Aging eyes with the 5D Mark iii and Canon EOS R/RP questions

[AdamLast]

Hello, 1st post here, hope this is the right forum for this type of query. I have been shooting with a 5D Mark iii since being an early adopter.

I shoot landscape and macro. In the past few years my eyesight has gotten much worse. I typically shoot on tripod, mirror up, Av or M, iso 100-400, 10x magnification in Live View.

I am no longer able to properly AFMA any of my lenses due to my close focus (even with glasses) vs distance issues. However using manual focus in Live View has always worked regardless of this and a good diopter adjustment has helped with the OVF and using AF. AF through the VF isn't a problem outside the AFMA back/front issues various lenses have. Most are L and pretty spot on but my 24-105 Mk2 needs work.

My shots are no longer in focus using that technique, they seem to be fine looking at the LCD but are very blurry when looked at in LR. This is using same technique and gear/software which yielded perfect results a couple years back. As for AF, it isn't reliable for Macro not helpful for long range shots such as sunsets without a 1/3 foreground to focus upon. I hope this makes sense.

My question(s) is would a current Canon mirrorless body such as the RP or R be a step towards helping me in regards to no need for AFMA, better magnification and focus peaking? I may not be able to help all my issues with a purchase but wanted to ask those in the know if I couod be significantly helped and how much of an upgrade the R and RP are to the 5D Mark iii. Or are these lateral body move purchases and the only help I would get is AFMA?

Thank you in advance, I look forward to reading your responses.

Adam

 

[mpeeps]

Hello, 1st post here, hope this is the right forum for this type of query. I have been shooting with a 5D Mark iii since being an early adopter.

I shoot landscape and macro. In the past few years my eyesight has gotten much worse. I typically shoot on tripod, mirror up, Av or M, iso 100-400, 10x magnification in Live View.

I am no longer able to properly AFMA any of my lenses due to my close focus (even with glasses) vs distance issues. However using manual focus in Live View has always worked regardless of this and a good diopter adjustment has helped with the OVF and using AF. AF through the VF isn't a problem outside the AFMA back/front issues various lenses have. Most are L and pretty spot on but my 24-105 Mk2 needs work.

My shots are no longer in focus using that technique, they seem to be fine looking at the LCD but are very blurry when looked at in LR. This is using same technique and gear/software which yielded perfect results a couple years back. As for AF, it isn't reliable for Macro not helpful for long range shots such as sunsets without a 1/3 foreground to focus upon. I hope this makes sense.

My question(s) is would a current Canon mirrorless body such as the RP or R be a step towards helping me in regards to no need for AFMA, better magnification and focus peaking? I may not be able to help all my issues with a purchase but wanted to ask those in the know if I couod be significantly helped and how much of an upgrade the R and RP are to the 5D Mark iii. Or are these lateral body move purchases and the onoy help I would get is AFMA?

Thank you in advance, I look forward to reading your responses.

Adam

 

[mpeeps]

I feel the same way as you AdamLast! Getting old isn't for sissies. I also agree that the R has helped me with focus and as you say, there are no AFMA issues. The flippable screen also helps as does the manual focus assist, which is very accurate.

 

[AlanF]

If AFMA is your major problem, it would be perhaps cheapest to buy the Reikan Focal program for AFMA - it does the optimization of AF for you as long as your eyes are good enough to read the Canon menus to dial in the AFMA values.

 

[AdamLast]

If AFMA is your major problem, it would be perhaps cheapest to buy the Reikan Focal program for AFMA - it does the optimization of AF for you as long as your eyes are good enough to read the Canon menus to dial in the AFMA values.

Thank you for your reply.

Perhaps I should have added that as the years and shutter actuations go by I will be changing bodies at some point regardless. I believe I am ~175-200,000 shots.

Is it true that for the 5D Mark iii model the full automatic version is not available and you must use semi-automatic? Years ago I subscribed to Focal and never used it properly due to the partial implementation for my camera model. Maybe things have changed, I'll look into it. Thanks again.

 

[AlanF]

Thank you for your reply.

Perhaps I should have added that as the years and shutter actuations go by I will be changing bodies at some point regardless. I believe I am ~175-200,000 shots.

Is it true that for the 5D Mark iii model the full automatic version is not available and you must use semi-automatic? Years ago I subscribed to Focal and never used it properly due to the partial implementation for my camera model. Maybe things have changed, I'll look into it. Thanks again.

It works only in the semi-automatic mode for all my Canon bodies, but it's not a real effort to use. I now tend to use the fully manual mode, which is quicker. You take 2 or 3 jpegs of the target at AFMAs -20 to +20 in steps of 5 units, download to your computer, open Focal and read them in. I use the target that has just blocks of black and white rectangles.

 

[AdamLast]

I just redownloaded Focal and will attempt it according to their instructions yet this is only part of my issue. Has anyone else moved from the Mark iii to an R/RP who has poor eyesight and had good success? Especially when manually focusing?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have both a 5D MK IV and a EOS R. I also have poor vision. The EOS R does not need AFMA. It is possible to get slightly more accurate focusing manually (If you have good vision), but its quite accurate in almost all cases.

I'd say update to a R or RP and it will resolve AF issues, even with macro shots. Of course, there are other issues that mirrorless has not solved, but mostly they are minor. Touch to focus is a example, it works well, but a unnoticed accidental finger or thumb touching the LCD results in focusing on the wrong place.

 

[Bennymiata]

I have a 5d3 and recently bought an R.
I am over 60 and also have some eye problems, especially with the eye I use to focus.
I have found the focussing of the R to be really excellent and it works very well with lenses that I had trouble doing the AMFA. A lens I bought a couple of years ago just wouldn't AFMA on the 5d3 and so I didn't use it. I put it on the R and it
now works beautifully.
For macro, the R has a constant focus setting which is great for macro. As you shake forwards and backwards, the R keeps focus all the time. I have some very small flowers in my backyard (about 5mm in diameter) and always had problems photographing them with the 5d3, but with the R every photo is tack sharp.
I would highly reccomend you get the R. You'll be really happy you did. It is a good step up from a 5d3.

 

[AdamLast]

I have a 5d3 and recently bought an R.
I am over 60 and also have some eye problems, especially with the eye I use to focus.
I have found the focussing of the R to be really excellent and it works very well with lenses that I had trouble doing the AMFA. A lens I bought a couple of years ago just wouldn't AFMA on the 5d3 and so I didn't use it. I put it on the R and it
now works beautifully.
For macro, the R has a constant focus setting which is great for macro. As you shake forwards and backwards, the R keeps focus all the time. I have some very small flowers in my backyard (about 5mm in diameter) and always had problems photographing them with the 5d3, but with the R every photo is tack sharp.
I would highly reccomend you get the R. You'll be really happy you did. It is a good step up from a 5d3.

Thank you Benny!

 

[Arty]

Hello, 1st post here, hope this is the right forum for this type of query. I have been shooting with a 5D Mark iii since being an early adopter.

I shoot landscape and macro. In the past few years my eyesight has gotten much worse. I typically shoot on tripod, mirror up, Av or M, iso 100-400, 10x magnification in Live View.

I am no longer able to properly AFMA any of my lenses due to my close focus (even with glasses) vs distance issues. However using manual focus in Live View has always worked regardless of this and a good diopter adjustment has helped with the OVF and using AF. AF through the VF isn't a problem outside the AFMA back/front issues various lenses have. Most are L and pretty spot on but my 24-105 Mk2 needs work.

My shots are no longer in focus using that technique, they seem to be fine looking at the LCD but are very blurry when looked at in LR. This is using same technique and gear/software which yielded perfect results a couple years back. As for AF, it isn't reliable for Macro not helpful for long range shots such as sunsets without a 1/3 foreground to focus upon. I hope this makes sense.

My question(s) is would a current Canon mirrorless body such as the RP or R be a step towards helping me in regards to no need for AFMA, better magnification and focus peaking? I may not be able to help all my issues with a purchase but wanted to ask those in the know if I couod be significantly helped and how much of an upgrade the R and RP are to the 5D Mark iii. Or are these lateral body move purchases and the only help I would get is AFMA?

Thank you in advance, I look forward to reading your responses.

Adam

I recommend getting an examination from a good ophthalmologist. There is no reason that age, per se, should lead to poor vision. Some things can’t be fixed, but some can. I am over 70 and have had cataract surgery and I get eye injections for wet AMD. My vision is 20/20. There are eye disorders that are very difficult to treat, like some retinal diseases. Only a qualified eye doctor can tell you why your vision has degraded and whether there is a safe, effective treatment.. Age alone is not an explanation, unless age has caused a hole in the retina.

 

[AdamLast]

I recommend getting an examination from a good ophthalmologist. There is no reason that age, per se, should lead to poor vision. Some things can’t be fixed, but some can. I am over 70 and have had cataract surgery and I get eye injections for wet AMD. My vision is 20/20. There are eye disorders that are very difficult to treat, like some retinal diseases. Only a qualified eye doctor can tell you why your vision has degraded and whether there is a safe, effective treatment.. Age alone is not an explanation, unless age has caused a hole in the retina.

I appreciate the advice. I do have an auto immune retinal disorder, AMPPEE. It is untreatable and combined with near sightedness and astigmatism, it is a bit of a mess. I was actually blind in one eye and partially for a matter of months when I was in my early 30's. So, I have been seem many times by a fantastic group of eye doctors, world class in fact at the Moran Eye Center. Age does in fact lead to poor vision, sorry to correct you but presbyopia is very common in folks over 40 for instance. Have a good day.

 

[YuengLinger]

First question: Have you considered your 5DIII's AF sensor might be dirty? If it isn't, what follows might be relevant.

I think any focus problem with the 5DIII might be due as much to the camera as anything else. I really enjoyed my 5DIII as my first FF camera. It did focus as well or better than my 60D at the time, and I attributed missed shots to my technique.

However, once I upgraded to the 5DIV, it was apparent that some of the missed focus was due to the 5DIII's limitations.

Now that I have the R, I'm astounded by what can be done with AF. The 5DIV is still good, in fact better for action, but for portraits, for precise AF even at f/1.2, the R has not let me down once in four months of daily use. Beyond all expectations.

Now I'm getting up there myself, but in our camera club we have many members over 70 years old. They have been switching to Olympus for the smaller sized bodies and lenses, and for the IBIS. But none of them has complained about the EVF or AF on their new cameras.

All things considered, if of the R had effective IBIS, it would seem like a better all around package. On the other hand, if for those willing to use EF and RF lenses with IS, or just do without IS on primes, the R is a great camera. I'm right now working on some macro shots taken with the R + ef 100mm f/2.8L IS, and they are super sharp. I don't think the EF lenses lose anything with the Rf adapter, and in fact work better because of the better AF. (But some of the EF lenses don't balance well for me with the R.)

Good luck!

 

[LesC]

The EOS RP also has automatic focus bracketing/staking although I've not tried it myself yet so can't vouch for how good or otherwise it is...

 

[AdamLast]

Thanks everyone, but as stated in my original post, manual focus, the need for focus peaking and AFMA are my main points of concern. The 5D Mark iii works fine for my needs AF wise. Not amazing but a good job. So...

The really query is how much of an upgrade am I looking at or should I really hold out for something intangible which I am hoping Canon releases but may never will?

 

[koenkooi]

The EOS RP also has automatic focus bracketing/staking although I've not tried it myself yet so can't vouch for how good or otherwise it is...

Not actual stacking, you have to do that off-camera. The RP (and M6II) will only do the capturing part, the processing part is up to you.

 

[AdamLast]

First question: Have you considered your 5DIII's AF sensor might be dirty? If it isn't, what follows might be relevant.

I think any focus problem with the 5DIII might be due as much to the camera as anything else. I really enjoyed my 5DIII as my first FF camera. It did focus as well or better than my 60D at the time, and I attributed missed shots to my technique.

However, once I upgraded to the 5DIV, it was apparent that some of the missed focus was due to the 5DIII's limitations.

Now that I have the R, I'm astounded by what can be done with AF. The 5DIV is still good, in fact better for action, but for portraits, for precise AF even at f/1.2, the R has not let me down once in four months of daily use. Beyond all expectations.

Now I'm getting up there myself, but in our camera club we have many members over 70 years old. They have been switching to Olympus for the smaller sized bodies and lenses, and for the IBIS. But none of them has complained about the EVF or AF on their new cameras.

All things considered, if of the R had effective IBIS, it would seem like a better all around package. On the other hand, if for those willing to use EF and RF lenses with IS, or just do without IS on primes, the R is a great camera. I'm right now working on some macro shots taken with the R + ef 100mm f/2.8L IS, and they are super sharp. I don't think the EF lenses lose anything with the Rf adapter, and in fact work better because of the better AF. (But some of the EF lenses don't balance well for me with the R.)

Good luck!

Thank you for your response. I will perform a thorough sensor cleaning, firmware upgrade and apply all lens corrections via Canon Utility this week and do some tests.

 

[bluenoser1993]

I was a user of Focal to dial in lenses and it worked well for the most part, except for my 100-400 II. On both a 7DII and 5Ds I could not get it sharp at long range. Perhaps because I couldn't set up the targets nearly far enough away to simulate shooting 125 - 250m distance over water. While it isn't hard to find negative comments regarding the R's sports capabilities, putting the 100-400 on the R has gotten me the best pictures I've ever gotten of my kids in sprint canoe/kayak competition. Not needing AFMA, the R will always get me the best image possible for the given atmospheric conditions and distance. It ticks that box for your need for sure, as far as I'm concerned. I seldom use manual focus, sorry I can't comment on that. I've never had a good eye for determining the sharpest focus using the small screen, sold a tilt/shift for that reason.

 

[AlanF]

I was a user of Focal to dial in lenses and it worked well for the most part, except for my 100-400 II. On both a 7DII and 5Ds I could not get it sharp at long range. Perhaps because I couldn't set up the targets nearly far enough away to simulate shooting 125 - 250m distance over water. While it isn't hard to find negative comments regarding the R's sports capabilities, putting the 100-400 on the R has gotten me the best pictures I've ever gotten of my kids in sprint canoe/kayak competition. Not needing AFMA, the R will always get me the best image possible for the given atmospheric conditions and distance. It ticks that box for your need for sure, as far as I'm concerned. I seldom use manual focus, sorry I can't comment on that. I've never had a good eye for determining the sharpest focus using the small screen, sold a tilt/shift for that reason.

I am impressed if you get sharp photos at a distance of 125-250m as that is well beyond my shooting range. A 20cm bird at 250m would be only 50 px long with a 400mm lens on an R.

 

[bluenoser1993]

I am impressed if you get sharp photos at a distance of 125-250m as that is well beyond my shooting range. A 20cm bird at 250m would be only 50 px long with a 400mm lens on an R.

Sharp might be a relative term of course, but at least focus is were it should be. This shot of my son is probably from 100-125m @400mm and cropped to 5241 x 2861 (about 15MP). You can see from the buoy numbers that the focus plane is in the right place, something I struggled with on this lens on DSLRs. I may have reduced the file size too much to get it to upload to the site.