But under fluorescent lighting and some other artificial lighting sources, a rapid imperceptible flickering of the light occurs, along with sudden color temperature shifts. These tend to throw off the density measurements, and therefore the accuracy of the AF calculations. In both the EOS 50D and the EOS 5D Mark II, the type of lighting is taken into effect, and readings are averaged and processed with the help of the super-fast Digic 4 Image Processor. The result is improved AF accuracy and speed that could fool the AF systems found on earlier Canon and competitive models alike.
Just my 2 cents here. When I first started using my 5d2, I was disappointed by the "soft" images I was getting. I tought I had paid a lot for a 5d2 that seemed to deliver worse images than my old 40D.
Then people here told me my lens might be front or back focusing. So I tought the lens was the problem...
Then I tried to shoot center point AF only, and I now get very accurately focused sharp pictures, and I'm very happy with my 5d2...
I'd be willing to upgrade to a 5d3 if it had a better AF system so I wouldn't have to focus and recompose all the time.
miccullen wrote:
It's pretty clear, as soon as you see a quote like that, that the person making the quote hasn't used a 1-series (or any body with a decent AF with a good spread of AF points) for any extended period of time.
I use my centre AF point less than 10 per cent of the time, I would say. "Focus-recompose" is pretty useless when shooting at 1.2.
It's also pretty clear that you don't shoot weddings 99% of wedding shots are not an f/1,2 shot with the subject away from the center
It's the outer points that people moan about on the 5D.
The autofocus system on the 5D MK II is the same as on the 20D.
So Canon took a very old and very cheap system and put it on reasonably expensive camera.
That's what people moan about.
Yes, you can take a good image with a 5D MK II.
You can also take a good image with a shoe box and a pinhole if you have enough skill.
This isn't the issue.
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
It's also pretty clear that you don't shoot weddings 99% of wedding shots are not an f/1,2 shot with the subject away from the center
I don't shoot them all that often, but I'm still usually away from the centre point when I do, and often fairly wide open in dim lighting (if we're not lighitng it inside). When shooting people, the people who think the centre point is the most usual point to use are the ones who don't have much choice (ie 5D shooters :-)
miccullen wrote:
I don't shoot them all that often, but I'm still usually away from the centre point when I do, and often fairly wide open in dim lighting (if we're not lighitng it inside). When shooting people, the people who think the centre point is the most usual point to use are the ones who don't have much choice (ie 5D shooters :-)
It's strange that you don't have shot like that on your website then And whatever body you are using, you would have a lot of OOF shot when doing that. Shooting a subject that are moving (people) at f/ 1,2 with the outer AF points. If you or the subject moves a couple of cm it's OOF. And that would happen in most shots
miccullen wrote:
... When shooting people, the people who think the centre point is the most usual point to use are the ones who don't have much choice (ie 5D shooters :-)
I'm not quite certain what you mean by this, but I still think it's totally bogus.
When I shoot people with my 1DsIII and 1DIV, I most often use the centre point for focus. That doesn't mean that the composition has the same framing as the image when focus was achieved, nor does it mean that I have no confidence in my off-centre AF points. It's simply the way I do most of my photography, sports to still life - mostly centre-point AF on all of my bodies. Even my 5D.
I agree with miccullen, I have to tolerate the centre point AF point unfortunately. To be honest I don't even need 51 personally - just a few outer points that are usable would be helpful.
The problem with the 5D outer points is that they are unusable. Not mediocre, but unusable. I need them most for off centre tracking but in lower light it's just not sufficient for that purpose
miccullen wrote:
I use my centre AF point less than 10 per cent of the time, I would say. "Focus-recompose" is pretty useless when shooting at 1.2.
I agree with Miccullen when it comes to the need for better AF for off centre points, however I'm not sure if I agree with the above. I think in practice the impact of focus recompose is not as great for one shot AF as the theory would suggest.
Here are some examples of the 85 f/1.2 @ f/1.2, focused and recomposed. It isn't a perfectly lit studio scene with optimal sharpness, but I think AF is still usable with focus recompose at f/1.2:
Wonderful pictures!
So what AF point of wich camera covers the spots you choosed?
I guess, I would shoot those pics the same way with all bodys on the world. Does not matter how many AF points they have and how good they are. I would use the center point and recompose. That is not a matter of 5D (and II) must. It is just a matter of need and speed: Before I would decide what AF point to use, choose it and recompose (anyway), I will take the center one and have the job done within half of a 10th second.
I willing to bet every cent that I have that the 5D II is more successful than the D700. Hmmmm, I wonder why, since the 5D II can't focus properly to save it's existence.
campyone wrote:
There's little point in pretending that someone claims the 5DII simply can't focus at all and then pointing to in-focus photographs to demonstrate that it can. I don't know of anyone who's said the 5DII simply can't focus. Most people who have owned the camera (and I'm one) would say the center point is quite good but the outer focus points are inconsistent. Not that every photograph made with outer focus points is bad, just that it's something of a guessing game as to whether a photograph made with them will be in focus or not. And some of us think that for $2,500 or so the 5DII should do a better job than it does when using the outer focus points....Show more →
You would win :-)
Last wedding me and a friend shot both. 600 pics 5D2, 800 with D700.
Ceepers where around 400 (5D II) compared to 220 (D700). I used center af, he used all. I developed all pics. IQ of 5D was much better, too.
Ralph Conway: I do weddings too but have you tried to focus & recompose with a lens like 24L ? (@ 1.4)
It's one thing to focus with center point & recompose whilst using a lens such as 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.4, 100 f2, 135 f2 (you can still manage).... but try to focus & recompose with 24 1.4L or 35 1.4L.
If I would only shoot with lens longer than 50mm and aperture larger than f2, then I'd have no problem with focus & recompose technique (which I've been using in 90 % of my pictures).
But when wide angle lens come into play,with aperture larger than 2.0, then recomposing is very troublesome....
And why do I shoot 90 % with focus & recompose? because I've been shooting with 5D and 5D II which can focus properly ONLY with center point, that's why.
I got the 5D II especially for its low light / high iso capability.
Shooting in low light + 1.4 lens (such as 24L) doesn't quite add up.... unless you want all your subjects centered...
If I try to use the outer points in low light with the 24L i get NOTHING. ZERO.
If I try to use focus & recompose with the same lens in low light it's very hard not to shift the focal plane... (it always depends on the distance from the camera to the subject, of course)..
I've gotten used to using focus & recompose but I honestly think that if I'd own a 1D series body I would get the right picture faster by switching to the appropriate af point with the joystick,than rather using the center & recompose (like I currently do on the 5D II).
1D owners say that we shouldn't expect a 5DII to act like a 1D pro series,because there's a big 'price gap' between them.
Ok, I agree, I don't want a 1D series at a 5D II price, but how come Nikon is providing a body like the D700 (in terms of AF).
I don't want 70 AF points on the 5D, I just want 9 cross type points which I can use..
Sometimes not even in broad day light I can;t rely on the outer ones..
IMO since the 5D3 will be priced between the 7D and a 1-series it's reasonable to expect an AF system that's somewhere between a 7D and a 1-series...hopefully Canon thinks that way too...
Lars Johnsson wrote:
And you expect that the 5D should focus as well as the much more expensive 1 series Pro bodies then
No, but I expect it to focus AT LEAST as good as an xxD, which is over HALF it's price... 40d focuses much better, as does the 30d. ESPECIALLY in servo.
digitalbug30d wrote:
how do we know you were closer then MFD? so no matter the focus point it will be out of focus.
Because you won't *get* a focus spot if it's not in focus. I've had my 5D2 lie to me. 5D never.
No, but I expect it to focus AT LEAST as good as an xxD, which is over HALF it's price... 40d focuses much better, as does the 30d. ESPECIALLY in servo.
What Chuck Westfall had to say about the 40D Ai-Servo mode.
"Somewhat surprisingly, Canon has not adopted the 40D/50D's AF system which, on paper, is superior, given that all nine of its AF points are cross-type.
Canon USA's Westfall says the reason for that is the "6 Assist AF points plus center point were deemed to provide a higher level of performance for AI Servo AF than the center point-only arrangement of the [40D and] 50D."
Given that we've previously found the overall autofocus performance of the 5D to be decent, while the 40D's tracking capability has been erratic at best, Canon has likely chosen the better of the two AF systems for the 5D Mark II."
99% of wedding shots are not an f/1,2 shot with the subject away from the center 
