arbitrage wrote:
I do agree with most of that. But IME, there is an advantage to MILC AF compared to the 1DX and D5 systems. For continuous focus of faster moving subjects it is really only the A9/A9II that can track better and gets a higher % hit rate. .
Having shot with a pair of 1Dx’s since day one of release in every condition from 40c to minus 40c im happy to say any AF inconsistency is user induced..i can see having an eye type Af will be a great addition for those doing that work and Sony’s eye AF is fabulous but even now the AF on the 1DxMk2 is still superb.
Using comments like it cant track fast targets etc is simply wrong and by a wide margin.. https://photos.smugmug.com/Military-Aviation-Photography/Red-Flag-18-1-2018/i-G2FsKXV/0/b1c229af/X2/IMG_9622-Edit-X2.jpg
Low vis low contrast grey against pure blue or scattered cloud sky is as tough as it gets for an AF system trying to track paint designed to be low contrast, low observability against blue.
Nikon has always struggled for some reason getting consistently good tracking on these targets with plenty of head scratching among those guys on fence lines and questions asked as to why.
Almost nobody spending all day out there shoots Sony...why...batteries.
If you think battery life is unimportant try shooting a day ie 7am till 10pm, 6000 images then head back to a hotel to recharge 6 batteries instead of two which can be charged simultaneously overnight while you sleep soundly.
Enjoy those wake ups at 2am and 4 am to swap your Sony batteries over.
Reviewers fail to mention this crippling limitation that has stopped them penetrating the market seriously,
A simple fact ignored by everyone except those who travel to shoot and those who work to shoot.
Having shot with a pair of 1Dx’s since day one of release in every condition from 40c to minus 40c im happy to say any AF inconsistency is user induced..i can see having an eye type Af will be a great addition for those doing that work and Sony’s eye AF is fabulous but even now the AF on the 1DxMk2 is still superb.
Using comments like it cant track fast targets etc is simply wrong and by a wide margin.. https://photos.smugmug.com/Military-Aviation-Photography/Red-Flag-18-1-2018/i-G2FsKXV/0/b1c229af/X2/IMG_9622-Edit-X2.jpg
Low vis low contrast grey against pure blue or scattered cloud sky is as tough as it gets for an AF system trying to track paint designed to be low contrast, low observability against blue.
Nikon has always struggled for some reason getting consistently good tracking on these targets with plenty of head scratching among those guys on fence lines and questions asked as to why.
Almost nobody spending all day out there shoots Sony...why...batteries.
If you think battery life is unimportant try shooting a day ie 7am till 10pm, 6000 images then head back to a hotel to recharge 6 batteries instead of two which can be charged simultaneously overnight while you sleep soundly.
Enjoy those wake ups at 2am and 4 am to swap your Sony batteries over.
Reviewers fail to mention this crippling limitation that has stopped them penetrating the market seriously,
A simple fact ignored by everyone except those who travel to shoot and those who work to shoot.
First of all you may want to take a second read through what I actually wrote. I never said "it can't track fast objects". I said that the A9 can track fast objects better. That is my personal experience. I've yet to meet anyone that has extensively used both cameras that disagrees with that. If you've used the A9 for your jet photography and found it underperforms the 1DXII then the 1DXII is surely the best choice. And since the 1DXII is getting you all the shots you want then it doesn't really matter at all if the A9 is better or not. For my subjects, small, fast BIF, the A9 is better. That is not to say I didn't get very similar shots with my 1DXII, it is just as I said....the A9 gets a higher % of keepers and makes it an easier task.
I've owned every 1D series since the 1D4....I'm fairly aware of their capabilities.
Throwing a couple extra batteries in your bag is not a big deal if you need to be out there all day. I've shot many days over 10,000 images with all sorts of cameras so I understand battery capabilities and I've never had an issue with charging them.
You are entitled to your opinion on the 1DXII...but lets keep it at that...I've owned and extensively used all the cameras I discuss including the 1DX, 1DXII, A9, D500, D850.
dehowie wrote:
Nikon has always struggled for some reason getting consistently good tracking on these targets with plenty of head scratching among those guys on fence lines and questions asked as to why.
geez, i have never seen a picture exactly like either of those taken with a nikon ,,,plane, against a blue empty sky, tough shooting for sure
brian_sp wrote:
geez, i have never seen a picture exactly like either of those taken with a nikon ,,,plane, against a blue empty sky, tough shooting for sure
This is sort of what I wanted to say in my reply but having only photographed jets a handful of times I didn't want to overstep my knowledge. Now I know you are responding more to the Nikon comment which I also thought was ridiculous. But I also feel that overall, jet against sky isn't nearly as challenging to an AF system than songbird against brush or swallow over rippled water....my thoughts that could be slightly off base with my limited jet experience...
I understand that jets are fast, faster than birds. I also understand that jets are huge, that against sky there is nothing to confuse the AF system and that you have some for-warning and predictability of their flight path to acquire and track early enough.
In my limited experience shooting jets at some airshows, I didn't find them to be an overly difficult subject to track. I found them entertaining to watch, exciting to photograph and certainly can appreciate the skill in getting a great shot over a poor shot.
But I just don't see how the AF system is tested as much as it is trying to shoot a song bird in flight where the path is unpredictable, the timing of when they might fly is totally unknown and the bird will cross the FOV of a long lens many times faster than a jet. On top of that I'm shooting against some sort of distracting background. If I do choose to shoot bird against sky I don't consider that an AF challenge to any of the modern cameras.
It is in these situations where I find the A9 AF to have some advantage to the 1DXII and D500/850 systems.
brian_sp wrote:
geez, i have never seen a picture exactly like either of those taken with a nikon ,,,plane, against a blue empty sky, tough shooting for sure
I guess that shows how little you kniw about shooting aircraft painted in low observability paint against blue sky which to AF systems makes it very difficult to see.
And geez ive never heard a comment like yours that blindly assumes and is completely wrong...
And with regard to Nikon i didnt say they couldnt get a shot just that they consistently struggle with these targets when standing beside Canon guys and they complain about inconsistent AF of these targets.
But based off your comment you gave no idea anyway...
You do realize why they are the colors they are and why AF systems struggle with them or am i assuming to broadly here about the knowledge of low vis paints on a blue sky?
You see a plane as you call it against a blue sky in modern low observability paint which us extremely low in contrast is incredibly difficult target to track for any AF system. Hence why u til recent years incredibly high miss rates where extremely common.
You see a plane but the AF system sees very little..funny that its almost like the millions spent on paint research and developement works..
I have owned and shot with several 1dxII's. And while the AF is the best Canon has to offer it's still behind Nikon and Sony as far as BIF tracking goes. I can support Geoff's statement on that. I would even take it a step further and say that if the AF system detects a contrast near a single AF point it will prefer to focus on that part. I always presumed this was user error until i once had the chance to shoot with a D5 from a fellow photographer that was shooting flying puffins. Anyone that ever tried to do so knows these are pretty difficult to catch. My experience was that the AF system on the Nikon was able to get more consistent results compared to the 1dxII. I also let the other photographer try my setup with different tracking settings so i could rule out user error.
Again, it's the best Canon has to offer yet, but in my opinion, the competition is ahead at the moment. Let's wait and see what improvements the mark III brings to the table.
Oh yeah, and one more thing: let's hope they finally fixed the lube problem that has been stuck with these bodies for ages.
I guess that shows how little you kniw about shooting aircraft painted in low observability paint against blue sky which to AF systems makes it very difficult to see.
yes,i don't know anything about shooting low viz aircraft, i've never been to an airshow, never seen the thousands of photos just like yours taken with nikons on flickr, never seen Larry Grace's photos shot with nikons, never seen the Blue Angels official photog that uses nikon, the world should bow to your expertise at getting such simplistic photos, you are a king among pheasants
dehowie wrote:
I guess that shows how little you kniw about shooting aircraft painted in low observability paint against blue sky which to AF systems makes it very difficult to see.
And geez ive never heard a comment like yours that blindly assumes and is completely wrong...
And with regard to Nikon i didnt say they couldnt get a shot just that they consistently struggle with these targets when standing beside Canon guys and they complain about inconsistent AF of these targets.
But based off your comment you gave no idea anyway...
You do realize why they are the colors they are and why AF systems struggle with them or am i assuming to broadly here about the knowledge of low vis paints on a blue sky?
You see a plane as you call it against a blue sky in modern low observability paint which us extremely low in contrast is incredibly difficult target to track for any AF system. Hence why u til recent years incredibly high miss rates where extremely common.
You see a plane but the AF system sees very little..funny that its almost like the millions spent on paint research and developement works.....Show more →
Brian shoots a lot of aircraft so I think he has a pretty good idea of the difficulty even with the low-vis paint.
Another thread turned to crap. Why are we discussing plane photography on a preorder thread and more so all about different cameras than the preorder one. I for one think Canon did a nice job with this body, if you do not then great stay with the Nikon or Sony and move on. The preorder thread is not for you.
RobAmy wrote:
Another thread turned to crap. Why are discussing plane photography on a preorder thread and more so all about different cameras than the preorder one. I for one think Canon did a nice job with this body, if you do not then great stay with the Nikon or Sony and move on. The preorder thread is not for you.
There are too many 1DXIII threads...something has to give The natives are restless as we count down the days to see this camera in the hands of people we trust!!
Back on topic, if Canon Canada comes up with a CPS price for the body (there are murmurings from the underground), that is reasonable, then I may do something a little bit crazy
I just hope I have enough saved serial #s to get my membership back...
arbitrage wrote:
There are too many 1DXIII threads...something has to give The natives are restless as we count down the days to see this camera in the hands of people we trust!!
Back on topic, if Canon Canada comes up with a CPS price for the body (there are murmurings from the underground), that is reasonable, then I may do something a little bit crazy
I just hope I have enough saved serial #s to get my membership back...
That will be nice if you get the CPS pricing back. I agree there are to many threads on this camera, just like the YouTube channels saying it is not a cinema camera ( when did Canon say it was) and they not getting it
Seriously I think Canon really put a nice package together here. If it meets the hype, I think it will do well. My feeling with the little I have seen, it does improve on the 1dx II which I already thought was a decent camera. For me being able to do video and stills in one package has been always a good thing. So I for one am looking to try this out.
I would be interested to see if the claimed AF improvement would be similar between the version II and III lenses. I still have no news on a loaner though i'm first on the list in my country.
SouthwestS2K wrote:
People took AMAZING pictures, video without IBIS since the first camera. Lens stabilization was great.
Yeah, and people got to work driving a Pacer too, but technology changes over time, in most cases for the better. People took AMAZING photos with film too. I guess you still shoot film then given no need for any new features that makes things easier or better.
,,,plane, against a blue empty sky, tough shooting for sure 
The natives are restless as we count down the days to see this camera in the hands of people we trust!!
