Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: michaelnotar on August 04, 2011, 02:31:57 am
-
ive been a photographer for 15 years now. i currently use a 7d, 1d4 with a range of L series zooms (24-105 and 70-200/2.8 the first one) along with the 28/1.8, 50/1.4. i consider myself very proficient with the gear, see gear head. i have calibrated all my lenses with lens align, they were all fine, this is no a front/back focus question.
my question, why cant i get a great looking file 90% of the time from an slr. it seems i am always compromising. i can get good shots in all my tests but really have a hard time getting really good focus in the real world. i just finished a high school senior sessions outside and inside and was surprised with the number that i had to sharpen up. i shot with my 7d with 24-105 at f5.6 with shutterspeeds atleast 1/250. i stabilized the camera and had a stationary subject in one shot auto focus. i was really surprised with the number of focusing errors, just slight, that prevented ultimate sharpness. but damn when it hit it, eye lash detail was great. most shots were taken around 65-85mm on the lens and where half body shots.
so i am i asking too much from cameras? are zooms notorious for not amazing focus? primes better? other brand primes better? while i dont have unattainable expectations i have favored a P25 file for being pretty damn near perfect. MFDB rule no question, not my point of this question.
-
It is difficult to properly evaluate your problems, without some samples and more information. For instance, did you:
1. Use manual focus? There is no reason why you should not use manual focus if you want ultimate control. Auto-focus is normally calibrated within certain tolerance specifications;
2. Do you shoot RAW? What is your post-processing workflow? Files straight from a DSLR will need sharpening applied.
There are many good instructional materials in this site, and others, for you to explore.
-
Hi,
Why do you think manual focus is better calibrated than autofocus?
Best regards
Erik
It is difficult to properly evaluate your problems, without some samples and more information. For instance, did you:
1. Use manual focus? There is no reason why you should not use manual focus if you want ultimate control. Auto-focus is normally calibrated within certain tolerance specifications;
There are many good instructional materials in this site, and others, for you to explore.
-
A couple of thoughts:
Are you manually setting the focus point over the eye, or using the center point and recomposing? I was an inveterate focus-and-recompose shooter, having come up shooting film in manual focus cameras. My success rate with fast primes was pathetic, until I followed Canon's instructions to set the focus point manually over the thing I wanted in focus, and then it was like magic -- even wide open, I get a much higher percentage of tack-sharp photos.
I do find that I have to constantly re-focus the get good results shooting location portraits. I've gotten into the habit of using my finger to push the manual focus ring out of focus, then hit the rear focus button to re-focus every few shots. This has helped a lot, too.
Even at f/5.6, there's not much depth of field, and tiny focus errors show up in larger prints (and at 100% in Photoshop.) You may think that you and your model aren't moving ("stationary subject"), but that's not really true when shooting people hand-held.
-
... Why do you think manual focus is better calibrated than autofocus?
Jesus, Erik!?
-
Slobodan,
I don't really see your point. Manual focus is based on visual observation of a focusing screen. This focusing screen is aligned with the bayonet of the camera within some tolerance. In addition we have a moving mirror assembly that needs to be in alignment with both the focusing screen and the bayonet. There is naturally also a possibility that the sensor is out of alignment with the bayonet, or focusing screen. In my view it is a miracle that SLRs actually can be focused!
So I'd suggest that it is a perfectly good question which is better aligned the focusing screen or the AF-sensor?
Another issue I think a lot around is viewfinder magnification, how large is the projected image in the viewfinder compared to a print or computer screen at actual pixels?
I'd suggest that one of the reasons manual focusing works at all is that we move back and forth between backfocus and frontfocus and the position midway is quite optimal.
Best regards
Erik
Jesus, Erik!?
-
Hi,
In a sense I have seen a similar problem. I mostly shoot landscape and have no problem with focus, on the other hand when I shoot people I often miss. Two reasons:
I often don't put the focusing point on the most important person, try to compose and forget to focus. Camera probably focuses on the background. The other way around, with multipoint focus the camera may focus on the wrong subject.
The other issue I have noticed is that depth of field with todays high resolution sensors is incredibly short. With a 150 mm lens at f(8 we would definitively see difference in sharpness on an object 150 m away depending on lens being focused at 150 m or infinity.
The article here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1 discusses the effect of minor defocusing on sharpness. The measurements were done with a 100 mm macro lens at three meter distance. The image in the upper right corner would still be regarded sharp accordng to the normal "depth of field" criteria with a CoC of 1/50 mm for APS-C and 1/30 mm for full frame.
Best regards
Erik
ive been a photographer for 15 years now. i currently use a 7d, 1d4 with a range of L series zooms (24-105 and 70-200/2.8 the first one) along with the 28/1.8, 50/1.4. i consider myself very proficient with the gear, see gear head. i have calibrated all my lenses with lens align, they were all fine, this is no a front/back focus question.
my question, why cant i get a great looking file 90% of the time from an slr. it seems i am always compromising. i can get good shots in all my tests but really have a hard time getting really good focus in the real world. i just finished a high school senior sessions outside and inside and was surprised with the number that i had to sharpen up. i shot with my 7d with 24-105 at f5.6 with shutterspeeds atleast 1/250. i stabilized the camera and had a stationary subject in one shot auto focus. i was really surprised with the number of focusing errors, just slight, that prevented ultimate sharpness. but damn when it hit it, eye lash detail was great. most shots were taken around 65-85mm on the lens and where half body shots.
so i am i asking too much from cameras? are zooms notorious for not amazing focus? primes better? other brand primes better? while i dont have unattainable expectations i have favored a P25 file for being pretty damn near perfect. MFDB rule no question, not my point of this question.
-
Erik, in test after test, careful manual focusing beats AF anytime. The point being, whatever alignment issues manual focusing has, AF has its own issue ON TOP of that, let alone tolerance levels.
-
... i have favored a P25 file for being pretty damn near perfect. MFDB rule no question...
If anything, MFDB are notoriously difficult to focus correctly, much more so than DSLR
-
It depends Slobobodan. Here's my experience. High school students are not going to put up with careful manual focussing, they want to get back to the party. I find focussing with digital much more critical than with film, and in situations where speed is important or in low light where I have trouble seeing the magnified image in Live View, auofocus beats manual every time for me.
To the OP: the warning about about focussing and re-composing is a good one. Are you getting the focus point right on the eye and then immediately shooting?
-
Slobodan,
I have seen many articles on the difficulty of focusing. C'tein has a good article, Lloyd Chambers had issues focusing the Leica S2 and the M9 manually. Erwin Puts who is a Leica expert says that it is not possible to achieve exact focus on the Leica M9 except by using focus bracketing. But the same testers report problems with AF. SLRGear wrote an article on the issue: http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, in test after test, careful manual focusing beats AF anytime. The point being, whatever alignment issues manual focusing has, AF has its own issue ON TOP of that, let alone tolerance levels.
-
Erik, in test after test, careful manual focusing beats AF anytime. The point being, whatever alignment issues manual focusing has, AF has its own issue ON TOP of that, let alone tolerance levels.
Oh, yeah. +1
Erik, Lloyd Chambers has trouble focusing all sorts of lenses and camera combinations that no one else does.
-
Look, guys... I am the first one to use AF most of the time... simply more practical, and in variety of situations, vastly superior to my, or average Joe's manual focusing skills. But... and that is a big but (no pun intended)... when it comes to careful, critical focusing, using live view and 10x loupe, in most situations it will beat AF, simply because of the tolerance range AF has by design. You never know what your lenses are capable of unless you do this test and see for yourself.
Eric, rangefinders have less than precise focusing? Who would have thought so? ;)
-
i only shoot raw, and always put an AF point on the eyes and never focus then recompose.
manual focus might be more accurate but if you are using the focusing assist that lights up when in focus then you are back at square one.
one thing that might have contributed to some of my problems is i had AF point expansion set and didnt realize it took affect. it would choose a point very close but not exact where i want it. solved that tho.
is any one truely impressed by an slr file at 100%, it always seems mediocre. MF sees easier to focus due to a longer focus throw and bigger viewfinder but focus is very critical, more so for stabilization of the camera really.
-
... is any one truely impressed by an slr file at 100%..
I do not know what impresses you, but this one impresses me. Canon 17-55/2.8, dusk, hand-held at 24mm, 1/60s, f/4 ISO 400, and the "lowly" 8 mpx 20D. Only default sharpening in LR3.
-
so i am i asking too much from cameras?
Maybe ... why not post some samples of shots that failed to meet your expectation?
In my experience learning to shoot digital and striving for the highest image quality I found that technique and not gear was usually the limiting factor.
-
Only default sharpening in LR3.
And you left image quality on the table by not optimizing the capture sharpening in LR 3. Just so you understand...
-
is any one truely impressed by an slr file at 100%, it always seems mediocre.
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/temp/btha04crop.jpg)
100% crop, no sharpening, focussed manually.
The full image:
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/lagomorphs/bthare04.jpg)
another one, 100% crop, no sharpening, manual focus:
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/falconidae/L1002368crop.jpg)
the full image:
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/falconidae/L1002368.jpg)
-
focus fixer
Marc
-
And you left image quality on the table by not optimizing the capture sharpening in LR 3. Just so you understand...
But of course... The reason I posted the default sharpening version is to preempt the immediate reaction by skeptics: "it only looks sharp because you sharpened it excessively it in PS/LR". Also, it is customary to compare various files using comparable settings, and the default settings are a natural choice. Otherwise, the discussion turns to what constitutes optimum capture sharpening, instead of sharpness factors before post-processing.
-
focus fixer
Marc
Over-sharpened.
-
slobodan, please explain why you are impressed by this image. the quality of the image refllects the poor conditions under which it wa created - so what.
-
Hi,
Yes manual focusing using live view is best. I absolutely agree and that is what I would use on my Sony Alpha SLT55, the only camera that has live view. But I still maintain that focusing on ground glass has similar issues to auto focus.
It is also my belief that viewfinder magnification is not good enough for critical focus. I have an example:
I was shooting at Oxbow Bend, and saw something that could be a boulder, a cow or something else. I simply could not see in my viewfinder. Than I made a shot using AF, and could see that it was an elk with a fine rack. No way I could see the rack in the optical viewfinder! So how can I focus on what I cannot see? I enclose full image and 1:1 crops. Now useful picture, just illustration.
Now, of course I have not perfect sight, but with the corrective glasses I think it's about 20/20. At that time the environmental conditions were also not kind, sunlight coming from the side and quite cold, causing some tearing in my eyes.
But any way, I don't think viewfinder has a similar resolution to the sensor, even with perfect sight I presume it to be less. Assumption is based on the viewfinder image being quite small. It's a projected image so it's hard to say how big it is but I'd say it corresponds to around 4x5" at 25 cm, and I normally print at 15x23". I don't think I see the same amount of detail in the smallish viewfinder image as in the big print.
Best regards
Erik
Look, guys... I am the first one to use AF most of the time... simply more practical, and in variety of situations, vastly superior to my, or average Joe's manual focusing skills. But... and that is a big but (no pun intended)... when it comes to careful, critical focusing, using live view and 10x loupe, in most situations it will beat AF, simply because of the tolerance range AF has by design. You never know what your lenses are capable of unless you do this test and see for yourself.
Eric, rangefinders have less than precise focusing? Who would have thought so? ;)
-
slobodan, please explain why you are impressed by this image. the quality of the image refllects the poor conditions under which it wa created - so what.
I guess you are suggesting the quality of the image is equally poor as the conditions were? In which case we are coming to the crust of the matter: people are looking at the same thing and seeing it differently. For me, I am impressed that the image is as sharp as it is IN SPITE of the poor conditions, and you apparently see its sharpness as poor. I am impressed that I can see individual cables/ropes at the very top of the highest pole.
Remember, the questions centers on being impressed by a file. Being impressed or happy in life in general is a simple math function of achieved over expected/desired. Obviously, people who do not expect/desire much are easier to impress or be happy. In other words, as your expectations approach zero, the happiness approaches infinity ;). And vice versa, there are people who could never be happy/impressed by anything, as their expectations approach infinity.
So, when the OP claims he is unimpressed by his files, is it because the files are indeed poor, or is it because he is hard to please, so to speak?
P.S. Btw, we are looking at a crop at 100%, here is the whole image:
-
It is also my belief that viewfinder magnification is not good enough for critical focus. I have an example:
I was shooting at Oxbow Bend, and saw something that could be a boulder, a cow or something else. I simply could not see in my viewfinder. Than I made a shot using AF, and could see that it was an elk with a fine rack. No way I could see the rack in the optical viewfinder! So how can I focus on what I cannot see?
Viewfinders are not all the same. IMHO it's inappropriate to claim that "manual focus" is not accurate. It's "manual focus with this viewfinder" that you're having problems with.
-
The other issue I have noticed is that depth of field with todays high resolution sensors is incredibly short. With a 150 mm lens at f(8 we would definitively see difference in sharpness on an object 150 m away depending on lens being focused at 150 m or infinity.
Thanks for the test and the article. Very useful information and indeed when looking at 100% crops the depth of field is much smaller than the old fashioned dof tables that came with analog film camera's.
However I always understood the classical dof tables (or the CoC definition used to create them) were based on what still appeared "sharp" to the human eye when a well produced print was viewed from a distance of about the diagonal size of the print.
So indeed when you look at dof in 100% crops digital greatly reduced it, however in a practical sense (looking at a print) I think there is no difference between the past (analog) and current (digital) pictures. In other words the right/top dollar bill would still look sharp when the whole frame was skillfully printed and then viewed from the proper distance.
Is this also your understanding, or am I missing something?
-
i have always noticed that AF accuracy seems to greatly reduce with distance, esp 50ft+. wide angles seem to be worse, telephotos better. experiences within 50ft are good (with any length lens).
well i havent had a 1 series for a while, i was selling my 1d3 early this year. so i am getting used the beast again on my 1d4, but have used the 1 series since 2001.
how is it i can take 2 shots in a few seconds, completely refocus each shot, but focus on the same subject/AF point/same competition; and one is good and the other is not.
-
OK,
To rephrase the question. How large is the viewfinder image at 25 cm (which is normally regarded close limit for eye sharpness)? To achieve correct focus the viewfinder image needs to be the same size as your final print. In addition ground glass, mirror, sensor and lens must be adjusted within 0.01 mm.
I'd suggest that correct focus can be estimated by turning focusing ring back and forth and finding midway far and short focus, but for that you need a lens with long focusing rotation, AF lenses tend not to be built that way. I'd also say that some photographers are better at focusing manually than others.
Folks with much more experience than me have looked at this. Erwin Puts who seems to be an authority on Leica lenses claimed that critical focus can only be achieved using focus bracketing. One of the problems is that many lenses shift focus when stopped down. So a lens would not have the same focus at f/1.4 as at f/4.0, telephoto lenses may not have this problem.
That said, I think I'm familiar with your bird pictures and I'm impressed by their sharpness.
Best regards
Erik
Viewfinders are not all the same. IMHO it's inappropriate to claim that "manual focus" is not accurate. It's "manual focus with this viewfinder" that you're having problems with.
-
i have always noticed that AF accuracy seems to greatly reduce with distance, esp 50ft+. wide angles seem to be worse, telephotos better. experiences within 50ft are good (with any length lens).
well i havent had a 1 series for a while, i was selling my 1d3 early this year. so i am getting used the beast again on my 1d4, but have used the 1 series since 2001.
how is it i can take 2 shots in a few seconds, completely refocus each shot, but focus on the same subject/AF point/same competition; and one is good and the other is not.
Just some random thoughts....
If it was the camera (for example the 1D4) you would expect better results from the other model. If there are focussing errors with both then it is logical to assume that either it is user error or the cameras are not up to it.
It could be an either/or but often it is a combination of factors and at least probably not user error.
Canon cameras do have a history of focussing errors. However a friend who uses the 7D gets sharp images on the whole, but reports back that the choice of focussing mode is important and often using a single focussing point in real life doesn't work at all. Also, there is not a lot of depth of field up close at f5.6, and it is possible that one shot hits the eyelashes but the next one gets the eyebrow and the eye goes out of focus. Especially if the lens is slightly front focussing. I see you've calibrated the lens but I've found using LensAlign that if I get the lens accurate at say 70mm, then it is slightly out at 200mm, so I set it up at an average and keep in mind how much it will be out at the two extremes.
-
Hi,
You are right in your reasoning, but I have a couple of objections:
The major one is that we print larger and viewing distance increases but not proportionally to image diagonal.
The other factor is that we do a lot of pixel peeping with digital. Perhaps bad but still a fact.
Three personal reflections:
When I switched from 135 film to 120 film I was dissatisfied with the sharpness of my images. The only reason I switched to 120 was to get better sharpness and not equal sharpness. I started to reconsider depth of field and lived happy.
The other reflection is that there is enjoyment looking at fine detail in a good and large print. That is pixel peeping, but also one of the main reasons to print big.
The third one is that we cannot get everything into focus in high res digital images. So instead of trying to get everything sharp using extended DOF we can try to use selective focus as an artistic tool.
I also happen to have an article on expanding DOF using different techniques:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/29-handling-the-dof-trap
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for the test and the article. Very useful information and indeed when looking at 100% crops the depth of field is much smaller than the old fashioned dof tables that came with analog film camera's.
However I always understood the classical dof tables (or the CoC definition used to create them) were based on what still appeared "sharp" to the human eye when a well produced print was viewed from a distance of about the diagonal size of the print.
So indeed when you look at dof in 100% crops digital greatly reduced it, however in a practical sense (looking at a print) I think there is no difference between the past (analog) and current (digital) pictures. In other words the right/top dollar bill would still look sharp when the whole frame was skillfully printed and then viewed from the proper distance.
Is this also your understanding, or am I missing something?
-
Hi,
Why do you think manual focus is better calibrated than autofocus?
Best regards
Erik
Assuming I have perfect eyesight, two things can happen when I use manual focus:
1. I focus the lens on the intended subject, and I can see in the viewfinder (or live view camera LCD, or thethered comptuer screen for that matter) that the image is indeed focused;
2. Or, using any of the above, I can not get the image focused. If this is the case, then indeed there may be something wrong or misaligned inside my camera.
The bottomline for me, after using SLRs for 20 years, I will trust manual focus more than autofocus for critical work. Of course, a proper focusing screen for manual focus is mandatory. As is a lens that has a good focus throw and "feel" for manual focusing (not that many in Canon land).
With DSLRs, and digital in general, people blow up their images to 100% and complain things are not sharp... combine that with lack of knowledge/experience on how to use the gazillion options for autofocus in modern day cameras, and that gives a powerful recipe for failure...
-
To rephrase the question. How large is the viewfinder image at 25 cm (which is normally regarded close limit for eye sharpness)? To achieve correct focus the viewfinder image needs to be the same size as your final print. In addition ground glass, mirror, sensor and lens must be adjusted within 0.01 mm.
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.
-
Hi,
You are right in your reasoning, but I have a couple of objections:
The major one is that we print larger and viewing distance increases but not proportionally to image diagonal.
The other factor is that we do a lot of pixel peeping with digital. Perhaps bad but still a fact.
Three personal reflections:
When I switched from 135 film to 120 film I was dissatisfied with the sharpness of my images. The only reason I switched to 120 was to get better sharpness and not equal sharpness. I started to reconsider depth of field and lived happy.
The other reflection is that there is enjoyment looking at fine detail in a good and large print. That is pixel peeping, but also one of the main reasons to print big.
The third one is that we cannot get everything into focus in high res digital images. So instead of trying to get everything sharp using extended DOF we can try to use selective focus as an artistic tool.
I also happen to have an article on expanding DOF using different techniques:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/29-handling-the-dof-trap
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik, no objections to your reasoning. It shows sharpness (and its perception) is highly depending on the assumptions you make. So it's not only digital that makes dof seem smaller, but also the fact we print larger and look closer (to a print or pixel peeping).
Only thing maybe to add is that in the digital age sharpening is also easier applied then in the old film days, USM and deconvolution sharpening are relatively easy software manipulations, while in the darkroom they were either much harder to do or impossible. So the perception of sharpness when viewing from a certain distance can be improved much easier, however detail that is not there cannot be regained.
-
Hi,
Just a comment. For some reason we have an obsession with image quality. That is the reason we chase more megapixels and some of us even buy quite expensive MF digital backs. I think it's much about satisfaction.
Regarding sharpening, it's an interesting area. I just hung an exhibition print today with a couple of coyotes I shot (with camera!) in the Grand Teton NP. The image is not really sharp, due to movement, panning and slow shutter time. The coyote in the center is pretty sharp, tough and I sharpened it selectively using Topaz InFocus. I much like the result.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/LLVJ/coyotes.jpg
Best regards
Erk
Thanks Erik, no objections to your reasoning. It shows sharpness (and its perception) is highly depending on the assumptions you make. So it's not only digital that makes dof seem smaller, but also the fact we print larger and look closer (to a print or pixel peeping).
Only thing maybe to add is that in the digital age sharpening is also easier applied then in the old film days, USM and deconvolution sharpening are relatively easy software manipulations, while in the darkroom they were either much harder to do or impossible. So the perception of sharpness when viewing from a certain distance can be improved much easier, however detail that is not there cannot be regained.
-
Over-sharpened.
give me a full size RAW!
-
is any one truely impressed by an slr file at 100%, it always seems mediocre. MF sees easier to focus due to a longer focus throw and bigger viewfinder but focus is very critical, more so for stabilization of the camera really.
Hum... Are DSLRs the same? I am not sure why you generalize what appears to be a focusing issue with the copies of the bodies you own to be a generic DSLR issue relative to MF.
To start, you could:
- try using live view
- send your bodies back to Canon for inspection
- try equipment from other DSLR brands with a better reputation in terms of focusing
I can feel frustration, but I am not sure it is directed at the right target.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
The longer focusing throw certainly helps, because it helps finding focus by rocking back and forth and finding mid point, which probably has optimum sharpness. Depth of focus is equal on near and far side, so midpoint is best focus.
On the other hand I doubt that focusing screens are perfectly aligned, and cannot normally be individually adjusted. DSLRs have focus adjustment and more importantly live view. LV uses the actual sensor image for focusing, so flange distance tolerances are not an issue. On the other hand LV does in no way guarantee that lens in properly aligned with sensor. But it can guarantee correct focus at the point of focus.
Best regards
Erik
Hum... Are DSLRs the same? I am not sure why you generalize what appears to be a focusing issue with the copies of the bodies you own to be a generic DSLR issue relative to MF.
To start, you could:
- try using live view
- send your bodies back to Canon for inspection
- try equipment from other DSLR brands with a better reputation in terms of focusing
I can feel frustration, but I am not sure it is directed at the right target.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Subscribed.
-
My experience is that current digital SLRs has so high resolution that it is unfeasible to get maximum sharpness hand-held in most situations. Few images get to be as sharp as the maximum the lens and sensor allows, but most get to be "acceptable sharp" when not pixel-peeped. Small errors in focus is also easier detected due to this high resolution. Hand-held 10-12 megapixels or so seems to be "the limit" of what is feasible, higher resolution than that requires tripod, mirror-up, cable release etc.
I hope future DSLRs will have say 40 megapixels (for still life photo) and a 4-in-1 pixel-binning mode of 10 megapixels suitable for hand-held action.
-
I hope future DSLRs will have say 40 megapixels (for still life photo) and a 4-in-1 pixel-binning mode of 10 megapixels suitable for hand-held action.
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
....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...
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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....