DSLR mediocracy or is it me or too high of expectations

[PierreVandevenne]

Maybe trade speed for resolution (shooting, internal buffers, transfer to external storage) and vice versa in some situations? Leaving aside all potential IQ improvements in low light situations?

[torger]

Since you can do that in PP (with a choice of different algorithms for different situations) I would not care so much for that in cameras. Only advantage would be the smaller size of your image files, but other than that I see no real advantage. Or am I missing something else?

Speed would be it, huge megapixel cameras are generally slower (say 3-4 fps) while smaller megapixel cameras can do ~10 fps which is great for action. Built-in crop modes could also be an interesting option, full-frame for still life and portraits, and APS-H/C for sports and action.

Smaller file size could also be a quite important advantage since 40 megapixels would yield quite large RAW files, probably 50 megs or so. Canon has mRaw and sRaw formats today (reduced resolution RAW files), but I think it is too low res on the sensors still to use them.

[fotometria gr]

I'm using the same technique as well on my 48 and I recommend it to my students! I'm surprised by people acting like they can't live without AF or tack sharp focus! There are many great photos shot by exceptional photographers in the past that aren't tack sharp but are still great photos! I'm also surprised that nobody mentioned the lack of split image screens in modern finders! My studio camera (and more than studio...) is the Contax 645af, I own all the lenses, finders, screens and use both film and my Imacon 528c back with it, my favorite accessory, the one I can't live with, is my MFS-1 split image screen!!! I really think that in modern focusing systems which allow for MF correction while we use AF, a split screen should be considered a must! Regards, Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr

You don't have to see as much detail on the viewscreen as you would in the final print.  Human eyes are much better at detecting contrast than they are at detecting detail.  Photojournalists in the 1960s and 1970s knew this, they focussed by maximizing contrast on their Nikon E viewscreens.  It's the technique I'm using for my photos.  100% of the photos on my website (no exaggeration) were made using this technique, and my eyes are now 59 years old.

AF systems are subject to the same "ground glass", mirror, lens mount and sensor alignment issues (substituting AF sensor for "ground glass") with the additional issues of discrepancies between actual and nominal focal length and the granularity of the AF motors.

As an aside, I could get on my soap box but instead I'll make a very brief comment about the absurdity of using AF for landscape photos, however I recognize the camera makers have been providing little else and aspiring photographers who prefer to use a modern digital camera have little choice in the matter.

[LKaven]

Since you can do that in PP (with a choice of different algorithms for different situations) I would not care so much for that in cameras. Only advantage would be the smaller size of your image files, but other than that I see no real advantage. Or am I missing something else?

There is claimed to be some advantage to downsampling from RAW in the case of PhaseOne's "Sensor+" technology, which automatically re-aligns some of the bayer photosites (through an effective 45 degree rotation of neighboring cells).  But I don't know of any reason why this couldn't be done in post. 

[kitalight]

....in reply regarding inconsistent focusing...
I would liked to have seen some examples of how far "off" the focusing was....

Without seeing them, it would be hard to give specific advice regarding any one photo...
However...there is this generic issue we all face....

The focus may be inconsistent as a result of the area focused being in fact larger than the focus box outlined on the focusing screen in the viewfinder.

The results OP is experiencing could be as simple as that...

See page 4 of this article by Canon Digital Learning Center
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/whats_news_eos7d_article.shtml



It explains that on the 7D you can make the AF area SMALLER using the Spot AF option....

I hope this helps...

[Ellis Vener]

"i just finished a high school senior sessions outside and inside and was surprised with the number that i had to sharpen up"

For portraits nowadays I use my camera's live view function and manual focus.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My general experience is that my Sony Alpha 900, with microfocus adjustment focuses far better than I can with the focusing screen, eyesight and lenses I have. Autofocus lenses are not exactly made for easy manual focus, short thrust and  unexact coupling. Manual focus lenses may be easier to focus. I have considered switching focusing screen, but that would add another source of possible missalignment.

Live view AF is the best way to achieve exact focus, as it uses the actual sensor image. The Alpha 900 unfortunately does not have this feature. I also have an Alpha 55SLT which has live view, and can focus at 15X magnification. That works perfectly, but would be easier to use with lenses geared for manual focus. Also, LV MF takes some time, it would not be very useful for subjects in movement.

Best regards
Erik

"i just finished a high school senior sessions outside and inside and was surprised with the number that i had to sharpen up"

For portraits nowadays I use my camera's live view function and manual focus.

[LKaven]

For portraits nowadays I use my camera's live view function and manual focus.

I wish my Nikons could do this without having to close the shutter and drop the mirror before taking the picture.  The Canon implementation is easier to use in this way.  It just cycles the shutter without any perceptible lag.

[fotometria gr]

I wish my Nikons could do this without having to close the shutter and drop the mirror before taking the picture.  The Canon implementation is easier to use in this way.  It just cycles the shutter without any perceptible lag.

How about demanding a camera with split image, like those used during the 80's or much before AF arrived? I don't believe we had out of focus images at those days, did we? Not even in sports or wild life or anything! My major system is Contax645 with all lenses but the 350, all screens, all finders, all ext.rings and almost all of everything, I use that professionally with an Imacon 528c DB, my most valuable accessoire , the one I can't live with, is my MFS-1 split image screen! Shouldn't AF being considered as a supplement and not a major factor on a camera? Cheers, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr

[Plekto]

My personal issue with autofocus on most DSLRs is that they have far too many zones/points and that I have to manually turn them off to get good results.  Maybe I'm old-school, but I really want one and only one focus area - right under the center.  Anything else I just do manually. Of course, 98% of what I shoot is scenery, so YMMV.  Almost all of the time I manually nudge the focus a bit anyways as the internal computer is usually a lot less intelligent than I wish it would be.

note - a really nice trick to solve your issue if you are already using a tripod might be to bracket and blend.  You've heard of this for dynamic range, but it also works for depth of view.  Note - this is also called focus stacking for close up work or macros. 

http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm
Some good examples of how it also works for scenery. Most posters and the like that you see done professionally these days, that look in focus everywhere (like it was done on a computer but it's obviously a photograph) use this technique.  Of course, you don't want to over-do it as it's quite easy to get results like that 21 blended psiture on that page where everything looks too clean and perfect. We've been seeing photos and film so long now that has some blurring and so on in it that it's easy to push the dynamic range or focus with software to where our brains reject it.  Even though it's technically closer to what we actually see in real life.

[fotometria gr]

My personal issue with autofocus on most DSLRs is that they have far too many zones/points and that I have to manually turn them off to get good results.  Maybe I'm old-school, but I really want one and only one focus area - right under the center.  Anything else I just do manually. Of course, 98% of what I shoot is scenery, so YMMV.  Almost all of the time I manually nudge the focus a bit anyways as the internal computer is usually a lot less intelligent than I wish it would be.

note - a really nice trick to solve your issue if you are already using a tripod might be to bracket and blend.  You've heard of this for dynamic range, but it also works for depth of view.  Note - this is also called focus stacking for close up work or macros. 

http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm
Some good examples of how it also works for scenery. Most posters and the like that you see done professionally these days, that look in focus everywhere (like it was done on a computer but it's obviously a photograph) use this technique.  Of course, you don't want to over-do it as it's quite easy to get results like that 21 blended psiture on that page where everything looks too clean and perfect. We've been seeing photos and film so long now that has some blurring and so on in it that it's easy to push the dynamic range or focus with software to where our brains reject it.  Even though it's technically closer to what we actually see in real life.

How about if the good old split image comes back and they retain their AF systems giving us our "way of doing it" back? They would then advance their tech and we could still have the alternative! Why did they have to take the alternative away from us? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[BernardLanguillier]

I wish my Nikons could do this without having to close the shutter and drop the mirror before taking the picture.  The Canon implementation is easier to use in this way.  It just cycles the shutter without any perceptible lag.

I understand that the more recent Nikon DSLR like the D7000 have gotten rid of the mechanical connection between mirror and shutter.

I expect the upcoming FX cameras to be the same. This will help for many scenarios including live view shooting and stitching.

Regards,
Bernard

[ivan muller]

When I do portraits, that are critical,  I rather use my lowly 50f1.8 at f8 (or the macro 100mm) or so with my 5d2 than the 24-105 .I almost always shift the focus point manually to where I want to focus, usually the eye. I just don't find the zoom to be as sharp off centre than the 50/100. But lets be honest...a school portrait viewed at 100% and the eye is not absolutely perfect in focus... well....when that happens I look at 50% which is much bigger than most prints I will make and then everything almost always look fine. I would say my success rate is above 90% and those that are totally off, quite rare....the other 9% is close enough not to be noticeable by any client in any case...but of course I notice it!

For stationary studio stuff I almost always use live view at 10x and then its much easier and I am more confident of 'best' sharpness.

I have not had my cameras calibrated, just lucky I guess, but the minute I thought something was off I would send the whole lot in to be matched, checked and calibrated...

I suggest you read the canon rumours article on lens softness etc to put things in perspective.....

And I am sure, that if you are like me, we are probably way too critical of our own work in any case....