'Revolutionary' Dual Pixel AF Explained

[hgraf]

Perhaps 3rd party lenses wont have a problem after all, here is a preview of a 70d with a 18-35 sigma performing splendidly apparently:

3rd party lenses in a way "pretend" to be real Canon lenses in certain areas.

Depending on how much Canon "checks" what kind of lens is attached, and as long as the lens your lens is pretending to be is supported it should work without issue.

TTYL

 

[dstppy]

Am i the only one who prefers shooting with the optical viewfinder, even if live view is tzhe same speed? I think its not long anymore til Canon only releases only mirrorless cameras if the AF speed is the same. And then people like me can pay another 899$ or whatever for an electronic viewfinder

I think we'll start seeing them, but mirrored cameras are going to be around for a while still.

It's going to have to be FLAWLESS for them to not completely get ravaged if they switch anything mid-prosumer . . . and even still, how much complaining about the 5D3 & 1Dx did we have to listen to? No, I think we're safe for now.

 

[gruhl28]

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

I'm concerned about the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-IS), which I own. This is a currently sold lens, and the document said that dual pixel would support all current lenses, but the macro is on the list of lenses that are not fully supported. This seems like a contradiction. This is the only high quality current lens that I noticed on the list that is not fully supported.

FYI, I pinged Canon USA about this, and they say that they do not have information yet about which lenses are compatible, despite the fact that Canon Europe has a list up on their website of lenses that are not fully compatible.

 

[jrista]

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

If you are shooting a movie, and stop down to f/11, it will still support phase-detect AF. It is the stopped-down (current) aperture that matters in this case, not the maximum aperture.

I can't say why it wouldn't work with a TC, especially if the max aperture was larger than f/11...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

Oh darn, it doesn't work with TC combos?? So the poor 70-300L+1.4x TC will STILL not be able to focus??
And yeah what gives f/11 other maybe some weird old bizarro tele-tube lens or mirror lens from long ago? Do those things even have AF??

EDIT: oops forgot that for movies you do stopped down shooting as jrista points out so of course f/11 AF would be a commonplace need. In fact even beyond f/11 would be nice.

But I sure hope that for once they don't forget the 70-300L+1.4x TC III combo for AF.

 

[jrista]

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

Oh darn, it doesn't work with TC combos?? So the poor 70-300L+1.4x TC will STILL not be able to focus??
And yeah what gives f/11 other maybe some weird old bizarro tele-tube lens or mirror lens from long ago? Do those things even have AF??

LOL. I guess people don't quite get live view AF. The f/11 is for the current, selected, stopped-down aperture, not the maximum aperture. If you are shooting a video, and stop down for DOF, the at-sensor PDAF will continue to work.

Unless there is actually some lens checking going on, I suspect it would work with a lens+TC so long as the selected aperture does not drop below f/11. I can't imagine them tying the dual-pixel AF feature to specific lenses (the PDF did say it would work with some older lenses). I think the listing is jut what they have officially tested.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

Perhaps 3rd party lenses wont have a problem after all, here is a preview of a 70d with a 18-35 sigma performing splendidly apparently:

Canon 70D Review + Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 lens preview

That does look pretty cool. It sure appears to work vastly better. If they could just fix up low ISO DR, I wouldn't even begin to think of Nikon since they have so much better video, liveview, video af, UI, nicer set of lenses, etc.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I've never used a system where your "even if" is true, but if one were available I wouldn't mind EVF. I'd rather hold the camera up to my eye than cantilevered in front of my face. In other words, given the "even if," I'd prefer OVF to back mounted LCD in most cases.

Once cheap way to get that eye-level viewing back is to just attack a Hoodman type viewer to the LCD.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

Oh darn, it doesn't work with TC combos?? So the poor 70-300L+1.4x TC will STILL not be able to focus??
And yeah what gives f/11 other maybe some weird old bizarro tele-tube lens or mirror lens from long ago? Do those things even have AF??

LOL. I guess people don't quite get live view AF. The f/11 is for the current, selected, stopped-down aperture, not the maximum aperture. If you are shooting a video, and stop down for DOF, the at-sensor PDAF will continue to work.

Unless there is actually some lens checking going on, I suspect it would work with a lens+TC so long as the selected aperture does not drop below f/11. I can't imagine them tying the dual-pixel AF feature to specific lenses (the PDF did say it would work with some older lenses). I think the listing is jut what they have officially tested.

hah yeah, forgot of course video is stopped down shooting ;D so yeah f/11 would be a pretty common place thing with any lens in this case

 

[rs]

I'm concerned about the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-IS), which I own. This is a currently sold lens, and the document said that dual pixel would support all current lenses, but the macro is on the list of lenses that are not fully supported. This seems like a contradiction. This is the only high quality current lens that I noticed on the list that is not fully supported.

If the lens on that list has USM, it says USM. The 100/2.8 Macro is listed as EF100mm f/2.8 Macro, with no USM mentioned. So it looks like its this 100mm macro which is not fully compatible:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/macro/ef_100_28macro.html

The current non-L 100mm macro should be fine:

[quote author=Canon]
All of Canon’s current range of EF and EF-S lenses are compatible with the Dual Pixel CMOS AF system.
[/quote]

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

I assume for continuous focus while shooting video.

 

[Drizzt321]

So let me get this straight....

What the Dual Pixel AF is doing, is that the sensor is actually a two 20mp sensor that is adjacent to each other in a way that it is detecting parallax from the slightest difference between the two pixels?

If that is the case, isn't it actually easier for macro lenses to focus? Since the closer an object is, the parallax effect is more apparent, giving the sensor more difference to detect.

Not exactly. It's that it has 2 photosensors next to each other, each one taking up 1/2 of the pixel. Think of them more as sub-pixels, however they can be used separate to detect the phase of light that is coming in which can determine if that point on the subject is in focus or not, and if not, what direction the lens needs to be focused towards.

So it's really a 40M photosensor sensor, with 2 photosensors per pixel for 20MP output.

 

[samkatz]

for live view shooting to become primary, someone needs to come up w/a replacement for the LCD that displays well in bright light. We've heard about OLED and other techns. etc for years but don't see it yet

Also, built in I.S.. would help Canon help photographers use Live View more. W/o a tripod it's hard to hold camera steady far a way from the body. I.S.helps a little but it's not in the camera.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Am i the only one who prefers shooting with the optical viewfinder, even if live view is tzhe same speed? I think its not long anymore til Canon only releases only mirrorless cameras if the AF speed is the same. And then people like me can pay another 899$ or whatever for an electronic viewfinder

There are definite benefits to having an EVF instead of a OVF "if and when" live view attains same speed. Other than the increase in frame rate (when processor and memory pipelines become the only rate limiting step), we will get brighter viewfinders, won't be constrained to the size of the pentaprism for magnification, and get better eye relief. And I am sure EVFs will not be so expensive when they are mass marketed.

 

[carpandean]

And then people like me can pay another 899$ or whatever for an electronic viewfinder

And I am sure EVFs will not be so expensive when they are mass marketed.

The most expensive add-on EVF from Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, etc., is the one for the RX1, which is $450. The top one for the NEX is $350 and for Olympus is under $300. Each of those companies has released entire camera bodies with built-in EVFs for under $1000, and some under $800. In general, on a camera already equipped with an LCD for live-view on the back, an EVF isn't much more than a second screen. As such, if you take a DSLR, remove the mirror-box and replace the OVF with an EVF, it should be less expensive to produce. That's one reason why you'll see the OVFs replaced on the lower-level DSLRs first. Consumers at that level won't care (or even know) about the marginal benefits that an OVF has.

A system like this removes the third biggest hurtle for mirrorless migration. The top-two are marketing and a well-developed lens selection. If Canon brings this system to the EOS-M and Nikon refines their on-sensor PDAF, then eventually one or both will put the marketing $$'s behind it, and #1 will go away. #2 will simply go away with time. The high-end OVF-based bodies with be around for a long time, but the rest ...

 

[Lee Jay]

Here's a pro grade EVF for you.

http://www.red.com/store/products/red-pro-evf-oled

Even a quality consumer grade EVF is an expensive device compared to an OVF.

 

[Lee Jay]

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

I assume for continuous focus while shooting video.

Pffft...I want it so I can use a 2x TC on an f/5.6 lens.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

I assume for continuous focus while shooting video.

Pffft...I want it so I can use a 2x TC on an f/5.6 lens.

That would be cool. A 400mm f/5.6 + 2.0x TC combo is ~15% the price of the 800mm f/5.6.

 

[jrista]

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

I assume for continuous focus while shooting video.

Pffft...I want it so I can use a 2x TC on an f/5.6 lens.

That would be cool. A 400mm f/5.6 + 2.0x TC combo is ~15% the price of the 800mm f/5.6.

And...might produce 15% the quality? ;P

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?

I assume for continuous focus while shooting video.

Pffft...I want it so I can use a 2x TC on an f/5.6 lens.

That would be cool. A 400mm f/5.6 + 2.0x TC combo is ~15% the price of the 800mm f/5.6.

And...might produce 15% the quality? ;P

1. Yes, you do get what you pay for.

2. There are lot more people who could buy the combo than there are people who could buy the 800mm f/5.6.

3. Maybe the 400mm f/5.6 would get a mk2 upgrade, etc.