CSC quicker and more accurate at than 5D3?

JohnN

JohnN

Messages
6,359
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, that's what was suggested the other day in a thread, now I don't follow CSCs so I thought I would check with you all as I know some of you do.
 
Last edited:
Damn, did I use the wrong batch of letters, I meant mirrorless

Edit, it seems in meant CSC, I'll edit when I'm at a pc.. grr...
 
Last edited:
It may have been me :D and yes, if you get a fast focusing lens the record for focus speed goes to a CSC not a traditional SLR/DSLR.

If you follow the various camera / lens announcements you'll see various companies claim the record from time to time for specific camera and lens combinations. CSC's will possibly be more accurate and more consistent too, for stationary subjects.
 
I wasn't going to specifically name you just in case it was wildly inacurate.

Ah, now, stationary targets, that makes all the difference in the world.

Surely though you only need blistering fast af for moving targets.
 
Last edited:
From memory, CFCs are chlorofluorocarbons more commonly-regarded as ozone depleting chemicals.

I may be wrong ?

Surely if CSCs focussed faster and clearly there is no messy mirror slap then all the sports shooters would be using them instead of their Canon 1D4's etc..?

Again, I may be wrong ?
 
That would be my thinking too, as I don't deny the images I've seen can be very good.
 
For reasonably static objects I believe Olympus currently state that they have the quickest AF available (Olympus OMD-EM5 and the 12-50 kit lens), based on the Panasonic G5 (which uses near identical technology) I have little reason to doubt that, and would also add that in my experience it's significantly more consistent than a DSLR as well (and doesn't require any micro-adjustment etc)

They are quite a bit behind with AF tracking though (which makes sense when you read about how contrast detect AF works), but catching up fast. I was experimenting with my G5 at my local race circuit at the weekend and I would say it's now very close to previous DSLRs I've owned (Nikon D50, D90, Canon 5D).
 
Last edited:
Now when they get moving targets cracked, thats the day I'll consider jumping ship as the size seems a real boon, but with some of them rivaling SLRs in price they want to be good.
 
JohnN said:
I wasn't going to specifically name you just in case it was wildly inacurate.

Ah, now, stationary targets, that makes all the difference in the world.

Surely though you only need blistering fast af for moving targets.
Click to expand...

The focusing advantages DSLR's seem to hold at the moment are for moving and tracking. With the newer developments that are just coming into CSC's now I fully expect those advantages to go too, I think it's only a matter of time. As for accuracy, surely taking focus off the image sensor is better than taking it off some other device buried somewhere else in the camera and hoping that everything is properly aligned?

I mostly use my CSC with manual lenses and I only have two AF lenses, a 14-42mm "kit" lens and a 20mm f1.7. I doubt that either are cutting edge designs, focus wise, and indeed I've read that the 20mm is one of the slowest focusing Panny/Oly lenses yet in use both lenses seem easily as fast as any of my lenses have seemed on any of my SLR/DSLR's.

You really have to throw assumptions out of the window and look at what people are doing with these cameras or better still try them for yourself.
 
Believe me while I do have assumptions I'm very happy to let them go, which I why I asked rather than just dismissed what you said.

To me the final image is key and as long as I get nice clear pictures and can control the camera easily and quickly I wouldn't care what they came from.
 
JohnN said:
To me the final image is key and as long as I get nice clear pictures and can control the camera easily and quickly I wouldn't care what they came from.
Click to expand...

There would be the problem. CSCs (specifically the recent MFT bodies) can AF track quite nicely in my experience, but I wouldn't exactly say it was quick or easy to get the cameras set up to that point and they certainly don't do it by default. I've been fiddling around with them for quite some time now (and writing about it) and only really just getting to grips with what works best in what situation.

Ironically considering they were initially pitched more towards people stepping up from compacts, the staggering amount of customization that both Panasonic and Olympus bodies have is probably the biggest hurdle in doing anything vaguely advanced such as shooting moving objects.
 
I just had a quick skim round the motorsports section and I think there's some good tips in there which carry across to SLR too and well written.
 
I think Panny and possibly Oly too are aiming further upmarket now. I think Panasonic has said as much. Dunno about Sony. Fuji is up market image quality wise but is arguably off the pace when it comes to focusing.

Focus tracking has never bothered me so it's not been an issue. I supspect that there are few times when truly cutting edge tracking would be an issue for the vast majority? Birds in flight maybe?
 
Aye, or running kids which is my main priority at the moment.
 
JohnN said:
I wasn't going to specifically name you just in case it was wildly inacurate.

Ah, now, stationary targets, that makes all the difference in the world.

Surely though you only need blistering fast af for moving targets.
Click to expand...

CSCs can focus lighting fast on static subjects. Really not an issue for most of them, though manufacturers' claims are often highly qualified when you look into the detail.

But their contrast-detect AF systems have inherant disadvantages that make them almost useless for tracking anything faster than a snail. Which is why a few of them have phase-detect AF pixels embedded in the sensor to help out, but they're still no match at all for a DSLR with 'proper' phase-detect AF.

The key difference is a DSLR's phase-detect AF can see both in front and behind the point of sharpest focus so, coupled to some smart data processing, it can calculate speed, direction and distance and predict where the point of sharp focus will be, even with rapidly moving subjects.

For example, DSLRs can track a dog running flat out straight towards the camera (some great threads here on that) whereas CSCs, including the best of them, struggle even with a person walking normally - hit and miss at best. This difference is fundamental to their AF systems and IMHO it needs a new technological breakthrough to overcome.
 
HoppyUK said:
But their contrast-detect AF systems have inherant disadvantages that make them almost useless for tracking anything faster than a snail.

For example, DSLRs can track a dog running flat out straight towards the camera (some great threads here on that) whereas CSCs, including the best of them, struggle even with a person walking normally - hit and miss at best. This difference is fundamental to their AF systems and IMHO it needs a new technological breakthrough to overcome.
Click to expand...

To be fair this seems to be the common line on CSC autofocus tracking, but it absolutely does not match my experiences of various MFT models (Panasonic G3, G5, GF1, Olympus E-PL2). Take this for example, 100mph plus straight at me (it's not perfect, but it was at 300mm handheld on a very cold day), I could have shot pretty much every car coming at me all day long from that position if it wasn't an incredibly boring style of motorsport photography in my opinion.

I can't speak for pets/kids/birds, but I would assume a 100mph car is a reasonably challenging test at the very limit of my lens length and light gathering abilities. I don't doubt for a second that it's not as good as a DSLR, but it's also a long, long way from useless.
 
ukaskew said:
To be fair this seems to be the common line on CSC autofocus tracking, but it absolutely does not match my experiences of various MFT models (Panasonic G3, G5, GF1, Olympus E-PL2). Take this for example, 100mph plus straight at me (it's not perfect, but it was at 300mm handheld on a very cold day), I could have shot pretty much every car coming at me all day long from that position if it wasn't an incredibly boring style of motorsport photography in my opinion.

I can't speak for pets/kids/birds, but I would assume a 100mph car is a reasonably challenging test at the very limit of my lens length and light gathering abilities. I don't doubt for a second that it's not as good as a DSLR, but it's also a long, long way from useless.
Click to expand...

It's a common line because it's true. With respect, that's not a particularly demanding subject - the car is a long way off, relative change of distance is not that great, depth of field is generous, plenty of room for error.

Have a look at some of the running dogs shots on this thread for a tough AF test http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=461016 Not easy even with a DSLR, good technique and optimum settings required, but the camera can do it.
 
Last edited:
JohnN said:
Aye, or running kids which is my main priority at the moment.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd put that in the not very challenging category, unless you're at wide apertures with thin DoF, printing huge or doing heavy copping.

Manufacturers should be specific when they make claims about focus speed, the camera and lens at least must be stated, so it's no surprise to me that these claims come with small print.

The new developments with light masked pixels looks promising. Time will tell.
 
Lol, I'm guessing you don't have kids, or just stick it at f11, but yes I do prefer a thin dof, often f4 max, so quick accurate af is important
 
woof woof said:
And that's the key and with respect to the OP I could have done better with a manual lens than the DSLR managed in those first few shots.
Click to expand...

Then I'm envious.

Edit. First yes, later ones would be a challenge
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
And that's the key and with respect to the OP I could have done better with a manual lens than the DSLR managed in those first few shots.
Click to expand...

LOL yes, fair comment, but that's the piont of that thread.

Running dogs is a very tough subject - they're small, run damn fast, and the distance changes at close range when depth of field is minimal are huge. As I found out last week, just keeping the AF point pinned on the eyes is hard enough, but that's a technique thing and camera set-up also plays a big part.

To be fair, apart from anything else, DSLRs have much more sophisticated AF systems in general, at the least the better ones do, and are generally higher end cameras than most CSCs so you'd expect them to be better.

The point is whether or not contrast-detect AF can be made as good as phase-detect. It would be wonderful if the newer hybrid Cd-AF incorporating on-sensor Pd-AF pixel elements could be developed to do the trick, and it will surely get better, but personally I have my doubts. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong though ;)
 
JohnN said:
Then I'm envious
Click to expand...

Alan may be talking about manual pre-focusing. Very good technique if you know exactly where the subject is going to be, and fine for predictable subjects like motorsport or horse jumping. You only get one shot though.
 
Yes, I think that dog jumping over the hurdle is a great use of prefocusing
 
JohnN said:
Lol, I'm guessing you don't have kids, or just stick it at f11, but yes I do prefer a thin dof, often f4 max, so quick accurate af is important
Click to expand...

I normally prefer relatively wider lenses so whilst some may have a few issues when shooting at f1.4-2.8 with their 85-200mm lenses I'll probably be more likely to get something that I'll keep with similar apertures... but a wider lens.
 
HoppyUK said:
Alan may be talking about manual pre-focusing. Very good technique if you know exactly where the subject is going to be, and fine for predictable subjects like motorsport or horse jumping. You only get one shot though.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do that, sometimes... and I would with a manual lens or something that's quite slow to use in auto mode like my LX5 when as much time is lost through metering and the like before the camera even gets around to focusing, but it's also down to image output size (a small image hides a few little errors...) and how fussy you are. Personally I like to keep output size and viewing in mind not how the image will look at 200% on screen.
 
HoppyUK said:
It's a common line because it's true. With respect, that's not a particularly demanding subject - the car is a long way off, relative change of distance is not that great, depth of field is generous, plenty of room for error.
Click to expand...

True, but I feel saying they're useless for this purpose and couldn't cope with anything faster than a snail is extremely misleading.

It's all relative I guess, there are people here who wouldn't dream of touching a Canon 5D1/2/3 for tracking AF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top