What do you set the 7D to track? I have tried different things but as soon as it gets away from the original focus point the camera focusses on a new object. It isn't switching focus points to track.
mogur2 wrote:
Hi,
I have Cn III 6 set for spot focusing. Is there a way to quickly change to a focusing range more suitable for sport or bird photography?
Thanks,
Use C.Fn III -6 to set up which AF area schemes you want to be able to easily select by putting a check mark in front of those that you like and then register them by selecting "apply" and pressing "set". Once you do that, select "enable" and hit "set".
Now, you can easily select from the AF schemes you checked by hitting the AF point selection button (top right) on the back of the camera and then toggling through the schemes with the M-Fn button next to the main dial on top of the camera. You probably want to try single point with expansion for sport photography. But experiment - I'm still experimenting and if I ever get some time, I might actually get a chance to use the camera for its intended purpose.
jamato8 wrote:
What do you set the 7D to track? I have tried different things but as soon as it gets away from the original focus point the camera focusses on a new object. It isn't switching focus points to track.
I'm still learning the AF scheme myself, but you might want to try tracking with AF expansion or using one of the zones. You can also set the camera for 19-point AF auto selection as well, and you will have the benefit of all 19 points for tracking, plus you can select the point from which you want tracking to start while in Servo mode.
The new AF system is a bit complex so you should read and re-read pages 83-92 in the manual a couple of times, along with C. Fn III from pages 209 to 215. I think I'll be discovering a few things over the next several weeks myself.
ejmartin wrote:
Everybody has something to bring to the discussion. Why require everyone to bring the same thing?
anytime pixel noise is brought up the same people trod out some lame picture of a desk with junk on it to prove what?I have no clue
I'm not an expert on noise or anything else, but I believe the pixels on my 6mp 300D are actually bigger than those on my 5D II which I believe would be an 8mp camera if cropped to the 1.6 format. Should I therefore expect the 300d's high ISO noise on a pixel (or any other level) to be better?
philtax wrote:
I believe the pixels on my 6mp 300D are actually bigger than those on my 5D II which I believe would be an 8mp camera if cropped to the 1.6 format. Should I therefore expect the 300d's high ISO noise on a pixel (or any other level) to be better?
No. The 300D uses an old sensor from 2003, when sensors were far less efficient that they are today. Pixel size is only one of many other factors that influence high ISO performance of cameras.
digitalbug30d wrote:
anytime pixel noise is brought up the same people trod out some lame picture of a desk with junk on it to prove what?I have no clue
Maybe if you bothered to read the explanation that went with that "lame picture of a desk with junk on it" you'd understand? Just sayin'.
Then why do people insist on downsizing images with more megapixels in order to do a 'fair' noise comparison to images with less megapixels
because it is a very quick and easy way to do it if maybe not ideal (and you don't have to wonder who used what NR technique to what degree or waste paper/time printing)
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Maybe if you bothered to read the explanation that went with that "lame picture of a desk with junk on it" you'd understand? Just sayin'.
Why? do I need to be a scientist to use a camera?since I am typing this on a Dell with an i7 should I really know everything there is to know about an i7 chip?
also on high speed comcast internet do I need to know how it works to use it also?.
digitalbug30d wrote:
Why? do I need to be a scientist to use a camera?since I am typing this on a Dell with an i7 should I really know everything there is to know about an i7 chip?
also on high speed comcast internet do I need to know how it works to use it also?.
You would do well to know the simple fact that sensel size doesn't really affect a camera's noise performance in the way that sensor size does.
I am trying to explain that so that more people can make informed decisions about upgrading cameras.
Others are confused by comparing cameras at unequal magnification, and think they have seen evidence that sparser sensors are better. They claim, without any evidence, that more pixels make a camera worse. It happens on every thread.
It's a shame the subject has to come up so often, but it is important because it will affect how manufacturers supply the market and consequently it will affect our picture quality in the years ahead.
So you don't need to be a scientist, but it will help if you can understand why and how an apparently fair test isn't one, because that way you can ignore all the very biased tests and opinions that are rife on the internet, and you can ensure that when you compare cameras you have done it fairly, and don't make the mistake of upgrading to a worse camera because the pixels looked nicer.
A real world example of this issue, at risk of returning to the topic of the thread, is that many people are put off the 7D on the grounds that it has 'too many' pixels. Their fears are ill-founded, and once they get beyond comparing at unequal magnification they will see that the 7D has the best overall image quality of any APS-C camera to date, notwithstanding that it may have slightly less DR than some other cameras.
well I am giving Canon some slack knowing some issues arise with higher pixel counts,I am willing to bet having dual digic 4s will take care of most of the issues
in these arguments I havent seen any talk about the processors.With 2 of them
should in theory out do a single chip camera ie the 50D,so this is why I think the
7d would be better than any single processor designed body and most likely the A/F
speed should be better,ISOs,noise ect
