Options
state of the art on low contrast auto focus?
RovingEyePhoto
Registered Users Posts: 314 Major grins
Hello fellow dgrinners. I have to admit I'm not as active as I should be here, just stop in when I need info/opinions. I'll try to fit in time for more of the other direction in the future.
I shoot a genre loosely called modeled-street, over 1,500 examples at my Flickr link below, a far lesser number at the SmugMug link. The genre basically positions a female model as the one controllable in what otherwise would be considered "street", with her facial features and body language prominent as the pin-sharp subject amidst whatever degree of bokeh I can manage with the lens/light I'm given, primary emphasis being on facial prominence, especially eyes/lashes. Everything is shot natural light (don't use flash, recharge time way too slow), hand-held, fairly close-up, and on-the-fly. Present gear is an Olympus E-3 with high-end Zuiko lenses. This set-up does perfectly well in bright and mid-bright light, and early-evening gem light, and for deeply shadowed situations, the Oly built-in flash serves as a focus assist, I raise it, get two bursts when release pushed half-way, added contrast allows autofocus to do its job. My problem is that the Oly's flash autofocus assist can't be forced, camera sensor determines when contrast is inadequate, and unfortunately it's wrong more than right. So in the dim-but-not-so-dim portion of the light spectrum, autofocus confirms lock-on, but in fact often it's something less, and eyes/lashes aren't pin-sharp. I sharpen in Photoshop, but successful on the shots I'm talking about only about half the time, the others are lost. Oly does offer a combo autofocus/manual-focus setting, but my old eyes are far past manual tinkering as a workable solution.
Without getting into Nikon-head vs. Canon-head, my question is: what's the state of the art, which company maybe faces my autofocus problem better then Oly, and what might be expected down the road? Is this a problem common to all three brands, as my understanding of autofocus and intuition tells me it may well be? My reasons for going the E-3 route in the first place have all held-up, results are all over my Flickr and SmugMug pages, I'm a very happy camper. But tech is improving all the time, and my Oly's over 1 1/2 years old, and I haven't kept-up with autofocus developments.
Many thanks for the assist.
I shoot a genre loosely called modeled-street, over 1,500 examples at my Flickr link below, a far lesser number at the SmugMug link. The genre basically positions a female model as the one controllable in what otherwise would be considered "street", with her facial features and body language prominent as the pin-sharp subject amidst whatever degree of bokeh I can manage with the lens/light I'm given, primary emphasis being on facial prominence, especially eyes/lashes. Everything is shot natural light (don't use flash, recharge time way too slow), hand-held, fairly close-up, and on-the-fly. Present gear is an Olympus E-3 with high-end Zuiko lenses. This set-up does perfectly well in bright and mid-bright light, and early-evening gem light, and for deeply shadowed situations, the Oly built-in flash serves as a focus assist, I raise it, get two bursts when release pushed half-way, added contrast allows autofocus to do its job. My problem is that the Oly's flash autofocus assist can't be forced, camera sensor determines when contrast is inadequate, and unfortunately it's wrong more than right. So in the dim-but-not-so-dim portion of the light spectrum, autofocus confirms lock-on, but in fact often it's something less, and eyes/lashes aren't pin-sharp. I sharpen in Photoshop, but successful on the shots I'm talking about only about half the time, the others are lost. Oly does offer a combo autofocus/manual-focus setting, but my old eyes are far past manual tinkering as a workable solution.
Without getting into Nikon-head vs. Canon-head, my question is: what's the state of the art, which company maybe faces my autofocus problem better then Oly, and what might be expected down the road? Is this a problem common to all three brands, as my understanding of autofocus and intuition tells me it may well be? My reasons for going the E-3 route in the first place have all held-up, results are all over my Flickr and SmugMug pages, I'm a very happy camper. But tech is improving all the time, and my Oly's over 1 1/2 years old, and I haven't kept-up with autofocus developments.
Many thanks for the assist.
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
0
Comments
Also for your E-3 you should be able to mount an FL36/50 and use it for flash assist by setting the flash to use only the AF assist. It works much better than the strobing. Not sure if you can force it though.
Anyway Canon 1D for low light AF.
Gene
Canon bodies include the 1D/1Ds series cameras and the Nikon bodies include the D3/D3X, D2X and D2Xs, D700 and then a similar (but probably not identical*) AF sensor on the D300 (crop 1.5x).
(* The Nikon D300 AF module is designated as a "DX" series AF module where the D3 and D3X and D700 af modules are designated "FX", partly because of the format difference but there is a notable speed difference among Nikon owners claiming that the D3/D3X are faster than the D700, which is faster than the D300. All of these Nikon AF sensors do share the same number of AF points however, and the D2X/D2Xs have fewer AF points, but still benefit from Area SIR AF.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks again,
Stan
Many thanks, Ziggy. I obviously have homework to do, and your info guides the way. I considered full frame format initially, both Nikon and Canon, but too big a brick for me with fast glass hand-held on-the-fly. I'm not a big guy, and even if I were, still would seem a brick. I generally shoot f/2.8, although forced into about f/3.3 or so when zooming to mid FL with Zuiko f/2.8-4.0 12-60mm (24-120 equiv). I have the Zuiko f/2.0 50 mm (100 equiv) which I use for some of this work, and love the DOF control from f/2.0-2.8, but 100mm equiv is really too long since leaves room for people to walk between me and mod, not so good. Anyway, tech moves on, and mid-dim autofocus is a problem, so somewhere along the line I'll have to make a decision.
I assume Nikon and Canon also have strobe autofocus assist on models having flash (I recall D300 has pop-up flash). Do their's allow forcing, or like Oly does only the camera make the decision on dimness? Just curious, seems so easy a user override to build in.
Again, many thanks.
Stan
Do take a look at a Nikon D700. It is not too heavy, has wonderful low-light handling and Area SIR AF. Not designed for sports but honestly capable and competent at just about everything else. (Some folks do use it for sports even though it was not designed for it nor is it the best choice for a sports camera IMO.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Stan
No, a full-frame camera is not intrinsically better at focus but it may be more forgiving in that it tends to require less resolution to produce a similar image quality with the same FOV versus a crop sensor. A full-frame sensor also tends to allow smaller apertures and the D700 is diffraction limited at about f13 where a crop 2x camera (like the Four-Thirds Olympus bodies) and 10 MPix for example, would be diffraction limited starting somewhere around f6.3.
The Area SIR AF module of the D700 is potentially much more accurate than lesser AF systems and, in conjunction with lenses of aperture f2.8 or faster, much, much more accurate.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It's interesting the frustrations camera Co's put us through. I've looked at the D700 and all it offers, and lots of plus. And wide aperture is where I shoot, so if Area SIR has greatest effect at f/2.8 and faster, even greater plus. So I look at the Nikon lens line-up for a fixed f/2.8 roughly 24-70mm zoom, the FL range that best fits my style of modeled street shooting, and sure enough, it's there (I' d have to check out quality, but presumably good), so all's right with the world. But oops, no VR. Ugh! So I gain sharpness with Area SIR, and lose the 2-3 stop advantage of image stabilization. Which leaves me where? About where I started, just more MPs of it. Another argument for in-body IS. Sony did it with a FF sensor, would have been nice to have seen Nikon/Canon do it, but that's a whole other issue, no need rehashing it here. And Nikon's FF f/2.8 24-70 undoubtedly is a brick anyway, so there's the weight/size issue again. Outside of the VR thing, it's all physics, just can't fight physics. Any chance Nikon/Canon will come out with micro-FF down the road with smaller diameter glass? Talk about long shots, right?
As always, thanks for taking the time.
VR/IS is not a cure all. I would prefer a larger aperture any day over a smaller aperture lens. That said, I absolutely adore the "combination" of large aperture and IS and you can get it in Canon to use with the crop 1.6x cameras by using the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM. Nothing available from anyone for full-frame (yet) but you can see it coming.
I couple that lens and a Canon 40D and a Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM to make a pretty complete and compact kit. Since I rarely use the longer zoom indoors (or without flash and AF assist light), this makes a fairly light and compact travel kit.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Another question deals with cost. I'll post this separately if I decide on a bigger brick, but curious what your experience has been. I'm the proud owner of a Zuiko f/4.0 7-14, used maybe five times, a $1,600 paperweight purchased in a spree of poor judgment. Anyway, I figure this could have good trade value for a hungry retailer. I could even throw in my much-used 12-60 if I went for the 14-35, and E-3 body if I went for the Canon or FF. Any thoughts on best way to handle that? Never have sold before, and I'm not an Ebay guy, have no experience with it, so I'm thinking trtading either through B&H or Adorama or one of the shops here in Chicago, all one transaction. Any sense of that, of how to go about it, of what to expect?
Thanks for reading all this. Maybe you have thoughts tailor made for breaking through my logjam. Think I mentioned at the outset that I'm happy with the E-3, everything except the mid-dim AF. And I'm only shooting the one modeled genre, always exciting, no end of variety, so no need for long lenses. Take a look at my Flickr page, over 1,800 examples. Many are there just because mods ask that I upload volume, helps their marketing, but a respectable number in my eyes are really good, and as you know, it's like golf, a few good hits keep you in the game no matter how long the string of bogeys.
Again, thanks. Don't know what the rest of us would do without the kind of input available here at Dgrin.
As always, thanks. Are there specific others' input I should be seeking here at dGrin? Figure you know the serious thinking contributors.
Only the Canon 1D/1Ds series cameras have the Area SIR AF. The 50D does not. The Canon 1D series are 1.3x crop cameras but they require the use of EF series lenses. (EF-S lenses will not fit any of the 1D/1Ds cameras.)
I believe there is still a great deal of market in the 1.5x and 1.6x crop format cameras and lenses. Likewise the smaller crop lenses tend to hold their value fairly well, more so for the highest quality lenses.
It is quite possible for Canon and Nikon to produce smaller format cameras if they see a market develope for it. Right now, it would just splinter their existing markets so I don't see it happening soon. For the time being, the dSLR design has a significant advantage for sports/action that other designs cannot match.
Samsung announced their "NX" series interchangeable lens cameras, and, like the Micro Four-Thirds cameras (M4/3), it has no mirror box assembly. While it has a larger imager than the M4/3 cameras, it is otherwise a similar concept. I am not seeing a flood of interest in the NX cameras simply because they are not "that" different from a dSLR and have not demonstrated that they are necessarily better in any tangible way.
I do not recommend that you purchase cameras and lenses thinking of them as investments, they make poor investments. Rather think of them as basic tools, required by the craft and profession of photography. As such, purchase tools that satisfy your needs. Also purchase tools as you need them, not in anticipation of possible needs.
I have an assortment of different cameras and lenses and they are not totally interchangeable. I have them because the different cameras and lenses satisfy different needs and wishes. My assortment is rather extensive because of the depths I have chosen in the pursuit of photography.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Well put in speaking of investment value. I've a small mixture, Canon as well as my Oly, just aggravated that I talked myself into the $1,600 paperweight described.
I wondered about the Area SIR AF system. You earlier attributed Area SIR to the D700, but I could find nothing on it in the D700 literature. would be nice to see it work its way down, those things happen.
As for M4/3 and equivalents, if makers produce specific format fast quality glass for it, seems a serious user market could develop. Isn't the inherent advantage of a smaller diameter image circle the ability to make smaller/lighter versions of lenses (especially fast glass, e.g., f/2.0 in the equiv 24-70 range) than basics physics would make impossible on a pentaprism/mirror body of equal sensor size? Everything else being equal (which of course it never is, would be too easy on the consumer), what crop sensor user wouldn't want that, or even FF user?
Thanks for the time.