real-world autofocus on 5d2

[The Bad Duck]

Yes it is a white LED light as in those for camping trips. I have it on to get focus then turn it off. Or if I use strobes I might as well keep it on a low output and the strobes will overpower it nicely.

It´s not elegant and the models think I am crazy, but then again, perhaps I am...

[joshmurrah]

I'm late to the discussion, but having owned the 5D2 and 7D both, they are each better for different things. 

The 7D is WONDERFUL for Servo AI tracking, birds in flight, etc...

On the other hand, with the 5D2, you'll be pretty much using the center focus point for everything, and it's a better camera for stationary subjects IMO.

Either camera can do both types of things, but each in my mind, has its' strong points.

[cayenne]

Yes it is a white LED light as in those for camping trips. I have it on to get focus then turn it off. Or if I use strobes I might as well keep it on a low output and the strobes will overpower it nicely.

It´s not elegant and the models think I am crazy, but then again, perhaps I am...

Ahh..ok, I was picturing in my head, that you were somehow keeping the light on during the whole shot....maybe using the red to focus....etc.

LOL...thanks...I was just thinking if there was a headlamp you COULD wear to light things but not somehow affect the shot....



 

[cpsico]

The AF of 5D2 is old and is its single biggest weak point. It was bad at the time of introduction as well and I have missed a lot of shots because of that. The AF is also the biggest selling point for an upgrad to mkIII for me (I am using the 5D mkII).

But, with practise and skill I no longer miss too many shots.
The centre AF is great, the outer not so good, but if you know what type of contrast the AF-points are looking for you can use put them on that kind of part of your picture and they will work rather good.
You can also use a flash in the hot shoe to get infra red guiding light, or use the modeling light if you are doing wireless TTL. I actually keep a head lamp in my flash bag to use when light gets low; both to help with focus but also to keep the models pupils small.

Also, most times when I have missed focus I have been shooting at f/2 or greater; where DOF is small and so a slight movement of me or my subject results in a missed shot. This is disturbing in yet another way - in low light you usually go for those big apetures, and in low light things show less contrast, making it harder for the AF to nail focus.

Also, with small DOF, when focusing and recomposing you take a big risk since it takes time and you also do some movement. This in itself can result in shots out of focus.

So, does the 5D mkII (and classic) have outdated, obsolete AF? Yes.
Does that really matter? Sometimes, yes. But improved skill and a lot of practise will take you a long way. But you are going to miss shots as you practise.

You will have problems with the AF of the 5D II if you:
- Plan on shooting sport/wildlife
- Plan on doing a lot of  low light, short DOF, no flash (you can as you probably know have the flash to not fire, just help you focus)

In other cases, you should be fine. I am.

Live view is exceptional on the 5dII, there is no reason to pass based on shallow depth of field.

[7enderbender]

I never really understood all the complaints about the 5DII and wonder if some of this is rooted in its overwhelming success and its already historic status as one of the most important cameras of all time.

That being said: I don't like AF to begin with and avoided it as long as possible. I don't like what it means for lenses, I don't like what it means for viewfinders and I don't like how AF points are all pretty much around the center - on all models.

Notwithstanding, I personally find the AF on my 5dII to be pretty good in all modes and for all points and with all lenses I have.

[michi]

I have a 7D and a 5DII.  The 5DII center auto focus is just fine.  Never had any issues in real life.  I don't understand the negative hype either.  At the price it's now, I think the 5DII is a fantastic camera.

[wickidwombat]

Thanks for the info............right now I use focus and recompose all the time with the 50d, and have no complaints. I realize that the 5d2 and 3 are completely different, I guess I am mainly wondering if in going from 50d to 5d2 for the kind of use it will get makes sense,.........looking like it probably does...

your shooting style wont change then with the 5dmk2 then the center point is actually really good, basically treat it as if it has 1 AF point and its gold. also AI servo tracking is bad even with the center point i constantly switches between the subject and the background you can get sharp shots if you pick and time them as the subject comes into focus

[The Bad Duck]

Live view is exceptional on the 5dII, there is no reason to pass based on shallow depth of field.

You are right and Live view has saved quite a few shots. It is more usefull than I expected when I got the mkII. But most of the time live view is too slow and/or I have to look in the display making the camera less steady resulting in motion blur instead. A tripod is not a good idea on a dancefloor for instance.

[LightCrafterPhotography]

I have the Mark II and don't plan on selling it. I don't yet have the Mark III but will likely pick one up in the future.

I have no issues with the 5D Mark II's autofocus capability and isn't quite sure what all the complains regarding its AF are about. While I don't yet have the Mark III to make comparisons,  everything that I have read has unanimously agreed and praised its vastly improved AF system. It's a major selling point for many that have upgraded. However, my Mark II continues to deliver beautiful, crisp images for me. I use center point focusing with back focusing to recompose and the technique is simple and natural.

Blurred images I have seen are generally a result of my incorrect settings – too low an ISO setting in dimlight which is easily fixed by pushing up the ISO to get a faster shutter speed for handholding. I rarely get blurred images. Most would fall in user's error and not in the fault of the camera. In my opinion, unless you're a professional pushing the limits shooting fast action or extreme lowlight, the Mark II is plenty of camera that can handle most situations. I've seen amazing images shot with the Mark II and even from the Rebel line and equally have seen bad images shot with the Mark III or 1D-X. In the end, I think it's really the skills of the photographer and rarely the fault of the camera. Sure, having the Mark III, a 1D-X or even a D800 certainly helps, but I also think exercising better shooting/focusing techniques will also vastly improve the final results of an image using any camera.

I'm with you on this.