p.1 #1 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
Canon's white paper claims that AF accuracy under artificial light was improved in the 50D.
Improved precision over previous AF systems stems from each camera’s ability to adjust for different light sources while calculating focusing distance. Here’s how it works: during Phase Detection AF, the AF engine rapidly measures the density of horizontal and vertical details in a scene and the camera processor uses this data to determine where the sharpest edges and details are located. When found, the AF is locked on target. 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 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 when shooting under lighting conditions that could fool the AF systems found on earlier Canon and competitive models alike.
I have a 40D and while I'm generally very pleased with it (AF included), I have noticed some AF inaccuracies under artificial light (especially fluorescent) where AF point was at one point but the actual focus point was elsewhere.
My question is simple: Has anybody noticed such improvement?
p.1 #3 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
I find the 50D is really a "downgrade" at least in the IQ dept. At least for me, I find my images have more noise at the same ISO's, and when using the on-board flash, tend to be under exposed as compared to my 40D. I find 15 MP is really too much for the APS sized sensor. You really need the BEST lenses, making most EF-S lenses unable to keep up.
On the plus side, the LCD is WAY nicer on the 50D. Wish the 50D LCD was in the 1D Mark III. The HDMI port could come in handy on the 50D, as well.
p.1 #4 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
I was extremely happy with AF on my 40D. I upgraded to 50D (also have 5DII) and don't sense any improvement in AF. The file size is larger on the 50D and gives you more magnification, so it is tough to make direct comparisons. AF micro adjustment is a plus on 50D. Overall, I feel that at a pixel level IQ is not as good on the 50D. But, I have not spent a lot of time trying to understand the issue. If you are pleased with your 40D, I don't think you will see any AF difference upgrading to a 50D (except its higher resolution may make you aware of problems that did not exist on the 40D).
p.1 #5 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
David Tognazzi wrote:
I find the 50D is really a "downgrade" at least in the IQ dept. At least for me, I find my images have more noise at the same ISO's, and when using the on-board flash, tend to be under exposed as compared to my 40D. I find 15 MP is really too much for the APS sized sensor. You really need the BEST lenses, making most EF-S lenses unable to keep up.
On the plus side, the LCD is WAY nicer on the 50D. Wish the 50D LCD was in the 1D Mark III. The HDMI port could come in handy on the 50D, as well....Show more →
Are you looking at prints or only what you see on the screen? Print for print, the 50D is a great performer and has less noticeable noise than the 40D thanks to the noise being smaller. If a lens was fine on your 40D it's also fine on your 50D. If you want to make bigger prints, you might notice the lens defects more, but that's always been the case.
Anyhow, I don't think the intention of this thread was to talk about noise, it was supposed to be directed at AF performance.
p.1 #6 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
Dan Martin wrote:
Are you looking at prints or only what you see on the screen? Print for print, the 50D is a great performer and has less noticeable noise than the 40D thanks to the noise being smaller. If a lens was fine on your 40D it's also fine on your 50D. If you want to make bigger prints, you might notice the lens defects more, but that's always been the case.
Anyhow, I don't think the intention of this thread was to talk about noise, it was supposed to be directed at AF performance.
I have to say I find large 50D prints smoother and more detailed than my 40D. Yes, if you view high ISO files at pixel level the 40D is slightly better. However, who does that? The 40D needs more rezzing up for a large print and thus reveals more artifacts and less detail than the 50D. Plus 50D JPEG NR or DPP NR is really good. I certainly find 50D ISO 1600 and 3200 more useable than the 40D.
As for 50D AF, my gut impression is it is slightly faster and surefooted in low light than the 40D but the diff is not significant for my use. In other others, my 40D rarely had problems in low light. Whatever,all the tiny improvements in the 50D add up to me liking it a lot more than the 40D. I was going to sell the 40D but, since the going price is so low, I gave it to a happy relative yesterday.
p.1 #7 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
I am still getting used to my new 1D Mark III and got a few like the above. But yea, the AF is not bad on the 50D, I would say very close to what the 40D has, maybe a smidgin better.
p.1 #9 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
I am very happy with the IQ of the lenses I have (10-22/3.5-4.5, 17-55/2.8 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 35/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4, 100/2.8) but this is not a lens question.
p.1 #10 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
Peter Kirk wrote:
I agree with David Tognazzi,
the only way to get the best out of the 50D sensor is to use the "BEST" glass.
Everything else falls short.
pk
No disputing you get what you pay for with glass, but the claims I have read stating you can't get great results short of L glass on the 50D vs. 40D is fairly well refuted by the test shots in Bob Atkins review.
p.1 #11 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
David Tognazzi wrote:
I find 15 MP is really too much for the APS sized sensor. You really need the BEST lenses, making most EF-S lenses unable to keep up.
People have been claiming lenses can't keep up with sensors since digital SLR's jumped from 2 megapixels to 3 megapixels... if that were true, we would all be using the Olympus 4/3 system by now.
p.1 #12 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
Yakim Peled wrote:
Canon's white paper claims that AF accuracy under artificial light was improved in the 50D.
Improved precision over previous AF systems stems from each camera’s ability to adjust for different light sources while calculating focusing distance. Here’s how it works: during Phase Detection AF, the AF engine rapidly measures the density of horizontal and vertical details in a scene and the camera processor uses this data to determine where the sharpest edges and details are located. When found, the AF is locked on target. 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 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 when shooting under lighting conditions that could fool the AF systems found on earlier Canon and competitive models alike. ...Show more →
What a pile of marketing poop .. the eight year old 1D has more accurate & faster focus than either the 40 or 50D without any of this garbage.
If Canon REALLY wanted to give 50D users better AF they would take it from the 1D series.
p.1 #14 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
My 40D is very accurate in low light, although I often have the aid of the red light emitting from the flashgun. But for artificial light its usually pretty good.
p.1 #16 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
brucem48 wrote:
manual focus.. anticipate the plane of focus.. choose a camera for its IQ capability and not its focus capability.. use your eyes and talents.
I like AF. A lot. I use it all the time, even in macro, and am generally very happy with the results. If I wasn't so hooked on AF I'd buy an M8.
I guess my eye and talent are not as high as yours.
p.1 #17 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
Yakim,
I don’t have a 50D, but I have a 40D, so I can’t provide any focusing differences. In general (w/40D) I find the center focus point to be the most accurate and most reliable, and for 95% of my shooting I only have the center focus point enabled. In your example it appears you are using an outer focus point. Did you manually select that focus point or are you allowing the camera to choose a focus point for you? Perhaps try only using the center one and see if that improves your focusing results.
p.1 #18 · 40D to 50D: Anybody noticed improved AF accuracy under artificial light?
I always manually select the AF point prior to each shot. Most of the time, this AF point is a peripheral one. This is because of compositional reasons. As I said before, most of the time they work fine.
