Now that (hopefully) many have had the time to work with the 1D2, I would like to ask a question for those who also have (had) the 10D.
The question is about *accuracy* of autofocus (ie., not speed). I realize that there are various posts about this, but I haven't seen this specifically discussed in a focused (excuse the pun) manner.
I have a 10D and like it very much, but I find that if I rely on the camera to select the autofocus area and/or if I use AI Servo mode, that I get a lot of out of focus shots. I tend to select a focus point myself and do OK with that, but there are times when that's not practical. I also realize that the 1D2 is spec'ed out to be more accurate, but I'm wondering what the real-life experience is.
Can those with experience summarize your findings on focus accuracy between the 10D and 1D2?
The 1D2 is absolutely the hands down winner here. I shot an NHRA event last year and the AI Servo almost always selected the wrong part of the car (front bumper) to focus on. With the 1D2 this year, the AI Servo mode with registered AF point selected the proper part of the car to focus on just about every time.
I can post a comparison later this weekend as I am still trying to keep up with the massive amounts of print orders of Darrell Russell from last weekend.
I should have mentioned that last years event was with the 10D.
Duncan
Edited by gdstaples on Jul 01, 2004 at 10:18 AM GMT
I find I can trust my 1D2! My 10D had no focus issues but with the much larger focus-points it was hard to really be sure where it accually did focus! And yes sometimes I did get out of focus shots this happens almost nil after upgrading to 1D2.
A friend who just bought a D70 made me test my 10D for front/back-focus and I could see my 50/1,4 did backfocus about one inch. Not that I had noticed this in real life but it was clearly seen using the "ruler" test. Did the same test with my 1D2 and ALL my lenses were spot-on! This must really be due to a better and more exact focus system! Is it worth $3000 more?? Ahh well thats up to you to decide.
I have both the 10D and the 1DII. There is no question that the 1DII has a superior AF system in terms of speed, accuracy, and tracking ability. At more than 3 times the price, it should. With the 10D, however, if you understand its limitations and work within them, you can still achieve excellent results. After only a few times using the 10D, I learned that you can't count on the 7 point focus system. If you stick to the manually selected center focus point, you should be able to achieve excellent results. For a professional PJ who can not afford to ever miss a shot, the AF system of the
1DII may be essential. For an advanced amateur who wants to get all the shots but for whom occasionally missing some is not the end of the world,
the 10D can work wonderfully. That said, it sure is fun to use the 1DII.
Les
After covering an event this past weekend, I finally realized how inferior my 10D is when it comes to critical situations. When I needed the AI Servo to be predictable, it became unpredictable. When I needed the subject to be in-focus, the camera was hunting, and actually lost focus at certain times. I'm definitely moving up to either a 1D or 1D2 when funds allow because I'm getting placed in situations where each shot could make or break my reputation. Unless, of course, Canon fixes the problem with the new 10D replacement, but I highly doubt that.
Sounds like there is a clear difference in terms of AF accuracy.
How much of the difference is due to the camera selecting the wrong point (when you let the camera do that) versus tracking a moving object being too slow?
Sounds like there is a clear difference in terms of AF accuracy.
How much of the difference is due to the camera selecting the wrong point (when you let the camera do that) versus tracking a moving object being too slow?
Thanks.
Once I started using just the manually selected center point, when I took
bursts of flying eagles, hawks, etc., I started getting 5-6 shots of a 6 shot burst with the focus nailed. When I tried letting it automatically track through the 7 points, I was lucky if I got 1 or 2. Of course, just using the center point requires more precision on your part in keeping the center point on the subject, but, when I used all 7 points, I found that the camera was too easily
fooled into tracking a cloud, waves on water, etc. instead of the subject on
which I wanted to focus.
Les
The 1D II's focus is light years ahead of the 10D in terms of accuracy, but it is hardly perfect. The AF is very fast, and rarely hunts (aside from low light situations.) I've used the camera with the center AF point, plus CF 17, which expands the focus area to the near 7 points if needed for AF. The camera selects the extra AF points as needed, and seems to do a pretty good job. I have yet to use a camera that selects AF points that I want automatically in full auto mode. I have not tried it on the Mark II, but my compositional style is so set on center area focus and recomposing that I think it would be impossible for the camera to know what I want, unless it read my mind. For my type of work, selective focus is a big deal, so I like to pick the AF area. After picking the area, though, I want to be able to rely on the AF system to reliably give me accurate focus on the area I have chosen, and I have found few situations where the 1D II was not up to the task.
the 1d2 has made me very resentful towards my 10d, in fact i was planning on having the 10d as a back up or using both at the same time with different lenses on but I can't bring myself to touch the slow slag!
I was just kidding and perhaps a little irritation. I know a bunch of people are around here who could never get good results, but since focus is important to *everyone*, obviously a lot of people are able to get good results. The general "if your results count, get a 1X" drives me a little crazy; you would think those of us using 10D's don't care about results and aren't picky about our photography. It gets insulting after a while.
Paul Kierstead wrote:
... you would think those of us using 10D's don't care about results and aren't picky about our photography. It gets insulting after a while.
I hear ya, Paul ... not to mention I'm still using a 300D
I used Leica for 30 years and in Wezlar autofocus is a dirty word. Maybe it is that I haven't been spoilt yet by all the goblins under the hood of my camera, or that I still have the old habit of looking through the viewfinder of the camera instead of relying on electrons to do my thinking for me, but I find that focus tends to be spot-on in over 95% of my shots, and I tend to shoot long lenses wide open. For me even the "crummy"AF of the 10D is sheer luxury The photo is made by the photographer, not the equipment. But I do understand that pro's have totallly different requirements. Happily they can usually invest in working tools of thousands of $$$
Jaap
I use both 10D and 1D2, honestly up until now, I don't see that much difference in term of AF accuracy. I nailed my subject in focus just about anytime with both cameras. I know my 10D limitation and a way to work around it. What really makes the difference tho, is 1D2 speed. Also 1D2 yields better and more accurate colors.
I agree 100% with Jaap's comment, "The photo is made by the photographer, not the equipment"
So I would say, unless you really need that speed (for whatever reason), then you better save the $$$, stick with 10D, and make the best use of whatever you got.
AF accuracy on both 1D and 1DMKII are slightly better than 10D due to the presence of cross-type sensors for higher AF precision when used with certain Canon EF lenses.
AF speed, on the other hand, 1DMKII is slightly faster than 1D, and 1D is significantly faster than 10D.
