Just wondering... how useful is the ST-E2 to use as a focus assistant? Does anyone use it for ONLY this purpose?
I've got a 5D which struggles sometimes to lock up the focus [even with L lenses] in low light. So would love to know whether ST-E2 is worth getting... I get forced at many occasions to use the center point and re-compose but don't really feel comfortable doing that because you can easily miss the plane of focus at 1.4
Yes, I do sometimes use it for this purpose. Works great. I'm thinking of getting another one for my second body. I'll also sometimes velcro a pocket wizard to the top of it to trigger an off camera light or two. I know I could use the built in flash triggering, but the pocket wizards are much more reliable.
Dr_Design wrote:
Hello there...
Just wondering... how useful is the ST-E2 to use as a focus assistant? Does anyone use it for ONLY this purpose?
Yes, since it turned out to be crap for everything else.
I've got a 5D which struggles sometimes to lock up the focus [even with L lenses] in low light. So would love to know whether ST-E2 is worth getting...
It does the job, and well, and should, for the cost.
Of course, it should be a reliaable wireless trigger for the cost, too, but it's not.
I get forced at many occasions to use the center point and re-compose but don't really feel comfortable doing that because you can easily miss the plane of focus at 1.4
You'll likely have that problem still. One of the major weaknesses of the 5D is the AF system. As you note, the center, cross-type high-sensitivity point works great. The outer points, not so much. They work better with better light (duh), but the AF assist will not magically make them equal to the center point.
The 40D gives me hope we'll see an improved system on the 5D MKII (or whatever they call the update).
One of the major weaknesses of the 5D is the AF system.
Really? I've shot sports with it, from basketball to boxing, in wretched lighting to fair, and it's always been a solid performer. It beat my 20D hands down, but of course it wasn't a 1 series.
...but the AF assist will not magically make them equal to the center point.
Yeah was wondering how would you compare it the to the center point.
I think that's the only thing I'm holding against the 5D.... but didn't want to wait for the MKII or whatever... I wanted to start to shooting... o well... it's never perfect [unless maybe if you pay more], you always have to deal with an issue.
My only [bad] experience with it is in low light using 35L photographing people.... well I won't call it bad but it wasn't that smooth...haven't tried it with the 135L yet.
I think an advanced focusing system would make the 5D a real killer. I just feel the full-frame sensor deserves a bit more.
I see your point about how great it would be to have full frame and a wonderful AF. That's why they have the 1Ds series.
What I don't get is why people have wild expectations for low to mid price point cameras. Part of it is that we don't expect technology to advance so quickly. In 3 years, we may laugh at the 5D, not recognizing it's pioneering effort as the first really affordable full frame digital sensor camera. It opened at a 3k price point, with a sensor that was very current. Of course, it had to cut back on certain features to meet that pricepoint.
That it was a success meant that part of its profits could be used as seed money for other projects that will bring about further work.
The goal of the 5D was to bring full frame to a reasonable price point. They did that, and for that, I'm quite thankful. If I wanted more out of a full frame sensor, I'd have gotten a 1Ds.
Dr_Design wrote:
I think that's the only thing I'm holding against the 5D.... but didn't want to wait for the MKII or whatever... I wanted to start to shooting... o well... it's never perfect [unless maybe if you pay more], you always have to deal with an issue.
<shrug> I paid list for one of the first 5Ds to hit Houston (I was in the middle of an architecture shoot, and just took a break, picked it up, and swapped it in) and haven't regretted a penny of it since I opened the first RAW file. It's a workhorse that can deliver excellent results, though it may take some effort to get them.
I am, however, hoping that the recent hot competition will encourage them to bring the body features of their line with what other users are getting.
Just wondering... how useful is the ST-E2 to use as a focus assistant? Does anyone use it for ONLY this purpose?
I've got a 5D which struggles sometimes to lock up the focus [even with L lenses] in low light. So would love to know whether ST-E2 is worth getting... I get forced at many occasions to use the center point and re-compose but don't really feel comfortable doing that because you can easily miss the plane of focus at 1.4
What are your experiences?
Thanks
I was just messing about with my ST-E2 and the 50L (both very recent purchases) on my 20D.
I did some comparison shots in low light around my house, albeit not in the most scientific way, but I noticed a large improvement in focussing and sharpness and I was shooting wide open. I was wondering myself if anybody used it for focus assist. The manual says its only effective in this mode to about 30 ft.
I have both a ST-E2 and 5D. I bought the ST-E2 in 1999 for AF assist on my EOS 3. Nowadays I mainly use it to trigger my 430EX and 420EX for small products and macro. Works great: triggers every time and allows control of lighting ratios. I planned to use it for 5D AF assist but found it largely unnecessary beyond total darkness. And I mainly shoot at twilight and other dim conditions. My 5D rarely misses focus even in dim bars and casinos. On the other hand, my 10D an d 20D really benefited from AF assist.
ericvgill wrote:
Yeah. Try a 1-series, any Nikon from the past couple of generations, or even a 40D.
ESPECIALLY on the outer points, which, coincidentally, have poor frame coverage on the 5D.
Eric,
I own a 40D, a 1D mk1, 2, and 3 currently (as well as the 5D), and have used a mk2n and D300, D200, and other Nikon cameras well. I have no idea of your experience with those cameras, so I won't comment on them, but I can say with some certainty that I am a good judge of those cameras which I've mentioned, especially since I've used them all in a variety of low light, high action situations, which is about the most taxing situation for AF.
I will say though that I don't do BIF stuff, or wildlife, so I can't say that it's good for that. I shoot mostly sports.
As for the competition offering a lot for a certain pricepoint, I'm failing to find a full frame digital camera for 3k or less. Right now it looks like the 5D is the only game in town if you want a new affordable full frame digital sensor.
That doesn't mean the D3 isn't worth every penny of its 5k pricetag, but if you don't have the cheddar for it, you just don't have the cheddar for it. Plus, what if you don't need all the bells and whistled, and just need a good full frame sensor. Or what if you wanted to spend the money on glass, but needed a full frame sensor.
And even if you do get a D3, you're still playing with 12mp. Only the 5D did it for 2k cheaper.... years ago.
pentool: Thanks, found your thread to be useful. Seeming like I'm purchasing one soon, yet I don't really the [outdated] look of it... anyway... as long as it functions well...
PShizzy: I think I'd say what ericvgill said, The Competition. If the D300 didn't feature an advanced focusing system then I might not expect it from the [next] 5D, but since the competition [Nikon] introduced this to a non top of the range body then I'd say Canon should as well.
Yet I didn't really want to wait for the next model, because I want to go out shooting right now
Slightly OT, but regarding 45 point "professional AF". Canon could throw it in for almost nothing.. Seems to me I've had it on cameras for many, many years. It isn't the cost, it's a product differentiation tool and nothing more. Nikon has now effectively used it to compete with the D300, but Canon is cheap and restricts it to 1 series. They will continue to do so.
Think about the EOS 3, A $1k "prosumer" camera in 1998/9 where the 45 point made its debut; think about the 1V, etc... It's been around for a long time. All R&D has been recovered. Canon simply does NOT want to give it to you. There is no real cost reason not to provide better AF.
Also, IMO the 5d is a very poor performer for high speed AF. I have thousands of shots to prove that it simply isn't that good unless you're using a very fast lens, and even then it's certainly not my idea of the right tool to use. Each to his own, but if I made my living shooting sports I don't think the 5d would be in the "work" bag.
PShizzy wrote:
I own a 40D, a 1D mk1, 2, and 3 currently (as well as the 5D), and have used a mk2n and D300, D200, and other Nikon cameras well. I have no idea of your experience with those cameras, so I won't comment on them, but I can say with some certainty that I am a good judge of those cameras which I've mentioned, especially since I've used them all in a variety of low light, high action situations, which is about the most taxing situation for AF.
<sigh> The original poster wanted to know what benefit the STE-2 would deliver, and I was trying to give him a good idea what to expect. Now we've wandered into opinion and what different people would be happy with on their cameras.
If the D300 was full frame, had the 51pt AF, and then stayed at 2k for a complete setup (w grip), THEN I would say its more camera. but as it stands, it's got a few things better (features and AF) and a few worse (sensor size).
The D3 is a better comparison, except it's brand new and 5k. If the D3 came out at 3k, then yes, I can understand that comparison. If the D3 came out at 5k at the same time as the 5D, then yes I can understand that comparison.
I sometimes wonder who makes these comparisons and what their experience is. I try to be open minded, and have tried out a variety of cameras, not simply for the enjoyment, but because I want to be able to say with certainty that I know what I'm talking about.
I'll soon be trying out a D3, and I just last night tried the D300 in a game situation. After that I could make a much more fair comparison. I will say this: The D3 is a great idea for a camera. It's basically taking it back to film days, in that it's a high speed full frame camera, which is what a lot of people have always wanted.
james, poor is relative. As I stated before, I shot a lot of sports with the 5D, and felt it kept up just fine. Did it have its moments? Yes. But shooting with the D300 last night, and its professional 51pt AF, it didn't always keep up. Sometimes it's user error (people trying to shoot from the hip, hoping the AF is magical and can focus in 0.0 seconds), and people need to learn how to anticipate better. Sometimes it's crappy focus (the 20D was particularly bad, 30D was better in some regards, but some people thought it was worse too. The 40D seems much snappier).
I doubt I'll win anyone over, especially those who havent tried all the cameras they are comparing the 5D too. But if you look at the forums, there are a lot of happy 5D owners.
