Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13   Go Down

Author Topic: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.  (Read 43895 times)

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #220 on: September 24, 2014, 04:39:16 am »

But auto-focus doesn't work well at all, for anything.

That is quite obviously a ridiculous statement as my picture in post183 above shows.  And I'm not even an apologist for AF - but quite clearly AF does work well.  Is it fool proof - of course not, but AF and MF live side by side.  Yesterday I was shooting a choir in a dimly lit College and several times switched between MF and AF depending on the shot.

But then I think maybe many of your posts are simply aimed at stirring.....

Jim
Logged

Ajoy Roy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #221 on: September 24, 2014, 04:49:43 am »





First Image is with MF, second with AF
Logged
Ajoy Roy, image processing

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 909
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #222 on: September 24, 2014, 05:04:52 am »

That is quite obviously a ridiculous statement as my picture in post183 above shows.  And I'm not even an apologist for AF - but quite clearly AF does work well. 

Some people might think AF as "full auto" only, where the camera decides where to focus. That certainly works practically every time, but focus is not necessarily where the photographer wants it... I use just one focusing spot and get sharp photos 99% of the time, certainly faster and better than I would get with manual focus, so I use so called AF almost avery time. As I decide where the focus should be, maybe this should not be called AF, but "auto assisted focus"?

(I have shot professionally since -78, with full matte screens on Canon F1, football with Novoflex speed grips etc, so I do know what manual focus is...)
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13029
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #223 on: September 24, 2014, 06:32:45 am »

That is quite obviously a ridiculous statement as my picture in post183 above shows.  And I'm not even an apologist for AF - but quite clearly AF does work well.  Is it fool proof - of course not, but AF and MF live side by side.  Yesterday I was shooting a choir in a dimly lit College and several times switched between MF and AF depending on the shot.

But then I think maybe many of your posts are simply aimed at stirring.....

I have to agree with Jim here, AF helps. 90+% of the images in the attached Flckr set were shot with AF. I find them reasonably sharp but I may have low standards?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/72157646364292341/

This being said the following image was MFed yesterday.



Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 06:46:31 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #224 on: September 24, 2014, 07:16:24 am »

Some people might think AF as "full auto" only, where the camera decides where to focus. That certainly works practically every time, but focus is not necessarily where the photographer wants it... I use just one focusing spot and get sharp photos 99% of the time, certainly faster and better than I would get with manual focus, so I use so called AF almost avery time. As I decide where the focus should be, maybe this should not be called AF, but "auto assisted focus"?

(I have shot professionally since -78, with full matte screens on Canon F1, football with Novoflex speed grips etc, so I do know what manual focus is...)

Quite - The camera is just a tool and AF is one part of that tool. Learning a system inside out is the way to use the tool - and the AF does not need to be used in idiot mode as you quite rightly point out.

Jim
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #225 on: September 24, 2014, 09:32:07 am »

Jack - my opening sentence which I though I elaborated on was that it is a nonsense to generalise and say that MF is superior to AF.  I did specifically say that it depends on the type of photography and as I pointed out I am a big fan of MF.  I don't understand why in these forums people jump on one line in a post and tear it to pieces.  My whole post was saying it depends on the photographer, the subject, the gear etc. I would always use MF on a tripod with macro work - and even when hand-held sometimes too!

And when I said "few pictures in this thread" I did mean in THIS thread - I appreciate that there are millions of first class MF shots around.  I always put more store by posters who put up pictures when talking about photography - a picture being worth a thousand words etc.  I posted two to show where AF is an advantage and where MF is also quite suitable.

Jim

Okay.
Logged

melchiorpavone

  • Guest
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #226 on: September 24, 2014, 09:33:48 am »

Some people might think AF as "full auto" only, where the camera decides where to focus. That certainly works practically every time, but focus is not necessarily where the photographer wants it...

Yes! That is the problem! It isn't that it doesn't focus, it's that it is dumb!
Logged

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 909
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #227 on: September 24, 2014, 11:12:08 am »

Yes! That is the problem! It isn't that it doesn't focus, it's that it is dumb!

That is why YOU are needed to pick the right place to focus at, and the electronics do the dirty work (faster and more accurately than at least I can do).
Logged

melchiorpavone

  • Guest
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #228 on: September 24, 2014, 11:30:14 am »

That is why YOU are needed to pick the right place to focus at, and the electronics do the dirty work (faster and more accurately than at least I can do).

I don't agree.
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #229 on: September 24, 2014, 11:43:25 am »

Quite - The camera is just a tool and AF is one part of that tool. Learning a system inside out is the way to use the tool - and the AF does not need to be used in idiot mode as you quite rightly point out.
Jim

These statements should really clear the air here.

AF is most definitely a good tool. It may not be for critical focus, but it can sometimes be critical just to get the shot, at all, and AF can be a life-saver in that regard.

If I am on a trek and see a really cool, erratic butterfly, that won't sit still long, I am not going to waste my time trying to set up a tripod, activate Live View, blow what I see up 10x, and try to get razor-sharp manual focus. No time for that!

Instead, I would hand-hold and just try to use one of my AF points, compose via the viewfinder, and hope that my AF can nail the eye in focus (or center point if presented with a wing-spread), and let AF do its thing before the subject is gone.

Once I nail a couple shots, and if the subject sits still, maybe then I will try to compose a more thoughtful MF shot, but I might not ever have that opportunity.

If I tried only MF, I may never get a shot at all ...
Logged

melchiorpavone

  • Guest
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #230 on: September 24, 2014, 12:00:10 pm »

These statements should really clear the air here.

AF is most definitely a good tool. It may not be for critical focus, but it can sometimes be critical just to get the shot, at all, and AF can be a life-saver in that regard.

If I am on a trek and see a really cool, erratic butterfly, that won't sit still long, I am not going to waste my time trying to set up a tripod, activate Live View, blow what I see up 10x, and try to get razor-sharp manual focus. No time for that!

Instead, I would hand-hold and just try to use one of my AF points, compose via the viewfinder, and hope that my AF can nail the eye in focus (or center point if presented with a wing-spread), and let AF do its thing before the subject is gone.

Once I nail a couple shots, and if the subject sits still, maybe then I will try to compose a more thoughtful MF shot, but I might not ever have that opportunity.

If I tried only MF, I may never get a shot at all ...

I don't do "nature photography"; mostly people and sports. What you might call "fancy PJ style".

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/

Auto-focus would have not helped me with this one, given how the subject matter is placed towards the edges of the frame:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/14375474170/

Very little is in focus on that shot, except the eyes of the fellow on the left. He is just starting to react to my camera, and a couple of seconds later he turned away. Fortunately I was able to capture this instant, right as he is seeing me and the camera. This was with a 180mm. It is sometimes better to work with even longer lenses than that, to minimize disturbing the "fauna". A 350mm works wonders:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/5497339741/
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 12:22:42 pm by melchiorpavone »
Logged

Torbjörn Tapani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re:
« Reply #231 on: September 24, 2014, 02:05:01 pm »

What has any of this to do with future sensor technology?
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11270
    • Echophoto
Re:
« Reply #232 on: September 24, 2014, 03:33:14 pm »

Nothing, this is probably what they call a kidnapping a thread…

Getting back to the original topic, I would say that it is a bit of good enough. Sony/Nikon has the DR and MP advantage, but that matters little if we don't shoot base ISO on tripod.

Most people don't shoot base ISO and don't use tripod, but still they take most of the award winning pictures.

It is simply that stuff is good enough. Yeah you can gain a bit of quality using Sony sensors or even MFD, avoid stopping down past f/5.6 and never use anything but base ISO, but folks care about the image and the story than ultimate quality.

Best regards
Erik

What has any of this to do with future sensor technology?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 03:41:27 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3692
    • Photos
Re:
« Reply #233 on: September 24, 2014, 03:36:46 pm »

What has any of this to do with future sensor technology?

Nothing, but it's fun watching them argue about some minute points although they were on the same page.
What they missed in proclaiming that autofocus is not good for anything is that it's actually faster and good enough for most things, and the market is proof of that for the last couple of decades.

Arguing that a camera it's dumb because it doesn't know where to focus it is beyond funny; this not one Asimov's periods yet, of course it doesn't unless you tell it. That's why there are focus points which, shockingly, you can position, or the old, wait for it, focus and recompose.

Manual focus is preferred for macro photography, but that's a pretty small niche, and for some stationary subjects. Or as a backup for the increasingly rare occasion when AF cannot lock and few other very out of ordinary situations.


In terms of accuracy, the phase detect can have 20-30%  missed focus which sounds bad (and it is) but you will be able to take more pictures and be faster so in the end it might be a wash, particularly as the MF focus skills will likely be much more variable, some people will be very good and show it can be done as in this thread but many will be quite bad at it.
Now with the increased use of contrast based AF it will be at least as accurate as the best MF. I'm sure the Internet will give enough references.


In the end there will always be situations when AF is not working and that's when you have the backup of MF, but those situations are not the norm, and this days that's what MF focus is for most photographers, a backup and not the first choice.


Paradoxically maybe these days I use more MF for stationary objects because the electronic aids make it easier (eg. Focus peaking, etc)
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 03:38:42 pm by armand »
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re:
« Reply #234 on: September 25, 2014, 03:44:25 am »

What has any of this to do with future sensor technology?

Where's the signpost that says, "Digressions/tangents not allowed?"
Logged

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 909
Re:
« Reply #235 on: September 25, 2014, 05:26:07 am »


Arguing that a camera it's dumb because it doesn't know where to focus it is beyond funny; this not one Asimov's periods yet, of course it doesn't unless you tell it. That's why there are focus points which, shockingly, you can position, or the old, wait for it, focus and recompose.


Actually modern cameras do use sort of artificial intelligence to make an educated guess about where the probable main subject is, and both focus and adjust exposure accordingly. Of course this is not foolproof and if the main subject is in the far side or in the corner (which do not even have focus points in most DSLRs) it can not focus properly. Face detection is also available in many/most new cameras and it works quite good. With small sensors and slow lenses used in typical P&S cameras it does not matter if the camera focuses on the tip of the nose or iris, face will be sharp throughout with the large DOF available. So this alone proves that AF works perfectly, at least in those circumstances. And that cameras are not as dumb as suggested.
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3692
    • Photos
Re: The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.
« Reply #236 on: September 25, 2014, 08:08:01 am »

I tried in the past to let the camera decide but it just wasn't what I needed too often. It is great when I hand a camera to somebody who's not into photography.
The face detection, particularly on the smaller sensor, is a very neat feature though.

melchiorpavone

  • Guest
Re:
« Reply #237 on: September 25, 2014, 09:50:56 am »

Actually modern cameras do use sort of artificial intelligence to make an educated guess about where the probable main subject is, and both focus and adjust exposure accordingly. Of course this is not foolproof and if the main subject is in the far side or in the corner (which do not even have focus points in most DSLRs) it can not focus properly.

Right. Autofocus would be hopeless here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/14375474170/

Note how I placed the focus on the plane of the eyes of the fellow on the left, not the tip of his nose.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 09:53:09 am by melchiorpavone »
Logged

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re:
« Reply #238 on: September 25, 2014, 11:38:24 am »

Right. Autofocus would be hopeless here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/14375474170/

Note how I placed the focus on the plane of the eyes of the fellow on the left, not the tip of his nose.

Not arguing with your technique, but as you have little experience with AF I can understand that you would not know how easy it would be to achieve this with AF.  And not wishing to prolong the AF/MF discussion in this thread (you could start a new one) I would finish with AF and MF are two techniques to achieve the same result - getting what you want in focus, in focus.  And as experienced photographers obviously achieve that with or without AF surely we can all be happy and work the way that is best for us. I can see from your Flickr pages that you are mainly a 'breast' sort of man - whereas i'm more a 'bottom' man.  Each to their own I say.

Jim
Logged

melchiorpavone

  • Guest
Re:
« Reply #239 on: September 25, 2014, 11:45:46 am »

Not arguing with your technique, but as you have little experience with AF I can understand that you would not know how easy it would be to achieve this with AF.  And not wishing to prolong the AF/MF discussion in this thread (you could start a new one) I would finish with AF and MF are two techniques to achieve the same result - getting what you want in focus, in focus.  And as experienced photographers obviously achieve that with or without AF surely we can all be happy and work the way that is best for us. I can see from your Flickr pages that you are mainly a 'breast' sort of man - whereas i'm more a 'bottom' man.  Each to their own I say.

Jim

But could you do it in time? That's the point. A second or two after I took the shot the fellow on the left turned away, peeved that I was taking his photo. I had hardly any time. I lifted the SL2 to my eye, composed and focused very rapidly, and shot. I had no time to lose.

When you have been working with equipment for a long time, everything becomes second nature. My cameras are 40 years old, and I am used to them. I doubt that AF would have been of any advantage whatsoever here, and quite likely a disadvantage. The fellow on the left was applying makeup to the one on the right. As I approached, he stopped and looked right at me, and that's this shot. Then he turned away, peeved. I had time only for this one shot before it all fell apart.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 11:55:15 am by melchiorpavone »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13   Go Up