a camera you don't own or have any intention of owning and move on?
Click to expand...

You keep mentioning this commercial work etc. but I'v never seen you share any of it, what type of commercial work is it?
Is decent AF performance even relevant?

Why am I arguing? because people here are insisting black is white and are arguing about it just as much. When I had my 550D and a 85 1.8 and was only achieving a 30% critical hit rate, I thought the darn thing was broken, I kept returning the 85 to try different copies before giving up and eventually trying another system. I wish someone would have informed me at the time that, that was the norm. It would have saved me allot of hassle.
 
bigredshark said:
Well, multiple people who've used one in the real world seem to think it is practical. And as I've already said people's shooting styles vary massively, I'm more likely to have great shots if I take 2000 frames and 50% are in focus than if I take 500 and they're all in focus. Your opinion on what's acceptable isn't

Are you similarly upset by all the photos you bin because somebody blinked, there's some flare, the metering was wrong, the composition isn't great or because it plain isn't a compelling shot? Seeing an amazing image that's fuzzy should be a stab in the heart because you didn't do better - the answer is not always a better camera, you don't improve by blaming your tools.

Anyway, given that people who own and use the camera commercially think it's just great, why don't we quit arguing about the AF of a camera you don't own or have any intention of owning and move on?
Click to expand...

there is a lot of users who too have not found the outer points useful and that thread that the guy raymond posted showed various users having difficulty in using the af points.

there was even one user who did the same technique described by reymond and did not nail the shot in focus.

i will be upset if my photos wasnt in focus. for me that is very important as a blury shot is not good at all.

i rather have a noisy shot then a blury one.

Also, i wasnt the one who derailed this thread. we was talking about the aa filter and all of a sudden someone mentioned the 5d2 AF.
 
bigredshark said:
That's a complete straw man though

*If* this hypothetical situation was a concern, then you have to have a D4 or a 1DX and hope for the best because they're not infallible either. In reality, if you have that once in a lifetime opportunity then the thing which will make the most difference is how good you are.

95% of the time *you* will screw that shot up because you chose the wrong AF or metering mode, didn't compose it well, chose the wrong perspective or lens or aperture.

That one shot is about vision and a little luck. The technology doesn't matter, if you're up to it then any camera you know well will do the job. I know there are guys who'll take that shot better with an iPhone than I will with a D4. Then there are plenty of example of pros nailing that 'one shot' with a 5Dii or an H4D (if you want to talk about less than state of the art AF).

So yes, if that imaginary once in a lifetime shot existed, I would trust it to the outer AF points on a 5Dii because I know of all the things that could screw it up through misjudgement or just bad luck, the quality of the AF system is the least concern.
Click to expand...

Are you listening to your self?
Your not concerned that if you get everything right, that your AF still only gives you a 30-50% chance of getting the shot?

Another thing I'm now **** off with, is why are they stocking rooms full of 1Dx's and D4's for the olympics and passing the bill to the taxpayer, when they could save so much money with the below gear.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Barbie_camera

Logic has gone out the window here.
 
Love how Jonney continually avoiding answing his "One" comment.

Bad show man. Not that I had an opinion of you before but respect can be also gained when admitting one is wrong.

Disappointing.

As for "lots of users not getting it right" how about turning it the other way?

Lots of users HAVE used it with success and continue to do so.

You counted how many 5Dii were used in that Reuter's Top 100 photos in 2011 yet? Answer me this JM. Why would someone use gears that they have no confidene of if their livelihood depending upon it? They are in war zones, 3rd world countries, not a studio where you can ask the model pose for your leisure.

Again JM, for your reputation sake, not that it is credible to me anymore, please stop making assumption on gear that you only read about and basing it on hearsay.
 
An Exception said:
passing the bill to the taxpayer
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Nikon and Canon and the photo agencies will be footing the bill for camera equipment. Why would you think that the British taxpayer would be paying for it?

Also, it's 'you're' and 'a lot'.
 
Raymond Lin said:
You counted how many 5Dii were used in that Reuter's Top 100 photos in 2011 yet? Answer me this JM. Why would someone use gears that they have no confidene of if their livelihood depending upon it? They are in war zones, 3rd world countries, not a studio where you can ask the model pose for your leisure.
Click to expand...

Have you got or posted a link to these pictures?

Also you still haven't answered what your hit rate is, how many pictures out of 10 are in perfect focus? how many that are off would you consider usable? etc.
 
olv said:
What are you talking about? Nikon and Canon and the photo agencies will be footing the bill for camera equipment. Why would you think that the British taxpayer would be paying for it?

Also, it's 'you're' and 'a lot'.
Click to expand...

How pedantic and pathetic.

What are you going to do next, hound out any posters with dyslexia?
 
Raymond Lin said:
Love how Jonney continually avoiding answing his "One" comment.

Bad show man. Not that I had an opinion of you before but respect can be also gained when admitting one is wrong.

Disappointing.

As for "lots of users not getting it right" how about turning it the other way?

Lots of users HAVE used it with success and continue to do so.

You counted how many 5Dii were used in that Reuter's Top 100 photos in 2011 yet? Answer me this JM. Why would someone use gears that they have no confidene of if their livelihood depending upon it? They are in war zones, 3rd world countries, not a studio where you can ask the model pose for your leisure.

Again JM, for your reputation sake, not that it is credible to me anymore, please stop making assumption on gear that you only read about and basing it on hearsay.
Click to expand...

Post links please for these top 100 photos taken with a 5d2 using the outer points.
 
An Exception said:
Have you got or posted a link to these pictures?

Also you still haven't answered what your hit rate is, how many pictures out of 10 are in perfect focus? how many that are off would you consider usable? etc.
Click to expand...

I am sure with your skills with google you can find it.

As for my hit rate. Depends how you define it.

If you mean keep rate, it's about 1/4 (bearing in mind I often shoot a burst of 2 for blinkers) that's an auto reject of half. Of the other half, some are rejected for many reasons, which you know about I am sure.

Actual hit rate of being in focus, it's about 80%. And I shoot with centre point like 1% of the time.

Ps JM, you asked ME for ONE photo. Not other photographers.

I have provided that ONE photo.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I am sure with your skills with google you can find it.

As for my hit rate. Depends how you define it.

If you mean keep rate, it's about 1/4 (bearing in mind I often shoot a burst of 2 for blinkers) that's an auto reject of half. Of the other half, some are rejected for many reasons, which you know about I am sure.

Actual hit rate of being in focus, it's about 80%. And I shoot with outer points like 1% of the time.
Click to expand...

Huh, are you saying you hardly use outer points or was that a typo?
 
An Exception said:
You keep mentioning this commercial work etc. but I'v never seen you share any of it, what type of commercial work is it?
Is decent AF performance even relevant?
Click to expand...

Being commercial work, I can't display it publicly before my client uses it (and in some cases they get full rights to the image so I never publish it myself beyond print portfolios- not standard I know but I'm not a full time pro and the money for those terms makes sense for me). Ask me in November and I'll point you to the ads using my work. :D

Given that much of it is, as I said earlier, skiing and mountain biking, AF performance is very relevant. It's commercial shoots, so I always have the 'try it again' option but at 4000ft with the light rapidly disappearing I try to avoid that in general.

Why am I arguing? because people here are insisting black is white and are arguing about it just as much.
Click to expand...

On the basis of knowledge at least, people who actually own the camera are pointing out it works just fine for them in the real world. I think you're on a hiding to nothing trying to argue that and I don't understand what the point is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom