jkochuni wrote:
There is no micro adjust for mirrorless. Thanks for running that test, and your picture looks like it hit focus. Could you do the same test at mfd? I have a new lens coming Friday, so I will report back if I’m having the same issue. The pictures I took were on a flat surface and a dimensional object.
EB-1 wrote:
I've come to the conclusion that Canon are either total idiots or really clever by making the cheapie R and Ra without critical features so that people will have to upgrade to better bodies later. Nikon has AF MFT obo Z7 and even the cheap 90D has the AF micro adjust.
EBH
BlueBomberTurbo wrote:
Unless something goes terribly wrong, mirrorless is immune from AF misalignment. The entire fine tuing thing came about because of mirrored cameras, which have the AF sensor separate from the imaging sensor, and use mirrors to "mirror" the view from the lens to the AF sensor (where the imaging sensor gets a direct shot from the lens). So software came about that allowed slight misalignments of the sensor, AF, and lens to be somewhat compensated for. It's still not perfect, nor will it ever be, due to the complexity of the system and growing complexity of the AF system (try tuning all 153 points of the D5 at close, medium, far focus individually for wide, medium, telephoto, on EVERY SINGLE LENS you own).
Move to mirrorless, and the AF and imaging sensor are the same exact part, on the same plane, and cannot be misaligned unless the sensor gets bent. Every lens is 100% plug and play for 100% accurate focus, unless a FW issue arises. That Nikon included a fine tuning option is either for their legacy users to make them feel comfortable, or it means they're not intending to do much in the way of FW updates for lenses. Either way, it's a swing and a miss. Sony already had an issue with focus misalignment on their FE 24-105/4, and it was 100% solved by lens FW, because misalignment isn't caused by the body in mirrorless. Canon's problem should also be solved in FW, and probably affects a certain range of lenses that weren't QC'd properly. ...Show more →
That's wishful thinking.
I'll wait until Canon has cameras with AF MFT. I'm long done with the old cameras like the 1Ds II that have none.
My drive folder has been updated with samples from The RF 15-35 at 35mm and MFD as well as the EF 85mm f/1.2 II at MFD. At 35mm it is quite difficult to tell but using manual focus I believe you can still achieve a SLIGHTLY more accurate result. I believe this is on par with any other system tho.
To follow up, I did a bit more testing at 200mm. Using the focusing guide with manual focusing, the camera reports you are not focused correctly when focused sharply at 0.
So, it seems one of three things is going on.
1. There is a fundamental flaw in DPAF that causes front focusing at 200mm
2. At least (maybe not limited to) the current RF cameras have some incorrect tuning of their focusing systems beyond some focal length (I believe this is the most likely). It would be interesting to get some 6D II or 5D IV shooters to do the same test with the EF 70-200 f/2.8 II or III using live view.
3. Canon purposefully front focuses telephoto lenses with the assumption that objects are more likely to be heading to the camera than away, this yielding a more accurate final picture.
Anyway, I haven’t attempted to reach out to Canon yet. I will probably be holding on to the lens assuming they are aware of the EOS R/RF issues with front focusing. If they have no plan to address the issue I will probably return the lens.
outside of manual focusing.. i can see spot size affecting the AF.
eos r having larger spot size... to me.. this would say more possibility of a front focused image if af is detecting something closer to grab onto.
It’s my experience it does and should focus on the pupil.
Ziffl3 wrote:
outside of manual focusing.. i can see spot size affecting the AF.
eos r having larger spot size... to me.. this would say more possibility of a front focused image if af is detecting something closer to grab onto.
snapsy wrote:
That's interesting. Can you describe how the Techart Pro M-Mount stacks to get AF compatibility with an F-Mount lens?
The simple way is to get an F to M adapter, though I have an EF to M adapter, so I just added an F to EF adapter on top, since I only had one F-mount lens I was interested in using (Sigma 28/1.8 II). So it goes lens -> F to EF adapter -> EF to M adapter - > Techart Pro - > body.
Does it take time for Canon to display an approved review? The email says it’s live now?? I submitted a review of the RF 70-200 illustrating the front focusing issue we are experiencing, and I received an email it was approved with a link to view it. When I click the link, or visit the RF 70-200 page on Canon’s website the review is not listed.
jkochuni, what firmware version does your lens have? I don't have mine in front of me but if memory serves mine is version 1.0.3 I think. I have not noticed any issues although I have not setup a test chart yet.
I’ll check when the lens comes back. I mailed it out to Canon repair yesterday.
jdavidse1901 wrote:
jkochuni, what firmware version does your lens have? I don't have mine in front of me but if memory serves mine is version 1.0.3 I think. I have not noticed any issues although I have not setup a test chart yet.
I just checked and mine is definitely 1.0.3. It might be helpful for anybody who can replicate the issue to check their firmware version. If there are different firmware versions out in the wild then that would be a workable theory (and a hope for an easy solution)
jkochuni wrote:
I’ll check when the lens comes back. I mailed it out to Canon repair yesterday.
Could you take a picture at 200mm MFD using Eye AF, and report back with a picture?
jdavidse1901 wrote:
jkochuni, what firmware version does your lens have? I don't have mine in front of me but if memory serves mine is version 1.0.3 I think. I have not noticed any issues although I have not setup a test chart yet.
I remember Canon reps talking about why a 1D series mirrorless was a bad idea saying that long lenses had a difficult time focusing with mirrorless.
This was their rationalization for saying ML was for amateur and enthusiast cameras.
I have zero idea if this was true or just smoke they were blowing to rationalize their late entry into MILC cameras.
I believe that DPAF in its current incarnation may be insufficient for wildlife and sports photography. However, Sony has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that mirrorless is not only capable of competing at the professional level, but offers benefits above and beyond what a mirrored camera can offer.
But yes, it may be in fact the case that the DPAF system having the phase detect points so close together is a limiting factor at these focal lengths.
However, I also think given the repeatability of the focusing error in the system, this problem is likely something that can be remedied.
