I especially keep all my boxes.
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.
Why is someone whose portfolio is full of glorified snapshots so concerned about his equipment?
Did you just call all my photography glorified snapshots? I like to think I'm at least a step above that. I don't consider my work to be the best, but neither do I consider it to be the worst...
Sheesh...I really don't understand this community anymore.
TLDR;I think your mesuabating to the point where your blaming gear for your shortcomings. Even if the Nikon is better at tracking, of what good is it if real photographers like jrista or the myriad of others here are already getting the results with the superb 61pt system in the situations you described. That just shows you don't know how to get the frames you want.
No, it means that a system without scene recognition for AF doesn't allow me to get the shots I want for some of my photography. Are you suggesting that 'real photographers like jrista or the myriad of others' represent the entire sample pool of photographers & potential types of photography in the entire world? It really takes some perverse logic to think you understand the needs of every photographer out there so well that you can say 'even if Nikon's AF tracking is better... it doesn't matter.'
Doesn't matter? So the entire focus problem has been completely solved in the industry? Everyone is able to get 100% hit-rate with any prime at f/1.4 under any circumstance?
And - measurebating? Really there's no winning with you. When we're talking about numbers and equations, we're measurebating. When we're talking about real world experience with fast primes and ability of the camera to keep up as a subject moves around erratically, we're still measurebating! I'm saying that a scene recognition system is so good at tracking a subject accurately in 3 dimensions that after you've used it, you just cannot say the 5D III is good at it. Yes it can do it, but it gets confused very easily. And if you just took a minute to think about how the 5DIII is doing it, vs. how the 1D X and 7D II and Nikons are doing it, you wouldn't be at all surprised either. Go back to my thought experiment I posed to jrista in one of my responses, and see if you can understand why an image sensor is much better at tracking than the algorithm the 5D III uses. For your convenience, I've posted it at the end of this post.**
Btw, here's the new Samsung NX1 doing it, with PDAF sensors all over the sensor:
But I suppose that's useless, since the 5DIII is obviously good enough for jrista & a myriad others and therefore every photographer in the entire world.
By the way, did you know that most current Nikon DSLR can focus on faces outside of Live View* (using traditional PDAF and OVF viewing)? Down to the D5200, I believe. And any Sony SLT, of course? Meanwhile, up until the release of the 7D II, only the 1D X could. Because it was the only camera with a separate color sensor for scene analysis. If your face happened to be the closest subject, sure a 5D III would focus on it in 'auto AF area' mode. Have a flower, or any other subject in front of the face, and the 5DIII focuses on that instead. Switch to a 1D X with iTR, and it'll focus on the closest (or biggest, I'm not sure) face, and track it as well. Not a big deal for me, but great when I hand off the camera to a family member to take a photo.
So now with the introduction of the 7D Mark II, do you think the inclusion of iTR with the RGB metering sensor is just a bunch of marketing hype? A 'me too' feature? Or do you think perhaps Canon is including it now b/c its actually of some utility?
Because, at the crux of it, you're essentially arguing that iTR is completely useless. And I completely, radically disagree.Now if you want to complain about something legitimate, then point out the lack of AF point metering because that really does suck at times but saying the 5D3s AF is bad at tracking means that you didn't RTFM.
I did point that out. Almost every Nikon camera, down to the D5200, has spot-metering linked to the AF point. Because that's yet another thing the RGB metering sensor enables.
Just b/c you don't think the metering sensor 'seeing the scene' and providing face-detection & subject tracking isn't useful, doesn't mean it's not, or that I didn't RTFM.
What's your point of repeating the phrase 'RTFM' other than to incite me? Do you think that phrase is conducive to intelligent discussion?and yes, the nikkor G primes still AF like a slug and that alone shifts AF speed to canons for weddings. (And I've shot a lot of them only with primes.)
Demonstrably false, and yet another blanket, unsubstantiatad statement. The Nikkor 24/1.4 keeps up no better than the 24/1.4 on a 5DIII in terms of speed of Z-axis tracking in my limited testing of them side by side. Perhaps a very controlled scientific study might demonstrate otherwise, but like a slug? I don't think so.
The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is even better (and meanwhile retains full 3D focus tracking ability, since it reports distance information).
And why don't we talk about 85mm primes now, a workhorse for weddings? The Canon 85/1.2 is so slow to focus that I've missed many shots, finally opting to go with a 85/1.8, only to find its focus precision was quite poor. The Nikkor 85mm primes, OTOH, are great in terms of focus speed. Why would you leave that out of your 'Canon primes are faster for weddings' blanket statement?
Not to mention the 85mm f/1.2's enormous CA on the sides such that it doesn't sharpen up until somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4:
Here's the Canon 85/1.2 vs Nikkor primes wide open:
Here's the 85/1.2 at f/2.8, where it's still not as sharp/uniform as the Nikon 85 primes at f/2 and f/1.8, respectively.
If you want to talk about advantages of the 5D Mark III focus system, talk about its cross-type points all over the frame, and its wider baseline diagonal points in the center of the frame.
*But to be fair, it's doubtful the D5200-D7100, with their 2,016-pixel RGB sensors, do it anywhere near as well the more pro-level bodies with their 91,000-pixel sensors. The higher the resolution of the metering sensor, the better. Then again, I was surprised even the 2,016-pixel metering sensor in the D7000 could aid subject tracking well, but it does a reasonably good job. Certainly much better than my 5D Mark III.
**Here's an example of how the 5D Mark III focus system works. Let's say the center point of the AF system detects a subject 10ft away, then you recompose, then the camera notices a subject 10ft away is now over the left-most AF point, and meanwhile there's now nothing at 10ft away at the center point. Therefore, the camera decides your subject has moved (or you've recomposed such that the subject is now at) the left-most AF point. But what if your subject moved to 9ft away during this time as well? Well, with some clever algorithms you could analyze all the focus points and see if there was some progression of a subject like this (I've assigned letters to specific focus points for ease of discussion):
- Subject in center point (C) 10ft away
- Center point C no longer detects anything at 10ft, but the point just to its right (D) has a subject at 9.8ft
- Point D no longer detects a subject at 9.8ft, but the point to its right (E) detects a subject at 9.5ft.
- Point E no longer detects a subject at 9.5ft, but a point 6 points to the left (F) now detects a subject at 9.2ft.
... and so on and so forth.
Are you starting to see how incredibly complex this can get, and how prone to failure this might be if the subject is moving like this in 3-axes and/or the movement is convoluted with you recomposing? Or another subject entering the frame at a similar depth?
Are you starting to see how using an image sensor (Sony SLT, or all mirrorless ILCs really), or a color sensor with some finite resolution to recognize color patterns (enough to detect a face, which we know RGB sensors can do given their face-detection ability) that communicates with the PDAF sensor might have the potential to perform significantly better?
Incidentally, many types of bird photography are unlikely to stress this type of system much, since you typically have one subject at a very distinctly different depth from everything else (the background or sky). And when the bird moves, its typically going to move along the depth-axis with measurable acceleration or deceleration - which allows the predictive AF to work quite well (and I've already said Canon does this very well). Also, keep in mind the DOF for extreme telephoto lenses at large subject distances. For example, 300mm at f/4 for a subject 30m away has a DOF of 2.3m, giving the AF system more room for error compared to a subject 1m away shot with a 35/1.4 where the DOF is 6.4cm (and where it's very, very easy for the subject to fall out of that DOF or for the photographer to move more than 6cm).
I'd also agree that is my most awaited prime.I didn't notice the Sigma 135 f/1.8 OS Art mentioned.Is such lens announced? Just rumors AFAIK...
True. Supposedly, the 24 and the 85 Art will come first and I have no doubt they will be excellent, but it's the 135 that I find most exciting from a creative point of view. It's as close to the EF 200 f/2 as I'll ever get.
I wonder what that switch around the joystick is supposed to do... But I am very pleased with the button layout, looks great, just like the 5DIII. The wheel looks a bit funny though with these direction markings, but I don't care about that. I don't know if we had this before, will it use the same battery as the old 7D?My hunch is a way to switch between different AF point modes. Single point, expansion, full 65 pt AF...