Options
F-828 Owners, what I was told...
nickphoto123
Registered Users Posts: 302 Major grins
at a seminar sponsored by Canon this week.
Hello All,
The speaker was well known photographer and instructor.
As I was a guest at this free seminar it would not be proper to identify him, nor quote him directly.
The topic being discussed was Autofocus speed and accuracy in varying and low light conditions.
The speaker suggested the best way to achieve Autofocus with the Pro Canon DSLR's and the 20D was to use the centeral focusing point and only using constant aperture lenses no smaller than 2.8. He went on to state the 3 lenes one would need would be the 16-35L, 28-70L and the 70 - 200L.
He is a very honest and reputable seminar speaker in my opinion.
I sat quite smug knowing he just recommended about $4,800 in glass, and that I have a wider aperture Zeiss lens from 28-200 in my bag fixed to my Sony F-828, including Hologram autofocus.
Now I have reassurance that it will be worth waiting for the 'F-939' instead of going for the D20 or XT. (I do own and not use a D30 & D60 since I bought my F-828 in December 2004)
I thought this might be worth sharing with you.
Regards, Nicholas
Hello All,
The speaker was well known photographer and instructor.
As I was a guest at this free seminar it would not be proper to identify him, nor quote him directly.
The topic being discussed was Autofocus speed and accuracy in varying and low light conditions.
The speaker suggested the best way to achieve Autofocus with the Pro Canon DSLR's and the 20D was to use the centeral focusing point and only using constant aperture lenses no smaller than 2.8. He went on to state the 3 lenes one would need would be the 16-35L, 28-70L and the 70 - 200L.
He is a very honest and reputable seminar speaker in my opinion.
I sat quite smug knowing he just recommended about $4,800 in glass, and that I have a wider aperture Zeiss lens from 28-200 in my bag fixed to my Sony F-828, including Hologram autofocus.
Now I have reassurance that it will be worth waiting for the 'F-939' instead of going for the D20 or XT. (I do own and not use a D30 & D60 since I bought my F-828 in December 2004)
I thought this might be worth sharing with you.
Regards, Nicholas
0
Comments
First, in the interest of "full disclosure," I shoot with a Canon body, although I am not sponsored by Canon nor do I own any of the bodies or lenses mentioned in the posting
(emphasis added) That should tell you something right there.
Well, he's certainly right about that. First of all, in most AF systems the central point is the most sensitive. Furthermore, all else being equal, a brighter lens will allow more light into the AF sensors, allowing them to do their job more effectively. So f/2.8 is better than f/5.6, and of course f/1.4 is better still. Larger apertures also yield shallower depth of field, so focus is not only faster, but more accurate as well.
Well, he did mention three of the most common lenses in the Canon lineup that have a constant f/2.8 aperture. There are a number of f/2 or faster primes that he didn't mention, and of course I wouldn't expect him to mention non-Canon glass at a Canon-sponsored event, even though there are some very good, fast lenses out there.
It's more like $3600-$4100, depending on whether you choose the 70-200L IS or non-IS, but the point is well taken.
Nice lens on that Sony--you sure won't find any 35mm zoom lenses that open up to f/2. And the 828 acquits itself nicely in its low-light AF performance--on par with the original Digital Rebel, which is itself no slouch.
I guess it depends on what's useful to you. I switched from a small-sensor (2/3") camera (the Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi, predecessor to the A1 and A2) to the Digital Rebel primarily for one reason: I wanted the ability to produce shallow depth of field, something that just isn't practical on cameras like the 7Hi or 828. But I also got more than I bargained for--the ability to actually take pictures in low light (or even indoor light, for that matter). Did you know that the Digital Rebel produces less noise at ISO 1600 than the 828 does at 200? I didn't even know I cared about ISO beyond 100 until I learned what I could do with it!
So if you want a capable, relatively compact (compared to a similarly equipped DSLR) camera with a very usable zoom range and a fast lens to boot, the 828 is one of the finest. But if the idea of shallow DOF effects and available light photography appeal to you, a DSLR might be more appropriate. (And you don't have to spend $4800 in glass to do it!)
Cheers,
Jeremy
Jeremy Rosenberger
Zeiss Ikon, Nokton 40mm f/1.4, Canon 50mm f/1.2, Nokton 50mm f/1.5, Canon Serenar 85mm f/2
Canon Digital Rebel XT, Tokina 12-24mm f/4, Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 50mm f/1.4
http://ubergeek.smugmug.com/
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I was using the 828, and the 717 before it. But as I made my way into low light action photography, I ran into performance problems. The 828 would not focus in low light below about EV5. Many venues I shoot are at most EV4.
I had to go the SLR route and get wide aperture lenses, specifically, the 16-35mm f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS in order to be able to focus in these low light environments and use slower shutter speeds without getting camera shake while hand held. And I have a hard enough time even with that as is
So I would generally agree with what was said. But having said that, one can push equipment to get more performance out of whatever you have than many think possible. I liked the 828, and had it not been for the focus issues and the external flash shutter lag, I would probably still have one. My situation is fairly narrow, and not everyone has such specific needs.
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
There is a bit of information missing from what the guy said. You don't need f/2.8 to achieve AF. You can achieve AF with other lenses without a problem. When it comes to the 20D though, Canon states that the AF accuracy is within 1/3 of the depth of focus if you use lenses with aperture of f/2.8 or larger. Otherwise AF with the 20D is achieved no differently than the 10D, and other prosumer dSLRs which achieve focus somewhere within the full depth of focus.
The 1D series dSLRs achieve AF accuracy within 1/3 of the depth of focus with lenses of f/4 or more.
That said, I use my 20D with lenses other than f/2.8 and the performance is stellar.
Olga
I am only relating the statement made by the Speaker at the Canon Sponsored Seminar. I am not making a value judgement other than, based on his statement, with my F-828 I have a camera with physical specs that top his suggested requirements for best auutofocus.
See Ubergeek and Shay's responses for sound evaluation of the thought expressed by the seminar speaker I related in my original post.
Regards, Nicholas
there is absolutely no comparison between the F828 AF and my 20D AF. The 20D is way above the F828 as far as I'm concerned. Add to that the better judgement on focus with an OVF as opposed to an EVF or LCD... Perhaps it's just a feeling, maybe not, but I do enjoy shooting my 20D way more than my F828 *because* of it's lightning fast overall performance (especially considering write-speed when using RAW). Please note that I own neither of the lenses mentioned above
Michiel de Brieder
http://www.digital-eye.nl
Not to say your conclusion about the F828 and your use of it is wrong, just that feeling so based on the information you provided makes no sense.
I'll gladly take my Canon 85mm f1.8 ($500) and go with you to any dimly lit indoor sporting event. And let's see who gets the best shots.
The fact that I _can_ buy different lenses, doesn't mean I _have_ to spend $4000 in lenses to cover what you have with the F828. Just means I CAN opt to cover more things than you have options for.
Doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong -- the F828 might indeed be best for what you shoot.
Lee
I have the 18-55 f/3.5-5/6 lens that came with the DRebel, the 75-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM I bought along with the camera, the 16-40 f/4 L, the 28-70 f/2.8 L, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L.
I can confirm that the higher-end glass focuses much, much faster. It's not that big a deal with the short 18-55, except in lower light where it's really not that good, but the 75-300 will hunt and hunt whereas the 70-200 locks on FAST. It's no contest.
jimf@frostbytes.com
TML Photography
tmlphoto.com
Thank you Tom.
...