for those who snub the 6D AF...

[wellfedCanuck]

Wow, weeks of silence, then suddenly so much criticism... Thanks CarlTN for helping out.

To repeat- the original post was not intended as a scientific/pro analysis of the 6D AF. Just me- a hobbyist- pleasantly surprised that the camera could easily achieve something that my previous camera- a Rebel- could not. (Almost never, in fact.) Believe me, guys- these air-to-air shots are not so straight forward. So far the 6D has nailed it every time I've tried to take one of these shots.

Yes, the closure rate was about 900kts. You have to add the groundspeeds which include the headwind/tailwind components, not just the true airspeed. I was there, I saw the numbers for myself- I was in the flightdeck of another airplane going in the opposite direction one thousand feet below the aircraft in the photo. The two aircraft tracks were almost reciprocal- the divergent headings are mostly a result of the very strong jetstream that existed at the time the photo was taken.

The shot is cropped but is otherwise SOOC- no post.

Sheesh. Any more hairs you fellows wish to split?   

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

As for the 6D's ability to AF on close subjects moving at speed toward, away from, or some combination...relative to the camera...I have no real idea until I try one myself.  Obviously it won't match the 5D3, just as the 5D3 doesn't match the 1Dx.  One thing I do know, is that the 6D is worth trying.  Whether it is worth buying for me personally, will depend on how well I can get it to AF in low light with my lenses, and maybe if I don't like the silly little touch pad.  Also a big factor, is the price used 6D bodies will be selling for over the next several months.  It seems to me that so far, the 5D3 isn't depreciating very much on the used market, and it's been out nearly a year.  The larger price drop has been on new 5D3 bodies, rather than on used ones.  If there are several 6D's on the used market this summer, selling for around $1150 US, then in my opinion, the 5D3 new at around $2.6k to $2.8k, is by far the better buy.  You're losing less money (or at least a far lower percentage) when you sell, and getting a much better camera as well.  Now, for the original $3400 on a new 5D3?  To me, no...it just was not worth that price at all.  Certainly if it had been 7 or 8 fps and 26 MP with similar noise specs and even better overall speed...then $3400 would have been a bargain...but not as is.

This is an excellent point - and one that I have not seen previously raised before.  I love my new 6D, and am not so concerned about resale value at the moment, but your point is very valid.  I am somewhat disappointed that my 60D has seen a bigger drop in value than what my Rebel T1i did a few years ago (I have a buyer for my 60D right now).  I certainly hope that the 6D doesn't follow that path. 

I bought my 5DII used (as in 500 actuations used) and could sell it now without a huge hit in value after using it for a year (not that I am planning to do so).  That being said, it seems that the 5dII is the camera that is dropping in value right now, and I don't see a ton of people that are choosing a 5D2 and it's much older tech over the 6D.  I would personally gladly exchange my 5DII body for a second 6D in terms of use and function.  I don't really know what that means for resale value, as the 60D has been a big seller for Canon and is still getting heavily discounted right now.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I guess the biggest issue is whether or not Canon can sell the 6D at the roughly 2K mark.  If it continues to sell somewhere close to its current pricetag for a few years, I can see it holding value.

[J.R.]

Sheesh. Any more hairs you fellows wish to split?   

Not really. I'm a hobbyist too but you have to call a spade a spade and my ONLY grumble is with the AF.

I LOVE my 6D for what it CAN DO! but if you talk about AF ... I can't resist a rant!

[JerryKnight]

My sincerest apologies, wellfedCanuck, but this was all I could think about:

My favorite scene from the movie Top Gun	Small | Large

[CarlTN]

Thanks Dustin.  The cost of buying and owning things always weighs on my mind.

Jerry, aren't you glad I mentioned the movie?  Haha.  Does anyone know how many AF points the Kodak camera had? 

As for the 60D losing its value...well, I personally never liked the 60D.  It lacks important features of the camera it replaced, and has too many features of the Rebel class...so it's not difficult to see why it's losing more value on the used market.  Hopefully the 70D will address these issues, but I doubt it.  Marketing attitudes have changed at Canon, along with the lower cost to build FF sensors and bodies...as has been discussed many times. 

I hope to rent a 6D, and another supertelephoto lens over the next couple of months.  Can't decide between the new Sigma 120-300 (if it comes out at all), and the older 400 f/2.8L.  Prices to rent it have fallen dramatically, with the release of the new lens. 

I rented the 1D Mark IV last fall, and it was great.  But it actually couldn't AF in low light as well as my older XXD body (center point only, outdoors, 20 minutes after sunset, clear sky, same fast telephoto lens)...so that one aspect of its negative criticism, seems to be true.  However, I found the noise floor to be very usable up to ISO 8000, with correction in post.  The apparent dynamic range and color spectrum, also seemed excellent up to ISO 5000.  So those aspects of the widely held consensus of opinions I have read about, seem very wrong.  I realize many on here aren't fans of DXOMark's tests, and I can see why.  Something doesn't add up there.  I think they currently claim the dynamic range at ISO 100 is only like 9 EV???  That's just false. 

I found the AF grouping difficult to customize and use, but I really only spent a couple of hours with that.  The 1DX's AF obviously looks better, no doubt about that (and better than Nikon's)...but then everyone knows that I guess.  I do think it was a mistake to abandon the 1.3x crop sensor, though. 

What would be nice, is if Canon made a new crop sensor that is, let's say 1.47x...where it might still work in all crop lenses without vignetting...but allow more surface area for the sensor, than their current 1.6x, or the competition's 1.5x.  If the rear of the lenses has to be changed where there's a "Canon 1.6x version", and a "Canon 1.47x version", I don't see the cost of that being very much.

That is what the 7D2 should be...a 1.47x crop sensor, at 23 to 26 MP.  There, I have spoken, now Canon, make it so!

[7enderbender]

Wait, isn't that plane beyond infinity focus? I'm guessing you could get that in focus with a manual lens without looking through the viewfinder too!

That's what I thought. I'm sure the 6D has nice AF functionality, probably better than that f my 5DII. But who is really criticizing that? There are a bunch of other reasons why I wouldn't want one. AF is maybe a bit overrated in this day and age. I never really wanted it and stayed with the manual FD system over the EOS system. I only switched after digital couldn't be avoided any longer. Yes, for some things AF is good to have. For a lot of other stuff I actually miss the solid feel of manual focus lenses and the big bright viewfinders of yesteryears.

Making pictures of planes can be done fairly easily with my 500mm manual focus FD lens...

[michi]

There is so much hair splitting here.  I don't get it, the shot is absolutely not in focus.  It looks like its not to blame on the camera, but the aircraft window it was shot out of.  I have shot gazillions of pictures out of aircraft windows, that's usually what you get when you hold the camera at an angle to the aircraft window and near the edge of it.  I'm not sure why the original poster tried to prove camera auto focus accuracy with it (don't care what camera it was taken with), or why others are arguing for or against.  This picture proves nothing regarding camera auto focus...

(Neat shot though!)

[JerryKnight]

Jerry, aren't you glad I mentioned the movie?  Haha.  Does anyone know how many AF points the Kodak camera had? 

Sorry, Carl, I didn't read your first post deep enough to catch the reference.

I think those types of cameras had fixed hyperfocal lenses.

[CarlTN]

No problem Jerry, I notice there's a lot of attention on the first couple of lines, and not much else.  I guess nobody has time to really read anything anymore, in this age of smartphones and twitter, haha...yet they're still ready to weigh in.

Ok, I'll try to be more brief and more glib, and try to spout brief shallow points more often, so I will fit into this crowd a bit better.

I disagree that it "proves nothing about the camera's AF ability", or that the picture is "absolutely not in focus".  To restate my previous points:  It's a crop.  It's through glass.  It is ALSO in focus.  It wasn't optimized for sharpness post capture.  It's not splitting hairs, any more than this entire forum splits hairs, which it does daily.

There's no such thing as "beyond infinity focus", other than the lens going past it relative to the body it's on.  The distance to the plane is probably 3/4 of a mile, which is closer than "infinity focus"...but the 24-105 likely won't make that distinction on a full frame camera.  A 70-200 certainly does, on a crop camera.  It works better with the window open, so maybe next time he'll open the front windshield of the airliner at 450 knots.     

[zim]

There is so much hair splitting here.  I don't get it, the shot is absolutely not in focus.  It looks like its not to blame on the camera, but the aircraft window it was shot out of.  I have shot gazillions of pictures out of aircraft windows, that's usually what you get when you hold the camera at an angle to the aircraft window and near the edge of it.  I'm not sure why the original poster tried to prove camera auto focus accuracy with it (don't care what camera it was taken with), or why others are arguing for or against.  This picture proves nothing regarding camera auto focus...

(Neat shot though!)

oh boy that is so +1

[wellfedCanuck]

Making pictures of planes can be done fairly easily with my 500mm manual focus FD lens...

You've tried this in a small flightdeck going 440 kts while trying to focus on another airplane going the opposite direction at roughly the same speed? 

[wellfedCanuck]

My sincerest apologies, wellfedCanuck, but this was all I could think about:

Thanks, we had just a little more separation than that. 

[michi]

No problem Jerry, I notice there's a lot of attention on the first couple of lines, and not much else.  I guess nobody has time to really read anything anymore, in this age of smartphones and twitter, haha...yet they're still ready to weigh in.

Ok, I'll try to be more brief and more glib, and try to spout brief shallow points more often, so I will fit into this crowd a bit better.

I disagree that it "proves nothing about the camera's AF ability", or that the picture is "absolutely not in focus".  To restate my previous points:  It's a crop.  It's through glass.  It is ALSO in focus.  It wasn't optimized for sharpness post capture.  It's not splitting hairs, any more than this entire forum splits hairs, which it does daily.

There's no such thing as "beyond infinity focus", other than the lens going past it relative to the body it's on.  The distance to the plane is probably 3/4 of a mile, which is closer than "infinity focus"...but the 24-105 likely won't make that distinction on a full frame camera.  A 70-200 certainly does, on a crop camera.  It works better with the window open, so maybe next time he'll open the front windshield of the airliner at 450 knots. 

Belittling us doesn't help your cause.  You can't prove that the plane is in focus because it's blurred by the aircraft window you shot through.  Why even go further than that?
If you wanted to prove how well a specific camera's auto-focus works, it would help to present a tack sharp photo of a fast moving object, we could then discuss that and might even read your other comments for which we have so little time on our mobile devices.  But seeing you started the thread with a somewhat blurred, cropped etc... shot, it's just pointless.

[CarlTN]

No problem Jerry, I notice there's a lot of attention on the first couple of lines, and not much else.  I guess nobody has time to really read anything anymore, in this age of smartphones and twitter, haha...yet they're still ready to weigh in.

Ok, I'll try to be more brief and more glib, and try to spout brief shallow points more often, so I will fit into this crowd a bit better.

I disagree that it "proves nothing about the camera's AF ability", or that the picture is "absolutely not in focus".  To restate my previous points:  It's a crop.  It's through glass.  It is ALSO in focus.  It wasn't optimized for sharpness post capture.  It's not splitting hairs, any more than this entire forum splits hairs, which it does daily.

There's no such thing as "beyond infinity focus", other than the lens going past it relative to the body it's on.  The distance to the plane is probably 3/4 of a mile, which is closer than "infinity focus"...but the 24-105 likely won't make that distinction on a full frame camera.  A 70-200 certainly does, on a crop camera.  It works better with the window open, so maybe next time he'll open the front windshield of the airliner at 450 knots. 

Belittling us doesn't help your cause.  You can't prove that the plane is in focus because it's blurred by the aircraft window you shot through.  Why even go further than that?
If you wanted to prove how well a specific camera's auto-focus works, it would help to present a tack sharp photo of a fast moving object, we could then discuss that and might even read your other comments for which we have so little time on our mobile devices.  But seeing you started the thread with a somewhat blurred, cropped etc... shot, it's just pointless.

Not belittling anyone, just trying to write in a way that is understood by those who apparently don't want to read anything in detail.  I did not start the thread.  The few shots I have done, "air to air", were even less sharp than this one (of course the planes were smaller, the altitude lower, the distance much greater, the degree of crop also much greater.)  I challenge anyone to attempt to reproduce this shot with the same equipment, and the same amount of cropping, and see how "tack sharp" it is.  Btw, are you an expert at applying sharpening in post?  I don't know if I am, but I've edited a few thousand images so far.  I know I could do something with this shot...so I'll try it later (on a laptop now...alas, my smartphone is being retrofitted with a 200-500mm f/2.8 today).  If you feel the thread to be pointless, I suggest you don't read it or comment in it.