September 20, 2014, 12:13:50 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - sarangiman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:58:03 PM »
If you're going to complain about apples to oranges, at least compare Canon's best against Nikon's best.  At pixel level, the D810 has a 1.9EV advantage over the 6D and a 2.2 stop advantage when both are downsampled to 8MP.  The 6D has a 1 stop advantage at ISOs over 800 at a pixel level and 2/3 stop advantage when downsampled to 8MP.

OK, that's fair.

The D810 still has higher DR at higher ISOs if you use your camera in a smarter way though, so those DxO higher ISO DR values are meaningless to me.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:24:40 PM »
Quit comparing apples and oranges.

According to DxO, the 5D3 is 10.97EV at the pixel-level. 13.67EV for the D810 at the pixel-level. So 2.7 EV at the pixel level; except that's not a fair comparison with 64% as many pixels on the D810 that can help DR when they're averaged during downsampling.

Normalized difference is 11.7 vs 14.8 for the D810 - that's 3 stops, and possibly more depending on how you account for FPN.

Also, you can maintain near base ISO levels of DR even at higher ISOs with Nikon/Sony cameras if you know how to use your camera right. So as far as I'm concerned, it's far more DR even at higher ISOs.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:39:39 PM »
I too use Lee's GNDs. I have a bunch of them, in both soft and hard grad. I really love the Lee filter system (although it failed me recently...i had my 2-stop proglass ND in...and when I was photographing rivers it just slipped out and shattered on the rocks...I am not sure why it did, but it was like a $160 filter. :(). The thing that set me off not long ago was a bunch of scenes where the skies ended up totally blown out when I exposed to preserve some detail in the shadows...and the skies were patchy...not along a nice horizon where a GND filter could actually be used to fix the problem.

I've bracketed crazy-wide like that as well, but in my experience, at least when you have bright highlights (like the highlights in water, or bright skies backing a dark foreground, or the sun in the frame), you end up with posterization or haloing if your exposures differ by a stop or more. Getting the exposure differential down to 2/3rds of a stop seems to smooth out the highlight transitions, so you don't end up with posteriation or funky CA or color issues or things like that after merging to HDR.

Yup, I know all too well what you're talking about. It's often very, very difficult to merge vastly different exposures - there are problems at the boundaries of very bright to very dark regions.

I also pretty much refuse to use most HDR merging software, and do most of it by hand using luminosity masks and an Intuos and other tricks.

Actually a much nicer way to do this is to expose for the highlights, let the shadows get buried, then just shoot a bunch of images and average them (using something like PhotoAcute). Then process a single file. This way your shadows clean up from the averaging, and you don't have the artifacts HDR software introduces.

And of course it goes without saying that this technique is much easier with a D800/810 than a Canon DSLR.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:36:26 PM »
I find this resistance to improved technology incredibly the point where I simply don't believe it.
But that's actually fairly normal behaviour, culture changes in generational steps. In many areas of society you literally have to wait for the "old guard" to die off before new ideas can be taken seriously.[/b]

Can I the context of this discussion, how does going from ~12 to ~14 stops of DR, or going from 22 to 36 MP, represent 'new ideas' requiring the 'old guard' to die off before they're adopted?  If you're talking about the switch from film to digital, or from vinyl to CDs, that's fine...but those are paradigm shifts in technology.  To suggest that the differences between current Canon and SoNikon sensors are a paradigm shift is ludicrous.  Rather, those differences are minor, incremental improvements.  Real improvements, yes...but minor.

You and I both know the difference is actually 3 stops: 11EV vs 14EV. Add FPN to the Canon and the practical DR is even less.

Why are you down-playing the difference? It actually approaches an order of magnitude, if not more.

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 18, 2014, 04:00:56 AM »
When it comes to the A7r, for me, it would be used solely for landscapes. I've said that on many occasions. That's also a big part of the reason why the D810 is not the most appealing's a very pricey camera, on top of the need for new lenses (which just skyrockets the price even more)...just for landscapes.

Again, my goal is NOT to replace my entire Canon kit. I'm not "moving" to the A7r...I would simply be adding the A7r. I would be adding it very specifically just for landscapes. From what I know about the shutter shock issue, it primarily affects longer focal lengths when used on a tripod when there isn't enough weight to keep everything steady. A lot of people (particularly on DPR forums) have asked about it, and a lot of people who own the A7r have replied saying they have never encountered the issue at all. I have no intention of trying to slap my 600mm lens on the A7r, nor any other long focal lengths. I might like to try it a few times on the A7s, but I have no expectations that the AF system would work well through the metabones adapter. Maybe someday, but that isn't my goal right now...and if Canon can remain competitive at high ISO, it never will be.

The A7r would pretty much exclusively just be a wide to ultra-wide angle landscape camera. Maybe some macro stuff in the long run (with an MP-E 65mm, if the thing would work with the adapter.) The vast majority of my work with it would be 16-35mm, at the wider end, which should reduce the impact of any potential SS issue even further.

Right, that's why I was saying it might make sense for you. As an additional camera for your landscape work. I've found shutter shock to *not* be an issue under ~70mm focal length, but of course that depends on your tripod, setup, etc. So you'll be fine with the 16-35 & the A7R. Btw, once you hear & feel the shutter on it, you'll no longer be surprised that SS is actually an issue... but it's easily demonstrated as well now that the 70-200 FE is out.

I'd worry about macro work on the A7R - I'd expect shutter shock to be an issue, since macro is just as affected by camera shake as telephoto. Unless you're using a flash.

That MP-E 65mm is fantastic. I've still got mine & intend to use it with that A7 I'm always toying with the idea of buying...

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 18, 2014, 03:55:50 AM »
You know, I thought of a potential reason why sports photographers may not talk about or use 3D tracking. If there are multiple players wearing similar jerseys far enough away that the detail discerned is not specific enough to any one player, this might confuse the AF system, and it may jump from player to player.

Here, the arguably less sophisticated system of the 5D3 (or 1D X with iTR off) might actually have an advantage: b/c these algorithms usually look for the concomitant loss of one subject at a particular subject distance and the appearance of a subject with similar subject distance elsewhere.

Now I'm really curious to see if iTR turned off works better for this type of shooting than iTR turned on/Nikon's 3D tracking. But again, as I said earlier, I don't think sports are the best use-case for 3D focus tracking to begin with.

Anyway, perhaps that's at least part of the reason for some of the general lack of awareness and enthusiasm for 3D focus tracking. Furthermore, Google searches on these topics indicates there's quite a lot of confusion re: iTR/3D tracking and when and when not to use it. So I'm rarely moved by the 'if this were so great, wouldn't people be raving about it?' argument - people do find interesting ways to use technology that aren't immediately adopted or known in a widespread fashion.

In fact, it's kind of funny, but, Canon's own Rudy Winston in his technical article on iTR (dated just last year), writes:

  • "The EOS-1D X is the world’s first SLR with the ability to perform Face Detection when using the standard eye-level viewfinder (all previous D-SLRs with face detection capability could only do it during Live View operation, when the camera’s actual imaging sensor was used to read the scene)."
  • "While this new metering sensor is used to fine-tune exposure metering, Canon’s engineers realized that its ability to recognize subjects could be used in other important ways too. [for subject analysis]"


Well, I suppose he'd never picked up a Nikon... as those were both previously available, for many years. I mean the statement "all previous D-SLRs with face detection capability could only do it during Live View operation" is flat out false, unless you were to interject 'Canon' after 'previous'.

So if Canon's own people don't know, please excuse me for being skeptical re: whether or not that many people actually know how useful 3D focus tracking and scene analysis off the RGB metering sensor can actually be. Save for those that have thoroughly tried and tested both (or more) systems.

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:53:16 AM »
Well, at this point all I can say is that we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope you understand my intention of challenging generalizations. In all seriousness, thanks for refraining from emotional posts, and having more of a dialogue.

As for the AF tracking thing - I haven't been changing my story, but given the volume of posts, I don't blame you for seeing it as such. But I also don't think any more text is going to do any convincing, so I'll rest my case there. My initial purpose of the AF stuff was to challenge the assertion that the 5D3 AF is clearly superior to the D800 AF, and I think I made my points re: that pretty clear. I'll rephrase my initial 'opinion' that the 5D3 is almost useless for reliable subject tracking to (and you're right, that is more my opinion than a stated fact): Nikon's recent DSLRs have significantly more reliable, accurate, and robust subject tracking across the frame than any Canon DSLR I've tested to date, though the 1D X comes close. And it's b/c the secondary color sensor undoubtedly helps tell the AF system what to track. Without this, the AF algorithms are rather blind in that they can only work with a map of detected subject distances at any given AF point at any given instant, not have any understanding of what those subjects are in order to track them.

As for the Sony A7 series for your Canon glass - that's not a bad option. The Metabones Smart Adapter III is pretty darn good, if you can work around some of its quirks. Don't expect fast or professional AF, of course, but it could work for your landscapes (the AF is not going to work for your bird photography). Unfortunately, shutter shock is a real issue with the A7R, and since it seems you like telephoto shots, I don't think the A7R will work for you. The A7 will work; I doubt you'll like the A7S b/c it has worse base ISO DR than the A7R... and it's pretty obvious in landscape shooting when raising shadows (it's still better than Canon, but if you're picking up a body to avoid low DR, then... that's not the right one). That plus its resolution cost, all for a tiny bump in ISO performance at the highest ISOs (I really only see a significant benefit at ISO 25.6k and above).

I myself have toyed w/ the idea of having an A7 + 'f/4 holy trinity' of 16-35 (now that it's released), 24-70, and 70-200 as my travel/landscape camera. But keep deciding wavering - b/c I'm not sure the size/weight benefits outweigh the downsides enough. And now there's a system where you can say the lenses don't seem to take full advantage of the 36MP the A7R offers (not that the 70-200 could, b/c of shutter shock), yielding numbers not far off from Canon 5D Mark III + similar lenses. I must say, though, it's really cool that you can hold a A7 + 24-70 far above your head, swing it around like a toy, get some high up vantage points, etc., and never feel a single ache/soreness in your hands/arm!

Not to beat the Nikon drum again, but, the D810 with electronic front curtain is the only way I know of getting the most out of a 36MP sensor currently. Plus it has a half to 2/3 EV more DR than the A7R, b/c somehow Nikon squeezed out higher effective FWC per-pixel from what ostensibly seems to be a similar sensor. But I can understand your desire to select a system that'll use your Canon glass. It's just that the A7R probably isn't it. Shutter shock was actually the reason I got rid of my A7R. Yes you can mitigate it to some extent by strapping massive weights to your camera, but (a) that defeats the purpose of the system, and (b) that's just not something I want to be worrying about when there's clearly a better alternative.

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 17, 2014, 10:42:46 PM »
You should know, though, that you do come off as a very strong Nikon fan, given that you regularly seem to try to insinuate that Canon technology is inferior to Nikon technology...for pretty much every technology these kinds of cameras have. I haven't ever really seen you argue that anything Canon does is better. I've seen you make one-liner statements kind of to that effect, but when it comes right down to seem to think Nikon is superior in every respect. That perfectly fine, everyone has and is entitled to their own opinions and preferences...but, it does come off a certain way. It comes off to me the same way I must come off to you, only the brands are switched. :P

I see what you're saying, but here's why it's like this:

I come in and specifically counter some false generalization that Nikon X is worse than Canon X (like the D800 AF is inferior to the 5D3 AF). That requires pages and texts of explanation, b/c no one here wants to accept it. You won't even try the Nikon out, resorting to some basic tests with your Canon that may or may not correlate with the real-world shooting scenarios where I've tried both systems. So I try to explain, post videos, then eventually give up.

OTOH, I only provide 'one-liners' when it comes to a superior Canon tech (dual cross-type points providing more potential detail to focus on, wider base-lines providing more accuracy, potentially anyway, the wireless flash system, etc.) b/c no one here is making some false generalization about those being poor or worse than Nikon. And, naturally, since this is Canonrumors, where Canon people reside who don't want to think they made the wrong decision (that included me for many, many years - and if you must know, I still have my 5D3 and will continue to have it until I've convinced myself from empirical data that Nikon is not noticeably worse in AF precision with 24/35/85 primes - though Roger Cicala's initial data suggest the systems are comparable). For now, though, the D810 has solved many of the problems people have asked solutions for here, while introducing little to no negatives (yet).

So in the end it boils down to this: I don't need pages of text to convince you that Canon is better in one respect or the other. You'll gladly digest it in one line, one phrase even. :) Something Nikon is better at? Not a chance, without writing a novel & presenting irrefutable data. Which, obviously, I can't do. That's fine. But I am glad I refuted the general statement that '5D3 AF is clearly superior to D800 AF', b/c maybe that'll actually make someone try the systems out before being misled by a generalization that may or may not be applicable to him or her.

Make sense now?

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 17, 2014, 09:45:50 PM »
What I've denied is your claims that Canon's AF system in the 5D III cannot do certain things. I tested those things. My 5D III performed fine doing AF with the 16-35mm f/2.8 with close, moving subjects. It's not 100% perfectly accurate, but I'm sorry, I don't believe for a moment that the Nikon system is 100% perfectly accurate either.

But that's not what I claimed. I said that, especially in comparison to Nikon's 3D focus tracking, it's ultimately so unreliable as to be practically useless for my shallow DOF wedding photography using fast 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 primes. Because I could not trust it. It gets confused too easily, and this'd come as no surprise if you performed my little thought experiment on how the algorithm actually works. And I'm *not* alone in my opinion. Sure, rewind 10 years, and the 5D III's subject tracking would've been the best thing since sliced bread. It's a very cute, clever algorithm. And I think it still works quite well for sports. It just hasn't kept up with what the metering sensors in the 1D X and Nikon's can do, or what the imaging sensors can do in mirrorless cameras now (although without phase detection, the latter are still lagging IMHO). Arguing against this is literally arguing against the benefits subject recognition via a sensor bring. And, again, you'd know this if you just picked up a D810 & put it in 3D tracking and waved the camera around a bit. It sticks to subjects almost as well as the Sony AF method you praise.

As for the lens stuff, there's too much to respond to, but generally my entire point of those examples was this: I pulled a few of the lenses I own to show you that your statement that generally Canon lenses are better clearly requires more proof. Old lens design, new lens design - I picked both, you're still going to find something to complain about. But my point stands - you can't just go and say that generally a 5D3+Canon lenses will outresolve a Nikon D800E+Nikon lenses. That statement needs proof, b/c I easily pulled up 4 examples proving otherwise. And it's ridiculous to suggest anyway - that a sensor with literally 50% more resolution is somehow going to perform worse when paired with similar, high-end lenses.

Also, I wasn't referring to the overall DxO score; I was referring to the P-MPix score, which takes into account lens MTF & sensor resolution and characteristics.

In case you haven't sensed a them here yet over the years - I'm fighting your general claims. Like Canon high ISO is better (glad we've dispensed with that finally!), Canon lenses are better, Canon sensors have more DR at higher ISO, Canon lenses + a 22MP sensor somehow still generally outresolve Nikon lenses with a 36MP sensor, etc. etc.

These claims are misleading.

Also, I'm not a Nikon fan. I'm a fan of some of the technologies Nikon uses, as well as some of the technologies in the Canon system (dual cross-type, wider baseline, wireless flash, DPAF). I'm a technology proponent. Therefore, I cringe at false generalizations that ignore the realities of better, and worse, technologies.

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 17, 2014, 08:24:01 PM »
They seem to aim for building the smallest, tightest bodies possible for every single model.

Some find that preferable.

Their ergonomics don't fit my hands well (it's like they were designed explicitly for people with really tiny hands...I have rather large hands).

Fixed in the D810. I used to have the same complaint, as I also have big hands.

Nikon has a couple lenses that I think are very nice, like the 14-24, but in general it doesn't seem like Nikon glass overall is up at the same level as Canon glass...and lens testing often demonstrates this. Canon lenses on say the 5D III resolve as much or more measurable resolution in output images than Nikon lenses on the D800/D810 most of the time.

Right... yet another urban legend. Like the 'Canon high ISO is the best!' one.

So let's recap the above data which directly contradict your statement "Canon lenses on say the 5D III resolve as much or more measurable resolution in output images than Nikon lenses on the D800/D810 most of the time.": 60% increase in effective resolution going from the 5D3+16-35 to the D800E+14-24; 43% increase going from 5D3+70-200 to D800E+70-200; 38% increase going from 5D3+35L to D800E+35G. I can hear it already: it's DxO so it must be wrong & biased, right? It's not at all possible that a higher resolution sensor (no AA filter) with a modern lens design actually gives you, er, higher resolution, is it?

These broad generalizations are just silly. Which is why I don't make them. I've only been pointing out the very specific arenas in which Nikon offers advantages. You've been pretty unwilling to accept some of them (like the advantages of a separate RGB metering sensor - even in the Canon line itself) without even trying yourself.

Further more, while you always have glowing things to say about pretty much everything Nikon, not everyone who has used them has so many good things to say.

Like when I complained about missing Canon's plethora of cross-type points, wider-baseline dual-cross-type central sensors, some of their glass, and their wireless flash system?

In my posts of late, I've simply been calling out the arenas in which Nikon is better, not saying Nikon is better in every regard for everyone.

You of all people should understand that, as you & I have the same end goal - we want a system that has the best of both.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 17, 2014, 05:01:37 AM »
Maybe this video released by Sony will help get my point across:

Note how at 1:33 they stress how the AF system doesn't get 'distracted' - because it understands its subject from scene analysis of the imaging sensor. Same thing with the RGB metering sensors in the 1D X, and in Nikon cameras (albeit with much less resolution). And that has been my point all along.

Perhaps on-sensor PDAF and/or DPAF will eventually outperform what we see with DSLRs. I'm all for that. But for now, the best subject tracking is available in cameras that *have* a dedicated color sensor for subject tracking. Be it an image sensor, or a dedicated RGB metering sensor. Not a camera like the 5D Mark III that lacks both of these inputs when it comes to subject tracking.

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 17, 2014, 03:07:03 AM »
Falk Lumo did some great work that showed AFMA inconsistencies across the AF sensor, on top of a skew that resulted in the left AF problem:

This is taken from his article here:

That looks like lens manufacturing issues to me where the lens isn't properly centered. Look at the recent lens testing on lensrentals to see how warped the light coming through the lens is. It would appear that this warping of light does more than impact IQ, it also impacts AF.

That is unless the above AFMA AF mapping is the same for every lens on that camera ... seems more likely to be a lens manufacturing issue than camera one.

Has anyone done a similar test for a Canon lens/camera combination?

Dilbert - I believe what Falk Lumo was showing there was the AF sensor miscalibration fiasco Nikon underwent with the D800.

I do know Roger's (incredible, laudable, and informative) work - yes, the PDAF sensors are making measurements from non-central light rays, and have to then be corrected for the image-forming light which uses both central & non-central rays. This is lens-specific, and also, at least partly, where AFMA comes in.

My point was: manufacturing tolerances are not so tight that you can assume that the AF sensor surface is perfectly flat, or that it's perfectly aligned compared to the image sensor. Therefore, different focus points may need different AFMA values for optimal focus, and who knows - this might vary from lens to lens as well. We really just don't know exactly what AFMA is doing, or the math involved, although some suggest it's a correction to that correction value that corrects for the PDAF sensor's non-central light-ray measurements. Which itself will be dependent upon the degree of spherical aberration for any given lens.

I wonder if Reikan's developer has collated this sort of data from people using his software... would be incredibly interesting.

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 17, 2014, 02:55:37 AM »
So... I'm just wondering how many here realize that the D810, D800, and D750 already have every single one of those features...
Perhaps just the few of us who've actually made the switch and learned what features our new toys, uhm, tools possess.
Frankly, many of those cool features I rarely have use for.  I merely moved to get much improved raw files for landscape work.
I do want to borrow a buddy's 150-600mm Tamron and try the D800's AF tracking for BiF shots.
I don't care if I don't have a high frame rate, just good focus.

Haha, well said.

Initially I'd wanted to switch for the RAW dynamic range, which is great for landscapes, as well as for exposure latitude in post-processing. But then I realized just how powerful all those other features are.

Particularly: subject tracking in 3D focus tracking mode. Which I never used on the 5D3 b/c it was far too unreliable, no matter what use-case I chose in the menu nor how I optimized any one of those use-cases.

But then there's also programmable auto ISO, which is so much better than constantly having to manually change the minimum shutter speed as I switch primes at a wedding (since the 1/focal-length rule is not always applicable).
And now b/c of the ease of EC in M mode with Auto ISO - and b/c of the incredible sensor performance - I rarely have to worry about blown highlights even in high ISO situations b/c I just dial in a massive amount of negative EC. In low light scenarios that'd require ISO 800 and above anyway, this usually means I'm not paying any shot noise cost by dialing in negative EC, since all it's doing is lowering the actual ISO amplification used (not changing the focal plane exposure). So, for example, instead of ISO 1600, EC -3 will use ISO 200. Since downstream read noise is low, I pay very little (albeit non-zero) noise cost compared to just using ISO 1600. Meanwhile, I gain 3 stops of highlight detail b/c of the lower ISO. I then selectively raise exposure in post, protecting highlights.

The funny thing is: if Canon were to properly implement EC in M mode with Auto ISO, I'd actually use it in an opposite manner to what I described above. In other words: to brighten the image (via ISO amplification) to near where I want the final image brightness to be, not to apply negative EC - since there *is* a noise cost to brightening in post-processing vs. raising the ISO in-camera. So one could make the argument that if any of these cameras needs EC in M mode with Auto ISO, it's Canon, not Nikon - with the latter you can just select your shutter speed and aperture, then dial in a relatively low ISO and then choose your exposure in post-processing via the exposure slider.

Anyway, I'm rambling now.

What Canon stuff do I miss?
I do miss cross-type points all over the frame, the wireless flash system, and some Canon glass, though. And sometimes I get the feeling that Canon's center AF point focused faster and more confidently in very low light than the D810 - which wouldn't be surprising. Although both systems are rated down to EV -2, the 5D Mark III is 'looking' for much more detail with its horizontal, vertical, and dual-diagonal sensors.

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 17, 2014, 01:21:18 AM »
My list...designed to be the all-arounder:

 - Histogram based on RAW *!* (screw JPEG! :P)
 - Higher frame rate (8fps, using CP-ADC for low noise, high speed readout)
 - More dynamic range (high and low ISO...two stops low, as much as possible high)
 - More resolution (~50mp)
 - Layered sensor (drop the bayer! with binning capability, so I could bin 2x2, 3x3, maybe even 4x4 for very high ISO, as I'd rather have the SNR than anything :P...yes, this would mean 150 million photodiodes)
 - iTR metering
 - f/8 AF with center zone support (say 13 center af points usable at f/8)
 - AF-point linked meter
 - DPAF-automated AFMA (and, therefor, DPAF)
 - Dual CF (w/ CFast2 support)

"iTR metering"?  :o

iTR is the AF tracking mode that uses the metering sensor for subject recognition and tracking...

I must say, I'm quite surprised at the number of people in this thread asking for:

  • More DR at base ISO
  • More resolution
  • Spot metering linked to AF point
  • Programmable Auto ISO
  • EC in M mode (and while we're at it: in a less stupid implementation than the 1D X's)
  • Face detection & tracking outside of Live View
  • ... and at least one guy asking for better subject tracking across the frame after initially choosing a subject (well that makes 2 of us now, since this is one of my wishes as well)

So... I'm just wondering how many here realize that the D810, D800, and D750 already have every single one of those features...

Or perhaps that's the point - everyone here wants what Nikon already offers? Either way, it's kind of funny :)

I'm going to add one more thing to the list:

- AFMA for every single AF point, and then, yes, DPAF/CDAF-automated AFMA... b/c AFMA is already incredibly annoying as it is - imagine doing it for 65 points!

I want this b/c I'm finding more and more that you can't trust the factory calibration process to have calibrated every focus point perfectly.

Falk Lumo did some great work that showed AFMA inconsistencies across the AF sensor, on top of a skew that resulted in the left AF problem:

This is taken from his article here:

EOS Bodies / Re: How can we improve on 5D3 to 5D4?
« on: September 17, 2014, 12:53:47 AM »
I would also like to have autofocus track a moving subject in a frame without me having to use the joystick (Nikon can do this as well).

Wouldn't that just be enabling the mode that uses all 61 points?

+ servo, yes.

I think he means 'Intelligent Tracking and Recognition', or iTR, using the RGB metering sensor - which does this far more accurately and reliably, for certain shooting scenarios, than the 5D Mark III ever could. The metering sensor also enables 'face detection AF in viewfinder. Exposure/Ettl based on face alone' -- which PhotoCat wanted. And enables spot-metering linked to the AF point as well.

Canon DSLRs below the 1D X have been behind in all these regards compared to Nikon for many years now.

What'd be great about them putting this stuff into the 5D3 would be the marriage of iTR/'3D focus tracking' (what Nikon calls it) with Canon's stellar dual-cross-type technology, and extensive use of cross-type AF points.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20