New Camera System

[Guest Yachtsman1]

In summer I changed my Nikon D200 for a Canon 50D along with a couple of lenses. I had had the 200 for a couple of years and Nikon had brought out two additional models during my ownership. I had bought my wife a Nikon D40 & was extremely pleased with the results. I had never been happy with the Nikon menu & rubber button on the 200 so I looked for a replacement. I chose the 50D as it fell into the budget I could acheive by selling my D200 kit. After six months comparing what the Canon was acheiving with the relatively cheap D40 of my wife, together with the ease of use, I decided to change back to Nikon.

After the history lesson, the reason for the post is the deal I got on the Nikon. I choose the D5000, as it was similar to my wifes D40, so after looking around I found the best body only price at Amazon UK, then I checked the kit price with the 18-55 VR lens, it was only £30 more expensive, which seemed cheap for a lens. So to make a long story longer, I ordered the D5000 with the kit lens, which Nikon were also offering a £50 cashback if ordered over the Christmas period. The kit arrived yesterday so I immediately put the lens on Ebay with a buy now at £80, by 9pm it had sold. So I got the new camera body £100 less than the lowest UK agents mail order price.

Yachtsman1

PS I think Amazon have now increased the kit price and I'm not sure if the £50 cashback is still in force.

Yachtsman1

[xahu34]

Congratulations!

You are the type of customer the industry likes best.

Do you have any plans for the second half of the year, changing to Sony/Zeiss?

Regards,

Xaver

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Happy New Year to you to.

Hopefully a new computer, when all the Windows 7/PTE hassle is sorted.

Yachtsman1

[Lin Evans]

Hi Xaver,

If the industry would get their equipment "right" and take care of issues such as inconsistent autofocus (Canon), people would probably stick with one brand. Unfortunately, the consumer becomes the pawn in a game of "how far can we get on our brand name" before we have to produce consistent quality control?

Having used Canon dSLR's for some years (since their first model, the D30 became available), I switched too because they have produced a number of inconsistent models which won't autofocus properly. I had these issues first crop up with my $8000 Canon Pro EOS 1DS. Then again with my 10D, and 40D and I see evidence that it continues with the 50D and 7D. It was an extensive issue with the rather expensive EOS 1D Mark III. Put the camera on a tripod, lock it down, use mirror lockup and remote release and take multiple frames of a stationary subject. The camera will variously front focus, back focus, correct focus. Some individual copies of the cameras autofocus correctly nearly every time. Others do not, and multiple trips to the Canon repair facility do not correct what appears to be a pervasive fault. So to insure at least one good frame, users often take up a "machine gun" approach to photography. Fortunately some of the Canon models would shoot up to 10 frames per second and out of 10 frames maybe two or three would actually be properly focused.

Nikon too has had some issues with this same type problem, but not nearly as pervasively as Canon. I've had relatively perfect autofocus with my Pro body Nikons.

So the consumer, in a quest for some consistency, buys either a new model or switches brands. The consumer then becomes the "looser" and the camera manufacturer becomes the "winner" because they sell yet more faulty equipment and never have to ultimately be responsible for putting out inferior equipment. So you are ultimately correct....

Sony has set new standards with their low priced, extremely high resolution top-end model which can be had for about a third of what Nikon and Canon get. No, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the uber expensive Canon or Nikon, but it produces even higher resolution images than Canon's best and equal to the flagship Nikon D3X. The Zeiss lenses? Pretty good I would say. I suppose one could do worse than changing to Sony/Zeiss. That would make Sony happy and maybe the consumer too....

Best regards,

Lin

[dadou]

Lin, very good advice !!!

Many people are thinking as you.

When I see the pictures done with my wife's basic Sony ( A200 ) , I imagine a posible change for my next dslr ( Canon since 1968, no problem , but I read too much for this problem of autofocus with the new cameras ....).

Happy new year !

[fh1805]

It seems I must have been lucky over the years. I've owned auto-focus SLRs since 1990 and a dSLR since 2005 and have never noticed any problem with incorrect auto-focus. But then again, I've never owned a camera with mirror lock-up and have used a tripod only for low-light work or ultra telephoto work. Perhaps the camera manufacturers are guilty only of building their products to meet the needs of the typical user - the one who hand holds almost every shot and who never pushes the equipment anywhere near "the edge of the envelope". Just a thought...

regards,

Peter

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Just to elaborate on the Canon auto-focus issue. The fact that the focus can be user adjusted in the camera's software (on the 50D) makes one wonder if they are not takeing sufficient care in ensuring the camera is spot on before it leaves the factory. Before I decided to change I investigated adjusting the focus but it isn't an action to approach lightly. I'm still getting used to the D5000 so I've not had chance to compare, however if the blow up of pictures in the viewing screen is anything to go on, there is an improvement. The only disadvantage up to now is the reduction in controls and multiple presses are required to change things. Luckily I didn't ditch my NX2 software.

Yachtsman1

[Lin Evans]

Hi Peter,

I suspect that you have just statistically fallen into the "lucky" part of the gaussian curve. Obviously, not everyone has had this problem, but enough have to make it a controversial issue noticed by various professional reviewers.

The mirror lockup and tripod are only to avoid any chance of vibration from the mirror or user movement causing inconsistencies where slight motion blur "might" be mistaken for improper autofocus. The actuality is that whether hand holding with a stabilized lens or solid tripod mount, the autofocus on some Canon cameras is simply inconsistent. It's very easy for users to "assume" that out-of-focus images were the result of user error in not holding the camera steady, choosing the wrong shutter speed for the focal length, etc. But when the camera is locked down on a rock-steady tripod, using a prime lens, locked up mirror and shooting multiple frame of the stationary subject and the autofocus varies from spot on to front and back focus, something isn't right. This can happen, of course, with 45 point autofocus when the subject is in motion and the autofocus points vary, but when using center-only autofocus and it happens with a stationary subject, the fault lies with the equipment and not the operator.

In many, many years of photography, very much of it done professionally, I can't remember once having this problem since autofocus became available. It's only since Canon's second or third dSLR (the 10D - which wasn't too bad) that it became an issue. It was "really" bad with my 40D and absolutely a deal killer with the 1D Mark III. They lost many sales because of returns with this faulty camera. Some believe the problem was never properly addressed. One was either "lucky" to get one which worked or not. I've had friends who returned as many as three of these to find one which actually worked correctly. There were problems with the 50D and now a number of complaints about the 7D. Many of the complaints are just "soft" images and there exists lots of obfuscation about high megapixel sensors with AA filters just not "looking really sharp" when viewed at 100%. Let me just say that with some of the even higher pixel count medium format backs, the images look just fine at 100% so that's only a way of creating FUD for the purpose of avoiding blame.

Bottom line, in my opinion Canon has an issue with inconsistent autofocus and has had for some time now. As I said, there are "many" very happy Canon users who have not had these issues so will be oblivious to this. On the other hand, for those of us who have had these problems and have sufficient technical and photographic savvy to know the difference in user error and equipment malfunction, it is quite discouraging, especially when there is no easy resolution.

Both Canon and Nikon now allow micro adjustment of autofocus with some of their cameras to fine tune individual lenses and the camera body. This is necessary because when combined tolerances on the manufacturing and QC stack in opposite directions on a lens and camera body, there can be issues causing as much as a two pixel or more out of focus issue between a particular lens and camera. The new autofocus systems with both Canon (45 point) and Nikon (51 point) are very complex. Being able to continually autofocus on perhaps a bird in flight or a motorcycle in a race coming at or going away from the observer at a high rate of speed are commendable and quite nice for the action photographer. However, these features add to the great complexity of autofocus and with each new "feature" comes

"opportunity" for failure. Canon has simply not yet worked out all the "kinks" in their autofocus and the result is inconsistency on some models and not on every copy of these models.

The consumer who never really uses their camera for serious action sport or precise telephoto wildlife frames may never realize that their camera has a problem. Those of us who do, are acutely aware when a problem exists and we can sometime only find resolution to it by switching brands. This can be quite expensive when one considers the costs of duplicating lenses, flash attachments and other peripherals.

Best regards,

Lin

It seems I must have been lucky over the years. I've owned auto-focus SLRs since 1990 and a dSLR since 2005 and have never noticed any problem with incorrect auto-focus. But then again, I've never owned a camera with mirror lock-up and have used a tripod only for low-light work or ultra telephoto work. Perhaps the camera manufacturers are guilty only of building their products to meet the needs of the typical user - the one who hand holds almost every shot and who never pushes the equipment anywhere near "the edge of the envelope". Just a thought...

regards,

Peter

[smithrg]

Hi Lin, I hope I haven't wasted my money on my new Canon Rebel T1i. I'm just a snap shooter, and have always had "soft" and "fuzzy" photos in the mix. I even now, with a $1200 USD kit, I still get these, and I thought it was me.

Best regards, Gayland

Hi Peter,

I suspect that you have just statistically fallen into the "lucky" part of the gaussian curve. Obviously, not everyone has had this problem, but enough have to make it a controversial issue noticed by various professional reviewers.

The mirror lockup and tripod are only to avoid any chance of vibration from the mirror or user movement causing inconsistencies where slight motion blur "might" be mistaken for improper autofocus. The actuality is that whether hand holding with a stabilized lens or solid tripod mount, the autofocus on some Canon cameras is simply inconsistent. It's very easy for users to "assume" that out-of-focus images were the result of user error in not holding the camera steady, choosing the wrong shutter speed for the focal length, etc. But when the camera is locked down on a rock-steady tripod, using a prime lens, locked up mirror and shooting multiple frame of the stationary subject and the autofocus varies from spot on to front and back focus, something isn't right. This can happen, of course, with 45 point autofocus when the subject is in motion and the autofocus points vary, but when using center-only autofocus and it happens with a stationary subject, the fault lies with the equipment and not the operator.

In many, many years of photography, very much of it done professionally, I can't remember once having this problem since autofocus became available. It's only since Canon's second or third dSLR (the 10D - which wasn't too bad) that it became an issue. It was "really" bad with my 40D and absolutely a deal killer with the 1D Mark III. They lost many sales because of returns with this faulty camera. Some believe the problem was never properly addressed. One was either "lucky" to get one which worked or not. I've had friends who returned as many as three of these to find one which actually worked correctly. There were problems with the 50D and now a number of complaints about the 7D. Many of the complaints are just "soft" images and there exists lots of obfuscation about high megapixel sensors with AA filters just not "looking really sharp" when viewed at 100%. Let me just say that with some of the even higher pixel count medium format backs, the images look just fine at 100% so that's only a way of creating FUD for the purpose of avoiding blame.

Bottom line, in my opinion Canon has an issue with inconsistent autofocus and has had for some time now. As I said, there are "many" very happy Canon users who have not had these issues so will be oblivious to this. On the other hand, for those of us who have had these problems and have sufficient technical and photographic savvy to know the difference in user error and equipment malfunction, it is quite discouraging, especially when there is no easy resolution.

Both Canon and Nikon now allow micro adjustment of autofocus with some of their cameras to fine tune individual lenses and the camera body. This is necessary because when combined tolerances on the manufacturing and QC stack in opposite directions on a lens and camera body, there can be issues causing as much as a two pixel or more out of focus issue between a particular lens and camera. The new autofocus systems with both Canon (45 point) and Nikon (51 point) are very complex. Being able to continually autofocus on perhaps a bird in flight or a motorcycle in a race coming at or going away from the observer at a high rate of speed are commendable and quite nice for the action photographer. However, these features add to the great complexity of autofocus and with each new "feature" comes

"opportunity" for failure. Canon has simply not yet worked out all the "kinks" in their autofocus and the result is inconsistency on some models and not on every copy of these models.

The consumer who never really uses their camera for serious action sport or precise telephoto wildlife frames may never realize that their camera has a problem. Those of us who do, are acutely aware when a problem exists and we can sometime only find resolution to it by switching brands. This can be quite expensive when one considers the costs of duplicating lenses, flash attachments and other peripherals.

Best regards,

Lin

[Guest Yachtsman1]

After reading Lins explanation it brought to mind a friend from Church who is also the local rep of the Darlington & Stockton Times, he uses a Canon 40d which I believe is known as the Rebel? He supplied some of the pictures for my Charity DVD, and thinking back the picture quality is not what you would expect from a press photographer, maybe he has a problem?

He sent this picture of me & his wife at the Christmas Church fair, and added the comment, "sorry about the quality".

Yachtsman1

[Esc]

Hi Lin!

Thank you for expanding on the subject of autofocus.

Like Gayland I have not thought of this problem.

Although I had an eyejob made and got my distant viewing

back I thought it is not going to be better than that.

But you give me hope that it is my camera and not me.

Would you mind putting up a few pictures illustrating the

problem so we in the dark can arrange our own tests?

Regards/Lennart

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I've now charged the battery & took a few trial shots while haveing breakfast this morning. The only post processing was to crop & re-size and convert to JPEG from Raw. They are in sequence Shutter priority, aperture, Auto,,on camera flash, Programme. To my eyes there is a marked improvement in sharpness from the previous 50D, or is it wishful thinking?

Yachtsman1.

[8321]

Give us a few outdoor shots :rolleyes:

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Give us a few outdoor shots :rolleyes:

Look through the window, it was minus 14 last night, too cold to go outside, might catch me death.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1.

BTW, just realised after I put these shots on flickr to check their profile, I didn't have VR (vibration reduction) switched on!!!

[8321]

I did look through the window and have been watching Skynews - that was why I commented as I did.

Upington 37C yesterday and 32C bright sunshine where we are.

Regards, Jeff

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I did look through the window and have been watching Skynews - that was why I commented as I did.

Upington 37C yesterday and 32C bright sunshine where we are.

Regards, Jeff

Hi Jeff

Yes your temperatures are stretching our cricketers.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I did look through the window and have been watching Skynews - that was why I commented as I did.

Upington 37C yesterday and 32C bright sunshine where we are.

Regards, Jeff

Hi Jeff again,

Taken this morning especially for you.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1.

[Bruss444]

Well I thought I would add some more info to this subject. I too have had many cameras, Early Sony with the fixed Zeiss lens (828 and its replacement) then the Canon 10D ,20D,Olympus E3,30D,50D,5D and now the 5D Mark II . Lin, is correct about focusing. My 20D and first 5D had focusing problems but my current 5D Mark II with the EF24-105 is spot on and the 50D with the 70-200,, IS f/2.8 is most of the times quite sharp. I never owned Nikon but am sure they are great cameras too. From what I have read it seems that Nikon is better built for adverse weather. I have been servicing household appliances for 40 years and the same problem of quality is there too. Bill

[Ed Overstreet]

It seems I must have been lucky over the years. I've owned auto-focus SLRs since 1990 and a dSLR since 2005 and have never noticed any problem with incorrect auto-focus. But then again, I've never owned a camera with mirror lock-up and have used a tripod only for low-light work or ultra telephoto work. Perhaps the camera manufacturers are guilty only of building their products to meet the needs of the typical user - the one who hand holds almost every shot and who never pushes the equipment anywhere near "the edge of the envelope". Just a thought...

regards,

Peter

I'll second Peter's experience on this. To date I've owned the Nikon D100, D70, D200, and D90 as well as the Lumix GF1, plus several non-interchangeable-lens digital cameras by Nikon and Panasonic. I've never noticed any focus problems with any of my equipment, except for a brief episode with an early-release Nikon 18-200mm VR zoom in which the AF stopped working entirely in the 18-35mm range after about 2000 shutter-activations, it was an early design or production bug that Nikon repaired under warranty and fixed in the later production runs. The fuss and bother with "backfocus adjustments" on the D300 and later Nikon cameras always struck me as overkill and a fussy-and-time-absorbing tool looking for a problem that wasn't there, but then maybe like Peter I'm a mere "average" user who doesn't push his gear to the absolute limit (rarely use macro anywhere close to 1:1 and then it's tripod plus MF not AF for me, and with most cameras and lenses these days there's always instant-manual-override on the focus if you notice a problem in the viewfinder or on the LCD screen). With "live-view" LCD focus combined with magnification on the LCD screen, you can identify and fix focus issues PDQ as long as you aren't trying to capture a bird in flight or an athlete in the middle of something fast, which as a mostly-travel-and-landscape photographer I'm usually not.

Picking up on Bill's previous post about weather-tight, a tip for users of Panasonic and likely other non-interchangeable-lens cameras -- if you buy a filter/hood adapter for the camera and put a UV filter on it, the zoom lens is suddenly water-tight (except under immersion), the lens extends and contracts solely within the sealed tube formed by the adapter and filter. There's nowhere for water or dirt to get into the camera, except maybe in the battery/flash card compartment when replacing either. I use my Lumix LX3 and FZ8 cameras in preference to my SLRs in inclement weather, for this reason and the fact they're both very compact, light and silent cameras with fast lenses that produce excellent JPG and RAW files as long as you don't boost the ISO too much.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

The sun finally shone Sunday so we took our camera's to Church, & after the service called at Harmby Falls which is about a mile from where I live. The falls are due to a change in levels of about 20 feet of a usually benign beck (stream which drains the moors) With the thaw the beck was in full spate. The attached pictures were hand held at a fairly low shutter speed, so my first impressions are favourable.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1