Not OT: 2008 A Very Tough Year to Come

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Simon, give up, Doug is right, and he is a damn good pro in his field. Your goose's eye is not as sharp as the near wing tip feather, as Doug pointed out, yet the feather is moving much faster than the eye. You inadvertently made Doug's point for him: even the latest gen Japanese AF on a pro Canon camera is not good enough for some things. It needs lots of practice and manual focus.

 

All of Doug's shots are sharper than yours, and don't ask for 100% crops: he'll just give them to you and make you look silly. He has posted crops before, and they are brilliant.

 

I don't know why you are still arguing, so long after having lost the upper hand.

 

The point is: AF is a compromise. Sure, you'll get 10 fps that way, but if none are as sharp as needed, then what's the point. For many people AF is good enough. If your invented number of 99% is even correct, which I doubt, then you still have no point. For 99% of the people in the world, a P&S is good enough. That hardly makes it good enough for those with higher expectations.

[sdai]

All of Doug's shots are sharper than yours, and don't ask for 100% crops: he'll just give them to you and make you look silly. He has posted crops before, and they are brilliant.

 

I don't mind to be looked silly, bring the 1:1 crops on - I've said that I can't do it with manual focusing ... it could prove Doug is right, right?

 

There're good and bad photographers, I have no problem to be the bad one ... give me the chance, please ... show me the 1:1 crop of a bird's eye or wing tip - in flight, and from that distance.

[telyt]

The f/6.8 Telyts are actually better for flight shots than the 280 f/4. Here's a down-sized photo of a Double-crested Cormorant, made with the 560mm f/6.8 & DMR:

 

 

and a 100% crop of the same photo:

 

 

If the wing tips are sharper than this it's OK with me

[sdai]

If the wing tips are sharper than this it's OK with me

 

That looks pretty darn cool, Doug ... I guess once you have enough DoF all focusing error can be masked.

 

Now let me tell you a little secret, the focus in my goose shot is like this ... and there's one point happened to be fallen close to the near wing tip. So you're right ... basically your findings prove the Canon AF is dead on. LOL

 

 

It's always good to let the pictures talk and I enjoy the conversation with you a lot, Doug.

 

Cheers!

[telyt]

That looks pretty darn cool, Doug ... I guess once you have enough DoF all focusing error can be masked.

 

A 560mm lens at f/6.8 has no DOF

 

Now let me tell you a little secret, the focus in my goose shot is like this ... and there's one point happened to be fallen close to the near wing tip. So you're right ... basically your findings prove the Canon AF is dead on. LOL

 

Cheers!

 

Dead on the wrong point is a reject IMHO.

[sdai]

A 560mm lens at f/6.8 has no DOF

 

Actually, if you shoot with a 560mm at f/6.8 on a 1.33x crop DSLR from about 200 to 300 meters away, you have approximately 50 to 120 meters DoF.

 

Dead on the wrong point is a reject IMHO.

 

Technically, AF worked, right? I think that I tried to track both of them and I normally chose to setup the CFn. to expand AF group from center to outmost circle, but since there's enough dof so the eyes happened to be roughly (if not exactly) in focus as well.

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sure, AF on a bright day always manages to focus on *something* (except some 1D3s). That does not make AF a success. It has to focus where *you* want it, otherwise it is wrong.

[lct]

...For many people AF is good enough. If your invented number of 99% is even correct, which I doubt, then you still have no point...

Not sure if most Leica users belong to the remaining 1%. Not everybody is able to focus a tele lens like Doug. I'm lucky enough to have a steady arm personally but how will i be in 10 years? I could well shoot blurred pics like Simon's! Just kidding my friend, but try an helicopter next time :D. Seriously for most people AF is a necessity IMHO. Not for me at present but who cares really? The client is always right.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Honestly as good as i am at manual focusing over the years i would not challenge Doug to a focusing contest , he would probably kick my butt here. LOL

 

He's a great shooter and I have said it many times, credit where credit is due. I love his images

[telyt]

Actually, if you shoot with a 560mm at f/6.8 on a 1.33x crop DSLR from about 200 to 300 meters away, you have approximately 50 to 120 meters DoF.

 

In my example photo the bird was about 50' away. That's 16 meters, not 200 to 300 meters.

 

 

Technically, AF worked, right?

 

It only works if the primary point of interest in the picture is in focus. It failed in your example, and this was a perfect illustration of a situation where Canon's advice is to not use AF. If you had managed to get an AF point on the lead goose's eye (and instructed the AF system to use only that one point) your composition would have been off. In the time it would have taken to re-compose, the geese (in particular, the lead goose's eye) would have moved out of the plane of focus. AF failed. Delete.

[sdai]

Not sure if most Leica users belong to the remaining 1%. Not everybody is able to focus a tele lens like Doug. I'm lucky enough to have a steady arm personally but how will i be in 10 years? I could well shoot blurred pics like Simon's! Just kidding my friend, but try an helicopter next time. Seriously for most people AF is a necessity IMHO.

 

I don't mind putting up more blurred images as long as I can see some sharp images in exchange. Especially when you've accumulated 20, 30 years worth of pictures, there's always something can be put up on the web.

 

As of the number I've just invented ... giving the manual focusing cameras a 0.01% market share is actually a huge compliment. Leica clearly knows if they want to sell more, they have no choice but to go for AF.

 

I guess many folks knew about this long before I did so they had started dumping the R system while I'm still hunting for bargain prices. LOL

 

Let me ask you one more question, if you know the R10 is AF for sure, how many of you will still stick to the old junks? Doug need not to answer ...

[telyt]

... if you know the R10 is AF for sure, how many of you will still stick to the old junks? Doug need not to answer ...

 

AF or not, if the R10 viewfinder is anywhere near as good as the SL viewfinder I'll gladly buy the new junk.

[sdai]

In my example photo the bird was about 50' away. That's 16 meters, not 200 to 300 meters.

 

It doesn't make sense, Doug ... you got that frame of a cormorant just 16 meters away with a 560mm lens on a DMR? adding its 1.33x cropping factor, you were dealing with 745mm effective focal length here.

 

 

It failed in your example, and this was a perfect illustration of a situation where Canon's advice is to not use AF. .

 

I think you've seriously missed my point, when the camera's AF point falls on where you think it is, then it worked. In my case, there's enough DoF so it doesn't make a big difference because the eye is also almost in focus.

 

By the way, where have you read Canon advising people not to use AF when shooting flying birds?

[telyt]

I think you've seriously missed my point, when the camera's AF point falls on where you think it is, then it worked.

 

I didn't miss the point at all. How often have you been able to keep a focus point on a particular part of a bird and maintain the composition you want?

 

In my case, there's enough DoF so it doesn't make a big difference because the eye is also almost in focus.

 

If almost is good enough for you, then it worked. Almost isn't good enough for me. It's like "almost got the job".

 

By the way, where have you read Canon advising people not to use AF when shooting flying birds?

 

page 11: http://www.usa.canon.com/content/Handling/EOS_Digital.pdf

 

They don't mention birds specifically but it's in the same kind of situation: close to camera, shallow DOF, off-center point of interest. Extrapolate their 15' "close focus" distance to a much longer lens and it still applies.

[sdai]

How often have you been able to keep a focus point on a particular part of a bird and maintain the composition you want?

 

Tough ... that's why I prefer AF in these cases.

 

If almost is good enough for you, then it worked. Almost isn't good enough for me. It's like "almost got the job".

 

If you look at my focus points, the leading goose was flying out of the focusing area, and I used group focus so it's hard to predict which exact point is locked down to zero tolerance.

 

They don't mention birds specifically but it's in the same kind of situation: close to camera, shallow DOF, off-center point of interest. Extrapolate their 15' "close focus" distance to a much longer lens and it still applies.

 

Actually, Canon's PDF file only recommended not to use the focus and recompose trick for close subject, that's different from telling people not to use AF.

 

Anyway, even if you did take the cormorant shot with a 745 EFL lens from merely 16 meters away, there's still about 25-28cm DoF ... I could be wrong but I guess it was from a longer distance because the frame coverage seems to be bigger than what you can get from such a close distance ... and both far and near wing tips across its wingspan are seem to be in enough focus.

[telyt]

Tough ... that's why I prefer AF in these cases.

 

When I'm using manual focus I don't need a focus point. I use whatever part of the viewscreen the bird's eye is on. Your logic escapes me.

 

 

If you look at my focus points, the leading goose was flying out of the focusing area, and I used group focus so it's hard to predict which exact point is locked down to zero tolerance.

 

Exactly why AF doesn't work in this situation.

 

Actually, Canon's PDF file only recommended not to use the focus and recompose trick for close subject, that's different from telling people not to use AF.

 

Re-read it, Simon. They say to use manual focus instead of focus-lock-recompose. This might be a bit of a stretch but my assumption is that if they say to use manual focus that means don't use AF.

 

... I could be wrong but I guess it was from a longer distance

 

Yes you certainly could be wrong.

 

Simon I have much better things to do than discuss this. Like, re-caulk the bathtub. I suggest that if you really want to understand why some people prefer manual focus, buy a Leicaflex SL or SL2 and 400mm f/6.8 with shoulder stock and use them for a while. It seems you're only interested in prolonging this discussion, and I'm not.

[sdai]

Simon I have much better things to do than discuss this. Like, re-caulk the bathtub. I suggest that if you really want to understand why some people prefer manual focus, buy a Leicaflex SL or SL2 and 400mm f/6.8 with shoulder stock and use them for a while. It seems you're only interested in prolonging this discussion, and I'm not.

 

Perhaps you can but there's no way I can take care of composition while I focus my eye through the screen on the birds eye. But let's stop here then. It has been way off topic anyways, as I started the thread on camera price.

[mjh]

Re-read it, Simon. They say to use manual focus instead of focus-lock-recompose. This might be a bit of a stretch but my assumption is that if they say to use manual focus that means don't use AF.

I have to agree with Simon here; the point Canon intends to make is quite obvious:

 

Avoid recomposing after focus lock during portraiture or close-up photography: This technique can cause focusing errors when shooting subjects within 15 feet of the camera, especially when using large apertures to reduce depth of field. Instead, select an off-center focusing point or focus manually.

 

What Canon refers to is the systematic error introduced by the focus-and-recompose technique which will lead to a noticable backfocus when the subject distance is short and the depth of field shallow. Either selecting an off-center focusing point or focusing manually on the off-center subject will prevent this – don’t recompose is key. Photographers have been using focus-and-recompose with manual focusing, too (so they could use the split-prism indicator in the center of the focusing screen), which created the same problems. The passage quoted is anti-focus-and-recompose (under certain circumstances), not specifically pro-manual-focusing. See page 12:

 

Before multi-point AF cameras were available, “Focus Lock and Recompose” (FLR) or manual focus were the only choices available. That’s no longer the case. FLR is sufficiently accurate for photographing distant subjects, but it can cause focusing errors, especially backfocus, when photographing subjects within about 15 feet of the camera. This is often the case during portraiture. For optimum focusing performance with close subjects, we recommend avoiding the FLR technique. Instead, use an offcenter focusing point or focus manually.

[mjh]

It has been way off topic anyways, as I started the thread on camera price.

I take it that you’ve read my comment on why the EOS 5D’s price is at an all-time low these days?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

I take it that you’ve read my comment on why the EOS 5D’s price is at an all-time low these days?

 

Yes, Michael ... thanks a lot!