Another sensor war of course!!By which you mean what?
But seriously I'm looking forward to seeing what sensor Canon puts in the next high(er) end camera.
Upvote
0
Another sensor war of course!!By which you mean what?
Another sensor war of course!!
But seriously I'm looking forward to seeing what sensor Canon puts in the next high(er) end camera.
Are you referring to Canon AF generally, or the EOS R / RP? Was standing on a beach yesterday with the EOS R and an adapted 70-300L, and the R couldn’t manage to lock onto a gliding seagull or flying cormorant against a blue sky even with the AF frame tracking right on the bird through a >120° arc of sky. I know from years of experience that my 1D X would have zero problems with this. IMO, DPAF has a ways to go before I’ll rely on it for basic BIF, much less tracking swallows or birds against a complex background.The extreme BIF folks claim that Canon lags behind in AF, which is inferior to Sony A9 and Nikon D850/500 for tracking fast flying birds against backgrounds. For my type of BIF and even flying dragonflies, Canon locks on very quickly. But, I have seen some remarkable shots from Sonys and Nikons for the extreme stuff.
My experiences with 1DX MkII and EOS-R have been the same, though completely different circumstances, I was shooting slower moving subjects in poor light. I have zero interest in Canon mirrorless for continuous AF situations until it at least matches the 1DX MkII.Are you referring to Canon AF generally, or the EOS R / RP? Was standing on a beach yesterday with the EOS R and an adapted 70-300L, and the R couldn’t manage to lock onto a gliding seagull or flying cormorant against a blue sky even with the AF frame tracking right on the bird through a >120° arc of sky. I know from years of experience that my 1D X would have zero problems with this. IMO, DPAF has a ways to go before I’ll rely on it for basic BIF, much less tracking swallows or birds against a complex background.
My experiences with 1DX MkII and EOS-R have been the same, though completely different circumstances, I was shooting slower moving subjects in poor light. I have zero interest in Canon mirrorless for continuous AF situations until it at least matches the 1DX MkII.
I know two pro tennis and golf photographers who have been doing the job at the highest level for decades. They sold 1DX MkII’s and 5D MkIV’s for A9’s and A7 somethings, they couldn’t be happier.Outside of the canon implementation, I know two people (I know, it’s anecdotal) who own both a Sony A9 and a Sony a99ii. Despite A9 having a tremendous advantage in terms of how quickly data comes off the sensor, both maintain that for quick subject acquisition in difficult situations, the older a99ii is more reliable, likely due to its off-image-sensor PDAF. They also maintain that for subject tracking, once acquired, A9 is more reliable. So, at least in one lawn, there is not uniformly green grass.
I know two pro tennis and golf photographers who have been doing the job at the highest level for decades. They sold 1DX MkII’s and 5D MkIV’s for A9’s and A7 somethings, they couldn’t be happier.
Canon DSLRs, the 1, 5 and 7Ds in particular.Are you referring to Canon AF generally, or the EOS R / RP? Was standing on a beach yesterday with the EOS R and an adapted 70-300L, and the R couldn’t manage to lock onto a gliding seagull or flying cormorant against a blue sky even with the AF frame tracking right on the bird through a >120° arc of sky. I know from years of experience that my 1D X would have zero problems with this. IMO, DPAF has a ways to go before I’ll rely on it for basic BIF, much less tracking swallows or birds against a complex background.
Can you then answer why Olympus, Sony and Nikon have AFMA for phase detect AF and there are reports of it being necessary fo a Nikon? That’s not a rhetorical question.I do not believe this can be accurate as focus is achieved at the sensor plane. AFMA is an adjustment that offsets the calibrated settings of a lens to correct for the mis-alignment of the PD array that is in the body of the camera and not at the focal plane.
The very definition of focus at the sensor plane means no inaccuracy can be introduced as the focus error would be instantly detected and adjusted for.
None of my ML cameras have AFMA and they are frantically sharper with better AF accuracy than any of my Canon DSLRs.
The R does not even have that ability.
As for hunting, that is not an AFMA issue but an AF issue that bedevils AF of every stripe.
I don’t know about Olympus and Nikon, but for Sony mirrorless cameras it’s intended for use with the a-mount adapters which have mirrors.Can you then answer why Olympus, Sony and Nikon have AFMA for phase detect AF and there are reports of it being necessary fo a Nikon? That’s not a rhetorical question.
Oops, isn't it that you only benefit from the ND adapter if you're adapting EF glass to the camera (typo??) That ND is why I bought the R.
Jack
I know two pro tennis and golf photographers who have been doing the job at the highest level for decades. They sold 1DX MkII’s and 5D MkIV’s for A9’s and A7 somethings, they couldn’t be happier.
That last article points out that Sony A7 and Olympus have AFMA for use with the MC11 and Metabones adapters and also for correcting errors in lenses.
Sony didn’t go out of its way to help sigma and metabones users. As stated above and cited from Sony documentation, it’s for their a-Mount adapters which have mirrors and built-in PDAF.
I do wish people would stop saying that. Half of tennis is indoors without the benefit of TV lighting and as for golf, it isn’t only played in Florida!Golfers and tennis players are fairly easy AF targets, especially as they usually occur under good / high-contrast light. Once the camera acquires focus there's not a lot to disrupt other than movement.
And does Olympus have an equivalent adapter that has mirrors and built in PDAF?Sony didn’t go out of its way to help sigma and metabones users. As stated above and cited from Sony documentation, it’s for their a-Mount adapters which have mirrors and built-in PDAF.
And does Olympus have an equivalent adapter that has mirrors and built in PDAF?
I've gone to always shooting primes in the mid-90s, to trinity around 2001, but since 2010 or sometime I've switched to 24-105/4IS and stayed there. The first-gen EF was good but a little soft. The RF is as sharp as it needs to be, though, in my opinion.
I really don't think the 24-70/2.8IS is a must-have for a pro any more. You've got the f/4IS prime on one side, then on the other the 28-70/2 and the f/1.2 primes.
What this means is that on the tele end the 70-200/2.8 is also kind of dead. A 100-300/4ISL or even 100-400/5.6ISL would be the same size, more or less, and get the same kind of bokeh at the long end.
Finally on the wide end a 12-24/4IS would be the logical next move.
In short a new trinity is foreseeable that instead of 17-200 at f/2.8, now it covers more like 12-400 at f/4.
One final note is that with f/2.8 trinities there's not quite as much interest for big fast primes, but with an f/4 trinity suddenly the f/1.2, f/1.4, and even f/1.8 and f/2.0 glass could excite a legitimate interest.
What we really need more than anything is 35/2 and 50/1.8 that stick out no further than the grip, so we can have our R's in our backpack at all times. And with f/4 trinity you could see quite a number sold to even the reporters who today have no interest in f/1.8 given that their limited-range trinity is f/2.8.