Canon EOS-1D X Mark II to Feature More Than 61 AF Points [CR2]

[rbielefeld]

And that's one small fast bird!

AF slow on the 1DX...lol whatever...lol.

Let's be seeing all these nice AF points in the dark!

I completely agree about the need for them to be lit so they can be seen in the dark. Being lit also helps a lot during good light when tracking fast subjects. I would be surprised if Canon does not provide at least an option to have the AF points lit.

 

[TeT]

Too often, a body comes out with more focus points but not more sensitive or accurate focus points. Sony and Fuji have AF points across the entire frame and they're very accurate, but they're all still so slow there's no advantage over manual focus. Nikon and Canon have been adding more and more focus points with every new model, but they're still no more accurate than they were ten years ago so you can never rely on the AF system entirely, unelss you have absolutely no other choice and have to trust to blind luck out of necessity.

It's a bizarre world where the fastest and most accurate focusing I've experienced is still the old 1Ds mkII (and the other bodies from that line) with the unassuming, cheap 100mm f/2. Even then, using anything other than the few cross-type centre points is asking for trouble. I thought the 1DX was going to finally solve my AF woes and let me be free of manual focusing for good, but nope, no dice, it may have more points but it's no more accurate and, if anything, very slightly slower.

1D X mkII bumps up the point count? Fine, if they can also bump up the sensitivity, speed and accuracy of at least the centre points. More points at the exact same performance they have now? May as well not bother, save some money.

Really, surely you jest...

 

[StudentOfLight]

well it's about time for canon to marry DPAF and PDAF on the 1 series cameras for perfectly accurate AF regardless of lens calibration.

Canon's got a fair amount of patents regarding using both methods together.

It sounds like a good idea to combine AF technology (PDAF for gross movement and DPAF for final adjustment) but how would it actually work? Would it only apply to single shot? I think any increase in OVF blackout time and lag would be highly undesirable as well as any negative impact on burst rate. Would you need higher speed sensor readout or global shutter? Also if you are using flash how would it work?

It would be interesting to read deeper into the patent (perhaps you can share link?)

 

[bdunbar79]

Too often, a body comes out with more focus points but not more sensitive or accurate focus points. Sony and Fuji have AF points across the entire frame and they're very accurate, but they're all still so slow there's no advantage over manual focus. Nikon and Canon have been adding more and more focus points with every new model, but they're still no more accurate than they were ten years ago so you can never rely on the AF system entirely, unelss you have absolutely no other choice and have to trust to blind luck out of necessity.

It's a bizarre world where the fastest and most accurate focusing I've experienced is still the old 1Ds mkII (and the other bodies from that line) with the unassuming, cheap 100mm f/2. Even then, using anything other than the few cross-type centre points is asking for trouble. I thought the 1DX was going to finally solve my AF woes and let me be free of manual focusing for good, but nope, no dice, it may have more points but it's no more accurate and, if anything, very slightly slower.

1D X mkII bumps up the point count? Fine, if they can also bump up the sensitivity, speed and accuracy of at least the centre points. More points at the exact same performance they have now? May as well not bother, save some money.

I shoot professionally day in and day out with a pair of 1Dx's. My only guess is that you have no idea how to use the AF system in the 1Dx, otherwise you wouldn't make such a foolish post. Unless of course, you are just joking. Then it's pretty funny.

 

[tpatana]

They should implement laser pointer range detector, then it wouldn't matter if the mirror is up or down, pdaf and dpaf or such would be history. With SW control you could aim it anywhere on the pic, even long distances and it'd be more accurate than anything. Tell the SW to focus on person's eye, boom! Laser beam nails the eye.

 

[rs]

well it's about time for canon to marry DPAF and PDAF on the 1 series cameras for perfectly accurate AF regardless of lens calibration.

Canon's got a fair amount of patents regarding using both methods together.

It sounds like a good idea to combine AF technology (PDAF for gross movement and DPAF for final adjustment) but how would it actually work? Would it only apply to single shot? I think any increase in OVF blackout time and lag would be highly undesirable as well as any negative impact on burst rate. Would you need higher speed sensor readout or global shutter? Also if you are using flash how would it work?

It would be interesting to read deeper into the patent (perhaps you can share link?)

Auto AFMA is theoretically possible with either DPAF or potentially even a standard sensor.

The metadata within the CR2 file already contains information about which AF point was used for focus - if detailed phase information for each AF point at capture could be stored rather than just a yes or no, this could be compared to a summary of contrast at each focus point of the photo captured using CDAF techniques.

It would know depth of the scene at the AF points using this phase data, and that could be compared to where the highest contrast is on the captured focal plane (the photo) to auto adjust the AFMA. If there are enough points in a dense enough pattern, you could get coverage which could show points just in front and behind the intended focal plane. This could reveal more contrast at these +/- points, and provide feedback about how to adjust AFMA. It could potentially be used over time to calibrate each AF point automatically for each lens, and also be extended to fine tune servo modes to compensate for prediction inaccuracies required to bridge the time difference between the AF sensor losing light due to the start of mirror movement and the sensor capturing the image.

DPAF, if it is possible to get individual photodiodes recorded while taking the shot, would allow for detailed depth information from the AF sensor and image sensor to be directly compared and fine tuned with much faster feedback than CDAF techniques.

 

[Famateur]

They should implement laser pointer range detector, then it wouldn't matter if the mirror is up or down, pdaf and dpaf or such would be history. With SW control you could aim it anywhere on the pic, even long distances and it'd be more accurate than anything. Tell the SW to focus on person's eye, boom! Laser beam nails the eye.

...and blinds the model. Permanently.

I know, I know...not that kind of laser. Still, your last sentence gave a funny visual of a model screaming in pain. But at least you got the shot!

 

[Loswr]

They should implement laser pointer range detector, then it wouldn't matter if the mirror is up or down, pdaf and dpaf or such would be history. With SW control you could aim it anywhere on the pic, even long distances and it'd be more accurate than anything. Tell the SW to focus on person's eye, boom! Laser beam nails the eye.

Oooo, that would be great. Good for taking pictures of planes, too!

 

[applecider]

Rbielfeld...
Your kingfisher pics are wonderful. I've had a love hate relationship with my local kingfishers, they seem to get active about ten minutes after good light passes and don't like to come close to me.
If I can get a lock on this fast flying bird I get good results with the 1DX but with the 500 or 600 with extender getting a lock with center point at dusk is challenging, so kudos.
What setting are you using for the focusing and what point spread do u use?

Post more in animal kingdom pls

 

[Famateur]

well it's about time for canon to marry DPAF and PDAF on the 1 series cameras for perfectly accurate AF regardless of lens calibration.

Canon's got a fair amount of patents regarding using both methods together.

It sounds like a good idea to combine AF technology (PDAF for gross movement and DPAF for final adjustment) but how would it actually work? Would it only apply to single shot? I think any increase in OVF blackout time and lag would be highly undesirable as well as any negative impact on burst rate. Would you need higher speed sensor readout or global shutter? Also if you are using flash how would it work?

It would be interesting to read deeper into the patent (perhaps you can share link?)

Auto AFMA is theoretically possible with either DPAF or potentially even a standard sensor.

The metadata within the CR2 file already contains information about which AF point was used for focus - if detailed phase information for each AF point at capture could be stored rather than just a yes or no, this could be compared to a summary of contrast at each focus point of the photo captured using CDAF techniques.

It would know depth of the scene at the AF points using this phase data, and that could be compared to where the highest contrast is on the captured focal plane (the photo) to auto adjust the AFMA. If there are enough points in a dense enough pattern, you could get coverage which could show points just in front and behind the intended focal plane. This could reveal more contrast at these +/- points, and provide feedback about how to adjust AFMA. It could potentially be used over time to calibrate each AF point automatically for each lens, and also be extended to fine tune servo modes to compensate for prediction inaccuracies required to bridge the time difference between the AF sensor losing light due to the start of mirror movement and the sensor capturing the image.

DPAF, if it is possible to get individual photodiodes recorded while taking the shot, would allow for detailed depth information from the AF sensor and image sensor to be directly compared and fine tuned with much faster feedback than CDAF techniques.

If I understand what you're saying correctly, rather than DPAF being used to make an adjustment on-the-fly, it would be used to capture data that is used over time to fine-tune the AFMA. In other words, focus is achieved using traditional method plus AFMA offset, but the captured phase data would help the camera refine that offset for future shots. Is that what you're saying? Seems pretty cool to me. Shoot, I'd be happy if I could just do a FoCal-style calibration in-camera using DPAF. Having it "learn" over time with each focus point and lens would just be extra sweet icing on the cake.

 

[rs]

I'm missing a understanding of a benefit for so many AF points. Does anyone actually decide to set AF point number 122?

Tracking? A good metering system coupled with a good AF system has the potential to allow for a subject to be accurately tracked around the frame. The more dense the points, and the wider the spread, the more powerful the system can become at tracking, at the expense of easily being able to select the initial point to track from.

The main issue is selecting which point to lock on initially with. I think it would be nice if Canon could re-introduce eye control AF. The viewfinder could use a different colour or shape to indicate where the photographers eye is looking than what is used for AF tracking, and a button/rocker (7D II style?) could be used to make the system start tracking from where the photographer is looking. It could then be left to track that subject accurately while the photographer can scan around to line up other elements in the frame, view settings etc. Combine with one shot AF for landscapes, servo for action. Keep the button/rocker pressed and it continues to focus where the photographers eye is looking/scanning.

Think of touchscreen focusing, but instead using a viewfinder, your eye, and a button press/rocker switch instead of touching.

 

[rs]

well it's about time for canon to marry DPAF and PDAF on the 1 series cameras for perfectly accurate AF regardless of lens calibration.

Canon's got a fair amount of patents regarding using both methods together.

It sounds like a good idea to combine AF technology (PDAF for gross movement and DPAF for final adjustment) but how would it actually work? Would it only apply to single shot? I think any increase in OVF blackout time and lag would be highly undesirable as well as any negative impact on burst rate. Would you need higher speed sensor readout or global shutter? Also if you are using flash how would it work?

It would be interesting to read deeper into the patent (perhaps you can share link?)

Auto AFMA is theoretically possible with either DPAF or potentially even a standard sensor.

The metadata within the CR2 file already contains information about which AF point was used for focus - if detailed phase information for each AF point at capture could be stored rather than just a yes or no, this could be compared to a summary of contrast at each focus point of the photo captured using CDAF techniques.

It would know depth of the scene at the AF points using this phase data, and that could be compared to where the highest contrast is on the captured focal plane (the photo) to auto adjust the AFMA. If there are enough points in a dense enough pattern, you could get coverage which could show points just in front and behind the intended focal plane. This could reveal more contrast at these +/- points, and provide feedback about how to adjust AFMA. It could potentially be used over time to calibrate each AF point automatically for each lens, and also be extended to fine tune servo modes to compensate for prediction inaccuracies required to bridge the time difference between the AF sensor losing light due to the start of mirror movement and the sensor capturing the image.

DPAF, if it is possible to get individual photodiodes recorded while taking the shot, would allow for detailed depth information from the AF sensor and image sensor to be directly compared and fine tuned with much faster feedback than CDAF techniques.

If I understand what you're saying correctly, rather than DPAF being used to make an adjustment on-the-fly, it would be used to capture data that is used over time to fine-tune the AFMA. In other words, focus is achieved using traditional method plus AFMA offset, but the captured phase data would help the camera refine that offset for future shots. Is that what you're saying? Seems pretty cool to me. Shoot, I'd be happy if I could just do a FoCal-style calibration in-camera using DPAF. Having it "learn" over time with each focus point and lens would just be extra sweet icing on the cake.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking

 

[tpatana]

They should implement laser pointer range detector, then it wouldn't matter if the mirror is up or down, pdaf and dpaf or such would be history. With SW control you could aim it anywhere on the pic, even long distances and it'd be more accurate than anything. Tell the SW to focus on person's eye, boom! Laser beam nails the eye.

Oooo, that would be great. Good for taking pictures of planes, too!

And sports tournament. When the soccer goalie is just about to catch the game saving shot, you can make sure you get perfect focus on the goalie face.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm missing a understanding of a benefit for so many AF points. Does anyone actually decide to set AF point number 122?


How would you calibrate the points? Even now, AF points are often inaccurate, you can use FOCAL to test each one and its a long process even for a 5D MK III. It might take hours to test them all if there were 175.

Somewhat high density can make them helpful as expansion points. If you have a few, large points as on the 7D it's no good as a single point is too touchy but adding expansion points covers too large of an area, for instance.

 

[kaihp]

There's hope, the 5DSr AF is better than the 1DX, whether Canon will transfer that to the 5D4 and keep the next stuff to the 1DX II who knows. They will need to keep a defining difference.

I'm probably out of pro series bodies now, the weight was one thing but that flipping BLAT BLAT BLAT was a problem for my wedding work. Silent shutter that is really silent in the 1DX2? I'm buying.

My step-mom has been working on documenting the Royal Danish Academy of Music over the last 2 years and the 5D3's silent mode has been her lifesaver almost every day. It has allowed her to be the proverbial "fly on the wall" that the students and teachers don't notice as she shoots the rehearsals.

Recently, she was documenting an international Opera singing contest, and one of the judges pulled her aside and asked her not to take pictures during the performances so that the shutter sound would not distract the performers. With the silent shutter, it was a total non-issue much to the surprise of the judge.

 

[ahsanford]

There's hope, the 5DSr AF is better than the 1DX, whether Canon will transfer that to the 5D4 and keep the next stuff to the 1DX II who knows. They will need to keep a defining difference.

I'm probably out of pro series bodies now, the weight was one thing but that flipping BLAT BLAT BLAT was a problem for my wedding work. Silent shutter that is really silent in the 1DX2? I'm buying.

My step-mom has been working on documenting the Royal Danish Academy of Music over the last 2 years and the 5D3's silent mode has been her lifesaver almost every day. It has allowed her to be the proverbial "fly on the wall" that the students and teachers don't notice as she shoots the rehearsals.

Recently, she was documenting an international Opera singing contest, and one of the judges pulled her aside and asked her not to take pictures during the performances so that the shutter sound would not distract the performers. With the silent shutter, it was a total non-issue much to the surprise of the judge.

Surely, like the anti-flicker mode for indoor sports, a silent shutter feature is coming to the 1DX II. Is there any doubt of that?

My question is what else is coming from the 7D2 / 5D3 / 5DS lines to the 1DX?

The 7D2 nubby joystick thing? The 7D2 in-viewfinder level, perhaps?

- A

 

[tron]

They should implement laser pointer range detector, then it wouldn't matter if the mirror is up or down, pdaf and dpaf or such would be history. With SW control you could aim it anywhere on the pic, even long distances and it'd be more accurate than anything. Tell the SW to focus on person's eye, boom! Laser beam nails the eye.

Oooo, that would be great. Good for taking pictures of planes, too!

I guess it would take ... some time to take astro pictures using laser AF ;D ;D ;D

 

[Loswr]

[I guess it would take ... some time to take astro pictures using laser AF ;D ;D ;D

Not to worry, Canon just needs to come out with the 1D X IIa – H-alpha filter and faster-than-light-laser-AF. That'll prove they're innovative!

 

[expatinasia]

It must be quite tough for Canon. I mean the 1D X is such an amazing camera, and now that it's price has fallen so low (did I see some promos at US$3,800) they have to bring so much more to the table.

4K is the obvious thing as are more 2.8 cross AF points and higher fps. Sure some of us would like a few other changes etc. but there's only so much they can do.

Really can't wait to see what the final specs are, until then the 1D X price is getting more and more attractive.

 

[Ozarker]

I'm missing a understanding of a benefit for so many AF points. Does anyone actually decide to set AF point number 122?


How would you calibrate the points? Even now, AF points are often inaccurate, you can use FOCAL to test each one and its a long process even for a 5D MK III. It might take hours to test them all if there were 175.


Dual Pixel Technology is the only tech I know that has consistent accuracy for all the AF points when you use the capability.

I wonder the very same thing. More isn't always better, but what do I know? It just seems like overkill.

On the bright side: I'm hoping used 1Dx bodies will be very inexpensive.