The Unthinkable: Swapped out 5D3 for 6D

[bleephotography]

Used the 85II on a portrait session yesterday and was getting a pretty high percentage of slight misses on a relatively static subject. I did pretty well with the same lens on my 5D3. Since switching over, the 85II has been pulled out twice for any significant amount of shooting and both times have been tough with regard to getting a lot of misses.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you have done a proper AFMA with the lens. I haven't used the 85II myself with a 6D or otherwise, but I don't have any issues with the 135L; I get consistent, repeatable results. The 85II should be usable on a 6D; plenty of people were shooting with it on a 5DII, which I can attest had a slightly inferior AF system to the 6D.

AFMA'd with Reikan FoCal three consecutive times yielding the same result. Figured it was good enough. I surprisingly have had the same findings as you regarding the 135 on the 6D. Seems to be just fine. But for some reason, the 85II on both occasions has been somewhat unreliable compared to when it was paired with my 5d3. The other ones that have given me the most problems is the 24II and the 24-70II. The zoom wasn't unreliable as far as AF goes, just seemed to hunt noticeably more in and in decent light which was odd. Most the other stuff has been fine.

That is interesting. I wonder if it due to the nature of the newer lenses being optimized for 1DX and 5III AF? I'm actually very surprised at more hunting with the center point, which has (on paper) greater sensitivity to anything else Canon has. I always use single point AF, myself, and in good light I don't have problems with any of my lenses on my 6Ds. And that center point can lock onto just about anything in any light.

This was actually during shoots so I was using all the points without paying too much attention to how often it was the center. Just based on feel/memory though, I don't believe I use the center point much more often than the outer points when composing if at all. I have definitely noticed that the center point has caught focus with a few of my lenses in very low light situations where I think I might have had a little more trouble previously. However, I am finding that doesn't help me all that much as I compose very frequently outside of the center which is probably more of an exhibition of how weak those outer non center points really are.

This little discussion may be key to at least some of the varying opinions on the AF of the 6D. I think it depends on one's shooting style. I tend to be a little more deliberate in my approach, and, frankly, the 6D works for me. I can't remember the last time I let a camera automatically select the AF point. I have had my most successful year commercially shooting 6D bodies exclusively. I don't have any problems at weddings and events, myself, but I do know my gear pretty well. IQ trumps all for me, and the 6D delivers as well or better than any other current Canon option.

But I have never recommended the 6D to those who shoot sports or a lot of action. They need a more robust AF. If they are a less deliberate shooter or prefer to use zones/auto AF the 6D may not serve them as well either because its AF points are not spread out super wide and there aren't that many of them.

Excellent advice as always, Dustin. Have you, by chance, used any fast primes like the 85 f/1.2 or 35 f/1.4 with either of your 6D bodies? I had the 6D for a limited time and found the outer points regularly inconsistent with such a shallow DOF, which is one of the main reasons I reverted back to the 5D3 (aside from dual card slots). What are your overall thoughts on using fast glass with the 6D, as you obviously know how to use it well - your images speak for themselves!

 

[JohnDizzo15]

This little discussion may be key to at least some of the varying opinions on the AF of the 6D. I think it depends on one's shooting style. I tend to be a little more deliberate in my approach, and, frankly, the 6D works for me. I can't remember the last time I let a camera automatically select the AF point. I have had my most successful year commercially shooting 6D bodies exclusively. I don't have any problems at weddings and events, myself, but I do know my gear pretty well. IQ trumps all for me, and the 6D delivers as well or better than any other current Canon option.

But I have never recommended the 6D to those who shoot sports or a lot of action. They need a more robust AF. If they are a less deliberate shooter or prefer to use zones/auto AF the 6D may not serve them as well either because its AF points are not spread out super wide and there aren't that many of them.

I never let the camera select the points for me either. I always select single points and it is simply having problems with static subjects on the outer points when using the lenses previously mentioned. Consistency and accuracy are just not there like they were when I was using the same lenses on the 5D3 and selecting the outer points respectively.

I agree that the IQ is the number one factor for me. On that criteria alone, the 6D does as well as any other Canon body. But my issue is that even after calibration, several of my most often used lenses are not getting the same type of AF performance as before outside of the center point. Focus and recompose is something that also does not work for me with my fast lenses so it has been a bit of an adjustment.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Used the 85II on a portrait session yesterday and was getting a pretty high percentage of slight misses on a relatively static subject. I did pretty well with the same lens on my 5D3. Since switching over, the 85II has been pulled out twice for any significant amount of shooting and both times have been tough with regard to getting a lot of misses.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you have done a proper AFMA with the lens. I haven't used the 85II myself with a 6D or otherwise, but I don't have any issues with the 135L; I get consistent, repeatable results. The 85II should be usable on a 6D; plenty of people were shooting with it on a 5DII, which I can attest had a slightly inferior AF system to the 6D.

AFMA'd with Reikan FoCal three consecutive times yielding the same result. Figured it was good enough. I surprisingly have had the same findings as you regarding the 135 on the 6D. Seems to be just fine. But for some reason, the 85II on both occasions has been somewhat unreliable compared to when it was paired with my 5d3. The other ones that have given me the most problems is the 24II and the 24-70II. The zoom wasn't unreliable as far as AF goes, just seemed to hunt noticeably more in and in decent light which was odd. Most the other stuff has been fine.

That is interesting. I wonder if it due to the nature of the newer lenses being optimized for 1DX and 5III AF? I'm actually very surprised at more hunting with the center point, which has (on paper) greater sensitivity to anything else Canon has. I always use single point AF, myself, and in good light I don't have problems with any of my lenses on my 6Ds. And that center point can lock onto just about anything in any light.

This was actually during shoots so I was using all the points without paying too much attention to how often it was the center. Just based on feel/memory though, I don't believe I use the center point much more often than the outer points when composing if at all. I have definitely noticed that the center point has caught focus with a few of my lenses in very low light situations where I think I might have had a little more trouble previously. However, I am finding that doesn't help me all that much as I compose very frequently outside of the center which is probably more of an exhibition of how weak those outer non center points really are.

This little discussion may be key to at least some of the varying opinions on the AF of the 6D. I think it depends on one's shooting style. I tend to be a little more deliberate in my approach, and, frankly, the 6D works for me. I can't remember the last time I let a camera automatically select the AF point. I have had my most successful year commercially shooting 6D bodies exclusively. I don't have any problems at weddings and events, myself, but I do know my gear pretty well. IQ trumps all for me, and the 6D delivers as well or better than any other current Canon option.

But I have never recommended the 6D to those who shoot sports or a lot of action. They need a more robust AF. If they are a less deliberate shooter or prefer to use zones/auto AF the 6D may not serve them as well either because its AF points are not spread out super wide and there aren't that many of them.

Excellent advice as always, Dustin. Have you, by chance, used any fast primes like the 85 f/1.2 or 35 f/1.4 with either of your 6D bodies? I had the 6D for a limited time and found the outer points regularly inconsistent with such a shallow DOF, which is one of the main reasons I reverted back to the 5D3 (aside from dual card slots). What are your overall thoughts on using fast glass with the 6D, as you obviously know how to use it well - your images speak for themselves!

My fastest lens is currently only f/1.8. I have the new 35mm f/2 IS, 85mm f/1.8, 100L, and 135L primes. None of them are as wide as f/1.4, and certainly not f/1.2. I have owned and shot the 50mm f/1.4 but, frankly, it never did too much for me, and I ended up moving both copies I have owned within six months of ownership. That being said, it wasn't because I had focus issues.

I recognize from others that lenses like the 85L and the 50L are more challenging to get consistent focus from, but that seems to be true on most bodies (particularly with the 50L). I don't know what to tell you on that.

I can tell you that I have used both the 135L and several 70-200 f/2.8 variants without any issue on the 6D, and the depth of field is just as small (smaller @200mm f/2.8) than either of the other primes. Those two just seem to be a little more finicky, and yet produce stunning results when they are on.

Proper AFMA is a big deal, and sometimes you don't get it right the first time. This becomes increasingly important the wider the aperture is. Technique is also a big part. I shoot events with a 6D/135L combo all the time (and sometimes with a 1.4x II on the 135L) and rarely miss focus.

I don't know what to tell for sure as I don't have experience with either of the lenses you are speaking of. All I know is that both pros and amateurs were getting stunning results with those lenses mounted on 5DIIs, and I know from experience that the 6D's AF is actually better/more accurate than the 5DIIs.

 

[bleephotography]

Used the 85II on a portrait session yesterday and was getting a pretty high percentage of slight misses on a relatively static subject. I did pretty well with the same lens on my 5D3. Since switching over, the 85II has been pulled out twice for any significant amount of shooting and both times have been tough with regard to getting a lot of misses.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you have done a proper AFMA with the lens. I haven't used the 85II myself with a 6D or otherwise, but I don't have any issues with the 135L; I get consistent, repeatable results. The 85II should be usable on a 6D; plenty of people were shooting with it on a 5DII, which I can attest had a slightly inferior AF system to the 6D.

AFMA'd with Reikan FoCal three consecutive times yielding the same result. Figured it was good enough. I surprisingly have had the same findings as you regarding the 135 on the 6D. Seems to be just fine. But for some reason, the 85II on both occasions has been somewhat unreliable compared to when it was paired with my 5d3. The other ones that have given me the most problems is the 24II and the 24-70II. The zoom wasn't unreliable as far as AF goes, just seemed to hunt noticeably more in and in decent light which was odd. Most the other stuff has been fine.

That is interesting. I wonder if it due to the nature of the newer lenses being optimized for 1DX and 5III AF? I'm actually very surprised at more hunting with the center point, which has (on paper) greater sensitivity to anything else Canon has. I always use single point AF, myself, and in good light I don't have problems with any of my lenses on my 6Ds. And that center point can lock onto just about anything in any light.

This was actually during shoots so I was using all the points without paying too much attention to how often it was the center. Just based on feel/memory though, I don't believe I use the center point much more often than the outer points when composing if at all. I have definitely noticed that the center point has caught focus with a few of my lenses in very low light situations where I think I might have had a little more trouble previously. However, I am finding that doesn't help me all that much as I compose very frequently outside of the center which is probably more of an exhibition of how weak those outer non center points really are.

This little discussion may be key to at least some of the varying opinions on the AF of the 6D. I think it depends on one's shooting style. I tend to be a little more deliberate in my approach, and, frankly, the 6D works for me. I can't remember the last time I let a camera automatically select the AF point. I have had my most successful year commercially shooting 6D bodies exclusively. I don't have any problems at weddings and events, myself, but I do know my gear pretty well. IQ trumps all for me, and the 6D delivers as well or better than any other current Canon option.

But I have never recommended the 6D to those who shoot sports or a lot of action. They need a more robust AF. If they are a less deliberate shooter or prefer to use zones/auto AF the 6D may not serve them as well either because its AF points are not spread out super wide and there aren't that many of them.

Excellent advice as always, Dustin. Have you, by chance, used any fast primes like the 85 f/1.2 or 35 f/1.4 with either of your 6D bodies? I had the 6D for a limited time and found the outer points regularly inconsistent with such a shallow DOF, which is one of the main reasons I reverted back to the 5D3 (aside from dual card slots). What are your overall thoughts on using fast glass with the 6D, as you obviously know how to use it well - your images speak for themselves!

My fastest lens is currently only f/1.8. I have the new 35mm f/2 IS, 85mm f/1.8, 100L, and 135L primes. None of them are as wide as f/1.4, and certainly not f/1.2. I have owned and shot the 50mm f/1.4 but, frankly, it never did too much for me, and I ended up moving both copies I have owned within six months of ownership. That being said, it wasn't because I had focus issues.

I recognize from others that lenses like the 85L and the 50L are more challenging to get consistent focus from, but that seems to be true on most bodies (particularly with the 50L). I don't know what to tell you on that.

I can tell you that I have used both the 135L and several 70-200 f/2.8 variants without any issue on the 6D, and the depth of field is just as small (smaller @200mm f/2.8) than either of the other primes. Those two just seem to be a little more finicky, and yet produce stunning results when they are on.

Proper AFMA is a big deal, and sometimes you don't get it right the first time. This becomes increasingly important the wider the aperture is. Technique is also a big part. I shoot events with a 6D/135L combo all the time (and sometimes with a 1.4x II on the 135L) and rarely miss focus.

I don't know what to tell for sure as I don't have experience with either of the lenses you are speaking of. All I know is that both pros and amateurs were getting stunning results with those lenses mounted on 5DIIs, and I know from experience that the 6D's AF is actually better/more accurate than the 5DIIs.

Good to know, thanks Dustin. I'm trying to talk myself out of getting a backup/travel body, but I think I might just get a 6D instead of another 5D3. Maybe I'll give it another shot.

 

[bholliman]

AFMA'd with Reikan FoCal three consecutive times yielding the same result. Figured it was good enough. I surprisingly have had the same findings as you regarding the 135 on the 6D. Seems to be just fine. But for some reason, the 85II on both occasions has been somewhat unreliable compared to when it was paired with my 5d3. The other ones that have given me the most problems is the 24II and the 24-70II. The zoom wasn't unreliable as far as AF goes, just seemed to hunt noticeably more in and in decent light which was odd. Most the other stuff has been fine.

The AF on my 24-70 2.8 II works great with my 6D, fast and accurate! I also have good luck with my 135L, 100L and 85 1.8 at wide apertures. My only lens that struggles to focus accurately at times is my 50 1.4, but that same lens didn't focus that well with my 7D or T2i either.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

AFMA'd with Reikan FoCal three consecutive times yielding the same result. Figured it was good enough. I surprisingly have had the same findings as you regarding the 135 on the 6D. Seems to be just fine. But for some reason, the 85II on both occasions has been somewhat unreliable compared to when it was paired with my 5d3. The other ones that have given me the most problems is the 24II and the 24-70II. The zoom wasn't unreliable as far as AF goes, just seemed to hunt noticeably more in and in decent light which was odd. Most the other stuff has been fine.

The AF on my 24-70 2.8 II works great with my 6D, fast and accurate! I also have good luck with my 135L, 100L and 85 1.8 at wide apertures. My only lens that struggles to focus accurately at times is my 50 1.4, but that same lens didn't focus that well with my 7D or T2i either.

Good feedback. Thanks! Just a note for the OP regarding FoCal - be very careful to have the proper EV for running the tests. Slightly dim lighting produces a different result (sometimes consistently) than the tests run with properly bright EV. That may not have been your problem at all, but I wanted to throw that out as a possibility.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Just a note for the OP regarding FoCal - be very careful to have the proper EV for running the tests. Slightly dim lighting produces a different result (sometimes consistently) than the tests run with properly bright EV. That may not have been your problem at all, but I wanted to throw that out as a possibility.

Good point, Dustin. The thought had actually crossed my mind as well but haven't had the chance to redo the testing in a more ideal scenario. I actually performed the tests at my office during my break and it is not the same lighting that I normally use for FoCal. Will definitely be redoing them when I get some time at home.

I actually just ordered an EG-S focusing screen as well. Hopefully I will also be able to better see through the vf whether the AF is doing it's job properly on my faster lenses. Completely forgot that I could easily swap out the screen on the 6D since I had been used to the thought of not doing it with the 5D3 based on it's restrictions.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Just a note for the OP regarding FoCal - be very careful to have the proper EV for running the tests. Slightly dim lighting produces a different result (sometimes consistently) than the tests run with properly bright EV. That may not have been your problem at all, but I wanted to throw that out as a possibility.

Good point, Dustin. The thought had actually crossed my mind as well but haven't had the chance to redo the testing in a more ideal scenario. I actually performed the tests at my office during my break and it is not the same lighting that I normally use for FoCal. Will definitely be redoing them when I get some time at home.

I actually just ordered an EG-S focusing screen as well. Hopefully I will also be able to better see through the vf whether the AF is doing it's job properly on my faster lenses. Completely forgot that I could easily swap out the screen on the 6D since I had been used to the thought of not doing it with the 5D3 based on it's restrictions.

Since I had two 6D's, I may do the same on one of mine as I do have quite a few manual focus lenses. I would be particularly tempted if I picked up a Zeiss to add to the kit.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Just a note for the OP regarding FoCal - be very careful to have the proper EV for running the tests. Slightly dim lighting produces a different result (sometimes consistently) than the tests run with properly bright EV. That may not have been your problem at all, but I wanted to throw that out as a possibility.

Good point, Dustin. The thought had actually crossed my mind as well but haven't had the chance to redo the testing in a more ideal scenario. I actually performed the tests at my office during my break and it is not the same lighting that I normally use for FoCal. Will definitely be redoing them when I get some time at home.

I actually just ordered an EG-S focusing screen as well. Hopefully I will also be able to better see through the vf whether the AF is doing it's job properly on my faster lenses. Completely forgot that I could easily swap out the screen on the 6D since I had been used to the thought of not doing it with the 5D3 based on it's restrictions.

Since I had two 6D's, I may do the same on one of mine as I do have quite a few manual focus lenses. I would be particularly tempted if I picked up a Zeiss to add to the kit.

I was previously using an LCDVF to provide a 2.5x magnified view but the responsiveness is just not what I would like it to be when shooting in liveview on both the 6d and 5d3 (which caused me to rely on the focus confirmation most of the time). Looking forward to using the screen with the Zeiss 50/2 MP as the focus errors are even more pronounced with that lens.

 

[CarlTN]

The slight jitter that causes those misses is also present in the 7D's 19pt AF system...it just doesn't sit still between shots...even if the subject is already locked, there is pretty much ALWAYS movement, ever so slight, between every frame.

Of what mode are you talking about - servo af or one-shot with continuous fps?

What I experience on both the 6d and 60d with a thinner dof like on the 100L is that when you re-af at the same point w/o camera movement, the lens will often choose a slightly different focus... and lensrentals says it's even better to af somewhere completely else first as this gives more exact results than slight af corrections.

Either, in the case of the 7D, but it is more pronounced with Servo. This isn't a DOF problem. It happens with all my lenses, wide open or stopped down considerably. I had the problem with my 600/4II when stopped down to f/8 just the other day. For such a long lens like that, DOF is pretty small when you get close enough to a bird to be "frame filling", and even at f/8, the jitter can still result in slight softening of detail that isn't exactly at the plane of focus. I like the 7D, but the AF jitter is the single largest IQ drawback of the camera.

All of my lens are properly AFMAed as well. I've used manual techniques as well as FoCal to calibrate each of my lenses. Even shifting AFMA about 2-3 notches results in a visible change with the 600mm lens, so when the lens is that sharp, slight changes in the focal plane can mean visible changes elsewhere, unless you are downsampling by 2x or more. (When downsampling, it is never really a problem, but I generally print 24x36 and larger, so it really matters.)

For filling the frame with a bird at 600mm on the 7D, I could definitely see how even slightly closed to f/8, the plane of focus is extremely shallow, and thus your autofocus will vary on what it focuses on, and with the accuracy of that focus. You're usually trying to get the eye of the bird in sharpest focus, I assume? Plumage is important too, but less so than the eye, isn't it?

I had thought you already bought a 5D3 and were using it with your 600 ii. Would drive me nuts I think!

However, if you're not filling the frame with a bird...like say especially if the bird is 1/4 the width of the frame or smaller, then in my opinion most of any focus problem, however minute, is easier to deal with and identify the cause. I guess that's obvious.

In my opinion you can get pro quality images of birds by only filling the frame where the bird is a max of 1/3 the width (or height) of the image, but admittedly I'm not the birding expert. I've seen plenty of great images that were cropped about this much, though.

 

[jrista]

I had thought you already bought a 5D3 and were using it with your 600 ii. Would drive me nuts I think!

I have used "a" 5D III with my 600 II, but I have not yet purchased a 5D III of my own yet. I can only absorb so much outflow in a year, and the lens sucked me dry. So...5D III is on hold until I have more cash flow and savings.

The slight jitter that causes those misses is also present in the 7D's 19pt AF system...it just doesn't sit still between shots...even if the subject is already locked, there is pretty much ALWAYS movement, ever so slight, between every frame.

Of what mode are you talking about - servo af or one-shot with continuous fps?

What I experience on both the 6d and 60d with a thinner dof like on the 100L is that when you re-af at the same point w/o camera movement, the lens will often choose a slightly different focus... and lensrentals says it's even better to af somewhere completely else first as this gives more exact results than slight af corrections.

Either, in the case of the 7D, but it is more pronounced with Servo. This isn't a DOF problem. It happens with all my lenses, wide open or stopped down considerably. I had the problem with my 600/4II when stopped down to f/8 just the other day. For such a long lens like that, DOF is pretty small when you get close enough to a bird to be "frame filling", and even at f/8, the jitter can still result in slight softening of detail that isn't exactly at the plane of focus. I like the 7D, but the AF jitter is the single largest IQ drawback of the camera.

All of my lens are properly AFMAed as well. I've used manual techniques as well as FoCal to calibrate each of my lenses. Even shifting AFMA about 2-3 notches results in a visible change with the 600mm lens, so when the lens is that sharp, slight changes in the focal plane can mean visible changes elsewhere, unless you are downsampling by 2x or more. (When downsampling, it is never really a problem, but I generally print 24x36 and larger, so it really matters.)

For filling the frame with a bird at 600mm on the 7D, I could definitely see how even slightly closed to f/8, the plane of focus is extremely shallow, and thus your autofocus will vary on what it focuses on, and with the accuracy of that focus. You're usually trying to get the eye of the bird in sharpest focus, I assume? Plumage is important too, but less so than the eye, isn't it?

An APS-C at f/8 will have a deeper DOF than FF at f/8, for an identically framed subject. So in that sense, APS-C is actually better for DOF. The problem is most definitely not the depth of field, though...the 7D AF system has an uncontrolled jitter, such that it always adjusts every inter-frame period, even if it does not need to. For a stationary subject at a good distance with plenty of DOF, the actual plane of focus WILL shift around your intended focus point if you simply hold the AF button down and let it do it's thing. After a while, it will settle, so long as you do not take a picture. When you are doing AI servo and tracking a subject or taking multiple frames in sequence, ever frame the camera will perform AF, and even if the subject has not moved, the plane of focus will change...ever so slightly, but often just enough to be noticeable and sometimes enough to kill that frame.

However, if you're not filling the frame with a bird...like say especially if the bird is 1/4 the width of the frame or smaller, then in my opinion most of any focus problem, however minute, is easier to deal with and identify the cause. I guess that's obvious.

Hmm, not sure I understand... The smaller the bird is in the frame, the more pronounced any issue is, including missfocus...the fewer pixels you have on subject, the more magnified things like missfocus, camera shake, optical aberrations, etc. will be, relative to the subject.

In my opinion you can get pro quality images of birds by only filling the frame where the bird is a max of 1/3 the width (or height) of the image, but admittedly I'm not the birding expert. I've seen plenty of great images that were cropped about this much, though.

It really depends on the number of pixels in the area of the frame filled. The pros I follow generally fill the frame exactly right, regardless of the sensor used.

 

[sb in ak]

I just upgraded to the 5D3 from the 6D, mostly for the AF improvement. Seems worth it so far. However, if you aren't in need of demanding AF, the 6D is quite good, and the image quality does seem a smidgen better. (Mostly, no more banding when lifting shadows with the 6D!)

 

[CarlTN]

It really depends on the number of pixels in the area of the frame filled. The pros I follow generally fill the frame exactly right, regardless of the sensor used.

And what constitutes filling the frame "exactly right"? You mean filling the frame with 90% bird?

As for the full frame vs. crop sensor comparison of DOF, that's not really what I was discussing, as I know the DOF is shallower with a full frame. I just meant that if you filled the frame with the bird, the DOF is still pretty shallow at 600mm, even with a crop camera.

As for not understanding what I meant, I'll try to clarify (though I'm sure you'll find a way to say I'm wrong). As a bird becomes larger in the FOV, the accuracy of the focus needs to be that much finer, mostly due to the shallower plane of focus relative to the size of the FOV (besides the larger number of pixels that are defining what is sharp detail and what is out of focus). If there is a pronounced focus inaccuracy when the bird is small in the field of view, yes that's more annoying and really unusable autofocus. But correcting it to an adequate degree is easier to do, than to correct an autofocus issue that is effectively millimeters deep in the plane of focus...as I assume the problem you're describing is.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Focusing screen came and swap out has been completed for three days. Manual focus has been waaaaaay easier. Plus one in the positive column for the body. This might be cause to hold onto the body when the new ff big mp body comes out assuming it doesn't have a swappable screen.

 

[CarlTN]

Focusing screen came and swap out has been completed for three days. Manual focus has been waaaaaay easier. Plus one in the positive column for the body. This might be cause to hold onto the body when the new ff big mp body comes out assuming it doesn't have a swappable screen.

This looks quite weird to me because the tree in the bottom center, in the background, also appears in focus...just as the closer one in the foreground does. This looks more like a toy lens, or else toy lens processing in post to me.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Focusing screen came and swap out has been completed for three days. Manual focus has been waaaaaay easier. Plus one in the positive column for the body. This might be cause to hold onto the body when the new ff big mp body comes out assuming it doesn't have a swappable screen.

This looks quite weird to me because the tree in the bottom center, in the background, also appears in focus...just as the closer one in the foreground does. This looks more like a toy lens, or else toy lens processing in post to me.

45 tse

 

[CarlTN]

Focusing screen came and swap out has been completed for three days. Manual focus has been waaaaaay easier. Plus one in the positive column for the body. This might be cause to hold onto the body when the new ff big mp body comes out assuming it doesn't have a swappable screen.

This looks quite weird to me because the tree in the bottom center, in the background, also appears in focus...just as the closer one in the foreground does. This looks more like a toy lens, or else toy lens processing in post to me.

45 tse

Ahhh that explains it.

 

[jrista]

It really depends on the number of pixels in the area of the frame filled. The pros I follow generally fill the frame exactly right, regardless of the sensor used.

And what constitutes filling the frame "exactly right"? You mean filling the frame with 90% bird?

It isn't so much a matter of percent. It is a matter of composition. Pros have the skill to utilize at least 90% of their frame, it not even 100%, for the composition they want. That does not necessarily mean the bird itself will be 90% of the frame. That doesn't really matter in the end. What matters in the end is that you utilize the majority of the pixels on the sensor. Then, pretty much regardless of output size, your image will have less noise/more DR.

Sometimes "filling the frame" means the bird fills 40%, and some negative space and maybe a counter object or two are included. You usually leave a little bit of space for cropping/straitening, but that isn't usually significant. Other times, "filling the frame" might mean the just bird's head is 80% of the frame, with the appropriate amount of negative space around it for appealing composition. Either way, there is little cropping, so your maximizing the potential of the sensor, minimizing noise, etc.

As for the full frame vs. crop sensor comparison of DOF, that's not really what I was discussing, as I know the DOF is shallower with a full frame. I just meant that if you filled the frame with the bird, the DOF is still pretty shallow at 600mm, even with a crop camera.

Yeah, generally true.

As for not understanding what I meant, I'll try to clarify (though I'm sure you'll find a way to say I'm wrong). As a bird becomes larger in the FOV, the accuracy of the focus needs to be that much finer, mostly due to the shallower plane of focus relative to the size of the FOV (besides the larger number of pixels that are defining what is sharp detail and what is out of focus). If there is a pronounced focus inaccuracy when the bird is small in the field of view, yes that's more annoying and really unusable autofocus. But correcting it to an adequate degree is easier to do, than to correct an autofocus issue that is effectively millimeters deep in the plane of focus...as I assume the problem you're describing is.

The increase in subject size in the frame is often offset by increased detail, which provides a greater potential that the AF unit will find the necessary contrast to operate well. The bigger issue with wide swings in subject distance is AFMA...bummer of it is, AFMA really works for the focal length you tune it at. Much closer or much farther, and the AFMA setting is not going to be ideal. Puts a lot of pressure to make sure you AFMA at the most ideal "happy medium" point somewhere between your average far distance and average near distance...but it will never be perfect for all photos. So, even if you do manage to maintain good focus with a nice contrasty area of the bird, doesn't necessarily mean it will be sharp as a brand new razor.

 

[CarlTN]

The increase in subject size in the frame is often offset by increased detail, which provides a greater potential that the AF unit will find the necessary contrast to operate well. The bigger issue with wide swings in subject distance is AFMA...bummer of it is, AFMA really works for the focal length you tune it at. Much closer or much farther, and the AFMA setting is not going to be ideal. Puts a lot of pressure to make sure you AFMA at the most ideal "happy medium" point somewhere between your average far distance and average near distance...but it will never be perfect for all photos. So, even if you do manage to maintain good focus with a nice contrasty area of the bird, doesn't necessarily mean it will be sharp as a brand new razor.

I agree, and have found the same, and I didn't need to buy a shiny new 600mm ii like you did, to discover it. Obviously your new lens is so sharp that it simply helps highlight such problems.

Regarding what I highlighted in red, I assume you meant "fine tune AFMA to subject distance", or "focus distance", rather than "focal length". Obviously changing focal length is a whole other issue, such as with a zoom. Which is why cameras like the 6D and others, allow you to at least set AFMA at the long end and wide end independently. It's a shame they don't also just allow you to also set it relative to the focus (or subject) distance...besides letting you just vary the AFMA all over the place with a zoom, at perhaps 10 or more different focal lengths, at randomly customizable focal lengths for example.

When lenses get as sharp as yours, or perhaps moreso one like the 300 f/2.8 ii, then such things become more noticeable.

At some point though, you have to decide if you are more gearhead, or more photographer.

 

[jrista]

The increase in subject size in the frame is often offset by increased detail, which provides a greater potential that the AF unit will find the necessary contrast to operate well. The bigger issue with wide swings in subject distance is AFMA...bummer of it is, AFMA really works for the focal length you tune it at. Much closer or much farther, and the AFMA setting is not going to be ideal. Puts a lot of pressure to make sure you AFMA at the most ideal "happy medium" point somewhere between your average far distance and average near distance...but it will never be perfect for all photos. So, even if you do manage to maintain good focus with a nice contrasty area of the bird, doesn't necessarily mean it will be sharp as a brand new razor.

I agree, and have found the same, and I didn't need to buy a shiny new 600mm ii like you did, to discover it. Obviously your new lens is so sharp that it simply helps highlight such problems.

Regarding what I highlighted in red, I assume you meant "fine tune AFMA to subject distance", or "focus distance", rather than "focal length". Obviously changing focal length is a whole other issue, such as with a zoom. Which is why cameras like the 6D and others, allow you to at least set AFMA at the long end and wide end independently. It's a shame they don't also just allow you to also set it relative to the focus (or subject) distance...besides letting you just vary the AFMA all over the place with a zoom, at perhaps 10 or more different focal lengths, at randomly customizable focal lengths for example.

When lenses get as sharp as yours, or perhaps moreso one like the 300 f/2.8 ii, then such things become more noticeable.

At some point though, you have to decide if you are more gearhead, or more photographer.

Yes, I mean focus distance...sorry.