Three Sensors Being Tested for Canon Full Frame Mirrorless? [CR1]

[fullstop]

did you find the M50 AF better in that respect than M5? Did you try M50 with one of the "enhanced mode" lenses (28 / 18-150 / 55-200)?

While no true "Canon Spot AF" [square with dot] 143 AF fields on M50 in enhanced mode (with 3 lenses) or even 99 in "normal mode" (with all/other lenses) vs. only 49 AF fields on M5 and other prior EOS M models should give much finer control over where focus is put? At least one would hope so.

 

[slclick]

EOS M - including M5 - is notorious for "not small enough AF fields" / lack of "pinpoint spot AF". i hope this is really improved on with M50 - though apparently not for all but only with 3 EF-M lenses: 28 macro, 18-150, 55-200.

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2018/eos-m50/eos-m50-autofocus.shtml

hopefully "precise spot-af" selection will be implemented for all EF-M lenses (firmware? upgrade?) on all future EOS M bodies. not sure, what the bottlenecks are. sensor? digic? lens af drive? firmware ? lens-body protocol? some or all of them?

according to who? YouTube pundits? My M5 has more than enough AF points and if you can't deal with it it's a PEBCAK issue. (old school computer guy joke for you young ones) I am so sick and tired of folks who can't shoot without this and that. The film masters has jack nothing to use gear wise and made much better images than any of us will ever do in a lifetime. Blurghhhh

 

[Bennymiata]

I just hope Canon don't re-visit the ergonomic disasters of the Sony 7 series cameras to try and make it as small as possible. I won't use a Sony 7 camera as everytime I use one with a pro lens on it, my fingers keep getting stuck between the grip and the lens and after a few hours, it hurts!
While Canon's spec sheets don't look as good as Sony's do, we know that Canon's mirrorless will work and work well. DPAF will ensure their autofocussing will be superior to anything else, and the menus will actually make sense, and the camera won't lock up all the time either.
Personally, I would like a FF mirrorless (like my M5) that just works really well and reliably and takes great photos, and I know Canon can deliver this better than anyone else.

 

[Talys]

did you find the M50 AF better in that respect than M5? Did you try M50 with one of the "enhanced mode" lenses (28 / 18-150 / 55-200)?

While no true "Canon Spot AF" [square with dot] 143 AF fields on M50 in enhanced mode (with 3 lenses) or even 99 in "normal mode" (with all/other lenses) vs. only 49 AF fields on M5 and other prior EOS M models should give much finer control over where focus is put? At least one would hope so.

Quite frankly, I see no difference between enhanced and other EFM lenses for practical photography purposes. 80% x 80% is virtually identical to 88% x 100%, because I'll never use that extra ring of squares on the far edges and corners. The last time I ever needed to focus on something at the extreme edge of the frame was... never.

I honestly don't care for MORE AF points. I mean, I think one of the nicest things about the 7DII is being able to reduce the number of selectable points. I only need a few AF points, but I'd like the option to make them much smaller squares if I wish.

 

[fullstop]

implementation of "true spot AF fields" would also be my preferred solution. but until canon offers it on any or some of their mirrorless cams, i was expecting - or hoping - that more and SMALLER AF fields across the entire AF-area would make some difference and alle iate the problem to some extent.

@slckick: yes, some people manage to create compelling photographs using only a pinhole camera. And yes, Henri Cartier-Bresson captured all of his amazing images using cameras without autofocus. BUT he used the very best and most technically most advanced cameras available at the time. Myself I am not nearly as talented a photographer as HCB. Therefore it is even more important to me to get as much "technical support" from the cameras i use that helps me to concentrate on the image (and moment in time) i want to capture by taking care of the more mundane aspects of photography - like getting exposure right and having the essential parts of an image in sharp focus.

that's why i would like to have a camera with an af system that RELIABLY manages to focus the scene exactly where i want it. when oirtraying people for example the left or right eye of the person. not the tip of the nose. not the earlobe. and even less so some fence or other strong contrast visual structure in the background. with my current EOS M (1st gen) this is unfortunately a serious problem in daily, real-world practice. and while newer versions of the M series have made great progress in AF performance, the basic layout of only 49 VERY LARGE AF fields has not changed. this is why i am interested in the AF improvements Canon has implemented now in the M50. that's why i was trying to learn whether it does offer a real improvement in use and if it is marginally or significantly better. or only a Canon marketing "paper spec".

is this unreasonable?

 

[dak723]

did you find the M50 AF better in that respect than M5? Did you try M50 with one of the "enhanced mode" lenses (28 / 18-150 / 55-200)?

While no true "Canon Spot AF" [square with dot] 143 AF fields on M50 in enhanced mode (with 3 lenses) or even 99 in "normal mode" (with all/other lenses) vs. only 49 AF fields on M5 and other prior EOS M models should give much finer control over where focus is put? At least one would hope so.

Quite frankly, I see no difference between enhanced and other EFM lenses for practical photography purposes. 80% x 80% is virtually identical to 88% x 100%, because I'll never use that extra ring of squares on the far edges and corners. The last time I ever needed to focus on something at the extreme edge of the frame was... never.

I honestly don't care for MORE AF points. I mean, I think one of the nicest things about the 7DII is being able to reduce the number of selectable points. I only need a few AF points, but I'd like the option to make them much smaller squares if I wish.

More AF points are a real negative for me. I only need a few as well. On the M5 you can choose between two sizes. I use the smaller box and it is small enough for me, although I can not compare it to "Spot AF as I have never had a camera with that feature. Don't know if the M50 has the option to change the AF box size.

 

[fullstop]

i find more AF points very helpful in certain situations. Very useful for example, when i have cam on tripod and can finely select focus point over desired part of the image on touchscreen - without having to manipulate cam on tripod head.

And for tracking AF the more AF points and coverage of the image, the better. On 2018 cameras we should not ever have to focus first with one of a few AF point and then re-compose. Although I know, that many still do it that way - usually because they never really learned or mastered the AF system of their cameras.

 

[3kramd5]

did you find the M50 AF better in that respect than M5? Did you try M50 with one of the "enhanced mode" lenses (28 / 18-150 / 55-200)?

While no true "Canon Spot AF" [square with dot] 143 AF fields on M50 in enhanced mode (with 3 lenses) or even 99 in "normal mode" (with all/other lenses) vs. only 49 AF fields on M5 and other prior EOS M models should give much finer control over where focus is put? At least one would hope so.

Quite frankly, I see no difference between enhanced and other EFM lenses for practical photography purposes. 80% x 80% is virtually identical to 88% x 100%, because I'll never use that extra ring of squares on the far edges and corners. The last time I ever needed to focus on something at the extreme edge of the frame was... never.

I honestly don't care for MORE AF points. I mean, I think one of the nicest things about the 7DII is being able to reduce the number of selectable points. I only need a few AF points, but I'd like the option to make them much smaller squares if I wish.

More AF points are a real negative for me.

Can you elaborate as to why it’s a negative? Due to their display in the VF maybe?

 

[Ozarker]

EOS M - including M5 - is notorious for "not small enough AF fields" / lack of "pinpoint spot AF". i hope this is really improved on with M50 - though apparently not for all but only with 3 EF-M lenses: 28 macro, 18-150, 55-200.

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2018/eos-m50/eos-m50-autofocus.shtml

hopefully "precise spot-af" selection will be implemented for all EF-M lenses (firmware? upgrade?) on all future EOS M bodies. not sure, what the bottlenecks are. sensor? digic? lens af drive? firmware ? lens-body protocol? some or all of them?

according to who? YouTube pundits? My M5 has more than enough AF points and if you can't deal with it it's a PEBCAK issue. (old school computer guy joke for you young ones) I am so sick and tired of folks who can't shoot without this and that. The film masters has jack nothing to use gear wise and made much better images than any of us will ever do in a lifetime. Blurghhhh

;D My mother-in-law (w)itches less than some of these perpetual gouches.

 

[Mikehit]

did you find the M50 AF better in that respect than M5? Did you try M50 with one of the "enhanced mode" lenses (28 / 18-150 / 55-200)?

While no true "Canon Spot AF" [square with dot] 143 AF fields on M50 in enhanced mode (with 3 lenses) or even 99 in "normal mode" (with all/other lenses) vs. only 49 AF fields on M5 and other prior EOS M models should give much finer control over where focus is put? At least one would hope so.

Quite frankly, I see no difference between enhanced and other EFM lenses for practical photography purposes. 80% x 80% is virtually identical to 88% x 100%, because I'll never use that extra ring of squares on the far edges and corners. The last time I ever needed to focus on something at the extreme edge of the frame was... never.

I honestly don't care for MORE AF points. I mean, I think one of the nicest things about the 7DII is being able to reduce the number of selectable points. I only need a few AF points, but I'd like the option to make them much smaller squares if I wish.

More AF points are a real negative for me.

Can you elaborate as to why it’s a negative? Due to their display in the VF maybe?

Coz you spend so damn long moving the AF point to cover where you want it to be that you miss the shot, instead of remembering that focus-recompose is quicker.

 

[fullstop]

Coz you spend so damn long moving the AF point to cover where you want it to be that you miss the shot, instead of remembering that focus-recompose is quicker.

there would be one REALLY RIGHT way of AF point selection. Innovative Canon has invented and implemented it many years ago. AF point automatically chosen based on what users' pupil is looking at in viewfinder. An improved version would work fabulously on a mirrorless camera with today's processing power and so many AF fields covering more than 80%x80% of viewfinder area.

But ... Canon.

 

[dak723]

did you find the M50 AF better in that respect than M5? Did you try M50 with one of the "enhanced mode" lenses (28 / 18-150 / 55-200)?

While no true "Canon Spot AF" [square with dot] 143 AF fields on M50 in enhanced mode (with 3 lenses) or even 99 in "normal mode" (with all/other lenses) vs. only 49 AF fields on M5 and other prior EOS M models should give much finer control over where focus is put? At least one would hope so.

Quite frankly, I see no difference between enhanced and other EFM lenses for practical photography purposes. 80% x 80% is virtually identical to 88% x 100%, because I'll never use that extra ring of squares on the far edges and corners. The last time I ever needed to focus on something at the extreme edge of the frame was... never.

I honestly don't care for MORE AF points. I mean, I think one of the nicest things about the 7DII is being able to reduce the number of selectable points. I only need a few AF points, but I'd like the option to make them much smaller squares if I wish.

More AF points are a real negative for me.

Can you elaborate as to why it’s a negative? Due to their display in the VF maybe?

Coz you spend so damn long moving the AF point to cover where you want it to be that you miss the shot, instead of remembering that focus-recompose is quicker.

EXACTLY.

 

[dak723]

.... On 2018 cameras we should not ever have to focus first with one of a few AF point and then re-compose. Although I know, that many still do it that way - usually because they never really learned or mastered the AF system of their cameras.

Thank yuo for letting us no that us folks dat focus and recompost are too stupod to learn or masterr the AF sistems of our cameras. I guess I will thro away all my beautifle, purfectly focussed pitures that I did with focus and recompost since I obvusly doned it wrong.

 

[slclick]

.... On 2018 cameras we should not ever have to focus first with one of a few AF point and then re-compose. Although I know, that many still do it that way - usually because they never really learned or mastered the AF system of their cameras.

Another one of those "I am smarter than Canon' posts

 

[takesome1]

On the M6 (and probably also true for the M5 VF, which clones the main LCD), if you have the focus mode set to AF+MF, no button push is required – simply turning the manual focus ring on the lens automatically zooms the image on the LCD at the selected focus area (I suspect that behavior could be changed, but I like it so haven't tried).

Zooms, as in 5x or 10x?
Tried this on the M5 and nothing, in fact it only MF sporadically.

 

[3kramd5]

did you find the M50 AF better in that respect than M5? Did you try M50 with one of the "enhanced mode" lenses (28 / 18-150 / 55-200)?

While no true "Canon Spot AF" [square with dot] 143 AF fields on M50 in enhanced mode (with 3 lenses) or even 99 in "normal mode" (with all/other lenses) vs. only 49 AF fields on M5 and other prior EOS M models should give much finer control over where focus is put? At least one would hope so.

Quite frankly, I see no difference between enhanced and other EFM lenses for practical photography purposes. 80% x 80% is virtually identical to 88% x 100%, because I'll never use that extra ring of squares on the far edges and corners. The last time I ever needed to focus on something at the extreme edge of the frame was... never.

I honestly don't care for MORE AF points. I mean, I think one of the nicest things about the 7DII is being able to reduce the number of selectable points. I only need a few AF points, but I'd like the option to make them much smaller squares if I wish.

More AF points are a real negative for me.

Can you elaborate as to why it’s a negative? Due to their display in the VF maybe?

Coz you spend so damn long moving the AF point to cover where you want it to be that you miss the shot, instead of remembering that focus-recompose is quicker.

EXACTLY.

So it's an interface thing. Optionally reducing the number of user selectable points is, IMO, preferential to them not being there at all.

 

[neuroanatomist]

On the M6 (and probably also true for the M5 VF, which clones the main LCD), if you have the focus mode set to AF+MF, no button push is required – simply turning the manual focus ring on the lens automatically zooms the image on the LCD at the selected focus area (I suspect that behavior could be changed, but I like it so haven't tried).

Zooms, as in 5x or 10x?
Tried this on the M5 and nothing, in fact it only MF sporadically.

Yes, I think it's 5x but I'm not positive. Tried on M5 with what lens? LCD or VF?

 

[takesome1]

On the M6 (and probably also true for the M5 VF, which clones the main LCD), if you have the focus mode set to AF+MF, no button push is required – simply turning the manual focus ring on the lens automatically zooms the image on the LCD at the selected focus area (I suspect that behavior could be changed, but I like it so haven't tried).

Zooms, as in 5x or 10x?
Tried this on the M5 and nothing, in fact it only MF sporadically.

Yes, I think it's 5x but I'm not positive. Tried on M5 with what lens? LCD or VF?

LCD with the 15x45 and 55x200.

I re-set the settings again just now, I was able to get it to work this time. Not sure what the glitch the first time might have been, it was like the camera didn't recognize the changes. Now it works, it shows it is doing it at 5x.
Thanks

 

[jayphotoworks]

Coming back to focus peaking, I realize that some users here that shoot stills primarily don't see a lot of value, but for film production, it is immensely useful. It offers the best of both worlds for these smaller cameras where you won't have a large crew, or any crew for that matter.

On a larger camera, the AC can punch in all they want on his/her her secondary monitor, while the operator only has to consider framing on their own monitor, but on a small hybrid camera, you are framing and focusing simultaneously on one screen/vf/lcd, so those ugly red and green lines makes the world of difference. In addition to that, you have a bit more latitude between critical and adequate focus when shooting moving pictures, and getting in the ballpark while the camera and subject are both moving is a godsend.

 

[Talys]

Coming back to focus peaking, I realize that some users here that shoot stills primarily don't see a lot of value, but for film production, it is immensely useful. It offers the best of both worlds for these smaller cameras where you won't have a large crew, or any crew for that matter.

On a larger camera, the AC can punch in all they want on his/her her secondary monitor, while the operator only has to consider framing on their own monitor, but on a small hybrid camera, you are framing and focusing simultaneously on one screen/vf/lcd, so those ugly red and green lines makes the world of difference. In addition to that, you have a bit more latitude between critical and adequate focus when shooting moving pictures, and getting in the ballpark while the camera and subject are both moving is a godsend.

Neat to know. Don't most of the field monitors have focus peaking (and the ability to turn it on and off) independently of the camera?