Canon 60D/7D

> OK. It still takes time to adjust
> the focus and take multiple shots.
> so I do not agree with the usefulness

For small adjustments, focus can be changed in milliseconds, and it can be done while the previous image is being transferred. Remember, this doesn’t use the AF sensor – it’s a fixed set of steps ahead of calculated (or set) focus, thru there, and past. Or vice-versa. The speed of the camera won’t be focus limited, it’ll be limited to the rate the camera can snap. So you’re definitely wrong here. It’ll be just as fast, and therefore just as useful, as H/drive is. You’re not going to argue that H/drive is useless, are you? (smile)

> furthermore, in those examples, if
> the camera had a good tracking AF
> (more points, with better tracking
> algorithm) there would be no problem

One problem comes because lenses often don’t match cameras and critical focus is often not possible with the AF feature, especially with wider apertures and narrower DOFs. Particularly true for fine macros and astro, both areas of ridiculously critical focus (micro-focus adjustment is another desired feature.) Another comes because sometimes you MISS tracking because the subject gets out of frame.

> also in your examples you are amazingly
> optimistic about the subject wandering
> into the bracketed focus

It’ll work in some situations, and not in others. Just like every other camera technique we know. You’ll have to plan an appropriate bracket and know what you’re doing, and then the world will have to co-operate. I’m not saying it’ll fix all these situations, just that it will help address them.

> about the astro example. you now have
> a 920,000 dot screen on the back of the
> camera. why would you waste many shots
> through which you would need to sort
> to find the correctly focused one when
> you could just do critical manual focus,
> and only have in focus shots?

Because in most astro situations, you can’t SEE the stars; what shows up in a four second exposure is NOT what shows up in the viewfinder during live view. For instance, if I point my Æ’/2.8 200mm at the sky, wide open AT Æ’/2.8, it can’t see stars at all (on the viewfinder.) I have to find a planet, AND, because of atmospheric wavering, it is STILL very difficult to achieve critical focus. This all also assumes I have a tripod built like a battleship, since I’ll need 10x view to even try. Focus bracketing would let me get the shot if I could get close. Or at least improve it! As far as sorting thru them goes, that’s not a problem, would take mere seconds. I have to do that now, because I have to make multiple tries at MF anyway. Nothing lost there.

> [Explain:]
>> But with focus bracketing, you get multiples,
>> *and* they can extend to get the other contestant
>> as well

If you’re using a narrow DOF, you might get the contestant nearer you, but not the one further away (or vice versa.) This is likely because narrow DOF = faster shots = wider aperture. Stopping martial arts takes *lots* of speed. If you were using focus bracketing, you could set the bracket wide enough to scan thru the area and shoot behind them, on the one in back, in between them, on the one in front, and in front them, too. This could catch you more action in more places, and also might catch them as they move (as a pair around the ring, also useful with wider DOF.) These would be as close in time as the camera’s shooting rate would allow, and give you various focal depths for the action.

If you’ve not tried to shoot dan-level martial arts, I can see how this might not make sense to you. As an instructor and a photographer, I can assure you it’d be useful. You can’t plan these kinds of shots — the action is too fast to plan for. DOFs required vary wildly. As it is, I use camera automation (H/drive) and a much wider DOF than I want to, which in turn limits the ability to stop action. Compounding the problem is that these things occur in gyms that tend to be poorly lit, and flashes aren’t a good idea.

I’m really late on getting onto this, currently researching Canon SLR’s and notice the huge gap in price from 50D [AU$1900 RRP] to the 5D [$4800].

There seems to be a need to slot something in between here; So here’s my ideas for the “60D” Development:

– 50D to replace 40D, and retain numbering as 50D then 50Di (ii,… etc) for future updates. Slight drop in pricing of the 50D, though more expensive than the 40D was.

This will leave 2-3 “Consumer DSLR” to choose from with the xxxD models;

– 60D to become a semi-pro line;

[I don’t like the 7D moniker for this line, though a jump to 70D would be OK]

– 1.3x Crop (YES, No EF-S lenses on this series) for a lower pixel/area ratio;

– Weather/Dust Sealing

– 15MP is sufficient at 6fps;

(Range to remain approx 5MP less than 5D models througout lifecycle)

– Perhaps do away with mirrored viewfinders and gain hi-res, 98-100% coverage EVF to keep the body size smaller than 5D. [And compete with Micro Four Thirds]

– HD Video will continue to be move into these cameras, Stereo Mics please, and full compatibility with “V-Series” lenses too

– Articulated HD Screens: I’m sure the cost difference of articulated vs fixed screens is negligible given the welcome protection it affords, and extra practicality, especially with videos

– Perhaps offer both SD and CF slots given this is between the consumer and pro lines

– Price at about 50% more than the current 50D Price [approx AU$2800]. Justifiable, given what ought to be much better image quality.

Other incremental upgrades (eg AF points) are a given, but I really don’t want to see any of the following:

– Flash, onboard flash’s are pretty redundant;

– Touch screen LCDs, save it for the iphones

– Onboard GPS/WiFi – but should be a much cheaper option than it is at the moment.

[Wifi should be added to 5D/1D as standard, given the very low cost to add in]