Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 20D versus 10D autofocus

Reply
Thread Tools

20D versus 10D autofocus

 
 
George Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2004
Big Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:38:44 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed) >, George
> >Preddy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> I shoot Canon DSLRs almost everyday. The main probem with Canons high
> >> level entries is that dynamic range is the pits, and they are all very
> >> soft. The company consistently tries to leave something in their
> >> higher cost DSLRs for their real customers, so they cut features out
> >> of the consumer DSLRs, like reliable AF. Color can be quite ok,
> >> depending, though red is usually overamplified. Resolution per MP is
> >> low due to aggressively smeared noise reduction, very low sensor count
> >> per dollar spent, and Bayer color imbalance.

> >
> >If you had half a clue you'd be dangerous.

>
> He's a liar, pure and simple.
> He's claimed many times in the past that he won't use cameras that
> interpolate, so his statemet above can't be true. Or he lied before.
> Either way, he's a liar.


That would be pretty tricky, since Sigma's DSLRs interpolate to the
exact same degree as any Canon or Nikon DSLR when you choose 14MP
mode, though it still has only half the degree of a Fuji DSLR's
interpolation.

I shoot a 10D and 1D Mk II regularly, D100s and D70s on occassion, in
addition an aging 1DX and both Sigmas. The Sigmas are better DSLRs on
image quality, I'm sorry to tell those who've never held one. In
terms of dynamic range, the Foveon sensor is nothing short of awesome,
much more cabable than film. The 10D is the worst DSLR in the group
by a long shot though the jury is still out on the 1Ds MkII, most feel
that it is on par with the consistently pathetic blow outs of the 10D,
possibly worse. White clothing in sunlight, properly exposed, is
simply out of bounds for these Canons. Phil Askey showed the 1Ds Mk
II has a very similar blow out problem...

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/can...s/vb2c0083.jpg
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/can...s/vb2c0088.jpg

And that terrible, awful lens distortion really shows the wisdom of
Nikon in forever banishing full frame DSLR optics.

There are several drawbacks of the Sigmas too, one is size, they are
significantly bigger DSLRs than Canon's 1D body, which actually looks
smallish side by side and feels quite thin as well. With the extended
battery/vertical shutter kit on the SD9, the very top of the 1D body
barely reaches the height of the SD9's viewfinder. The 10D looks like
a midget spy cam by comparison
(http://www.smugmug.com/photos/6133903-M.jpg) and the 20D is virtually
invisible. You can hardly fault Sigma though, they do hold better,
and I personally prefer a bigger camera though most might not.

Another is that you need to adjust the WB more with the Sigmas. I
don't view that as a big drawback since attainable image quality is
still higher. But frame rate is clearly the biggest advantage of the
1D Mk II, although the inability to shoot in, or under bright light
without around -1 2/3rds EV set is a serious drawback to sports photo
quality. Noise shoots up int he shadows as the exposure is reclimed
during RAW conversion. A downside is shutter noise, which inevitably
brings a look of shock to a subjects face or even brings little ones
to tears.

Back to the subject, one of the biggest advantages of the 1D body over
the consumer lever Canon DSLRs is certainly AF. The 300D/10D's single
calc distance focusing algorithm leaves way too much slack most of the
time. In fact if you coninually refocus the 10D, even on a tripod, it
will hunt for focus differently each time. The 1D Mk II is much
better. Some have noted the 20D's single calc distance alg is
marginally more useful than the 300D/10D, but I can't verify the
potential improvement. Still, Sigma pictures are stunningly sharper
than 1D Mk II pics, much of that is their sharper sensor, although
their always pin perfect AF system doesn't hurt. The Kodak 14c (Sigma
SD9/10 body and AF system) proves that Canon lenses are not the source
of the problem.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
George Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (George Preddy) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> The 10D looks like
> a midget spy cam by comparison
> (http://www.smugmug.com/photos/6133903-M.jpg)


Upon second look, that 10D is clearly propped up on the wood.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004

"George Preddy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
SNIP
> White clothing in sunlight, properly exposed, is simply out of
> bounds for these Canons. Phil Askey showed the 1Ds Mk
> II has a very similar blow out problem...


As has any camera, when exposure is not correct, e.g.
http://www.pbase.com/innox/image/29568041/original ,
or when not salvaged in Raw postprocessing.

Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
Big Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2004
On 16 Oct 2004 16:19:04 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (George Preddy)
wrote:

>Big Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:38:44 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <(E-Mail Removed) >, George
>> >Preddy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I shoot Canon DSLRs almost everyday. The main probem with Canons high
>> >> level entries is that dynamic range is the pits, and they are all very
>> >> soft. The company consistently tries to leave something in their
>> >> higher cost DSLRs for their real customers, so they cut features out
>> >> of the consumer DSLRs, like reliable AF. Color can be quite ok,
>> >> depending, though red is usually overamplified. Resolution per MP is
>> >> low due to aggressively smeared noise reduction, very low sensor count
>> >> per dollar spent, and Bayer color imbalance.
>> >
>> >If you had half a clue you'd be dangerous.

>>
>> He's a liar, pure and simple.
>> He's claimed many times in the past that he won't use cameras that
>> interpolate, so his statemet above can't be true. Or he lied before.
>> Either way, he's a liar.

>
>That would be pretty tricky, since Sigma's DSLRs interpolate to the
>exact same degree as any Canon or Nikon DSLR when you choose 14MP
>mode, though it still has only half the degree of a Fuji DSLR's
>interpolation.


Well, I've mentioned that before, too.
Did you change reader guys?
>
>I shoot a 10D and 1D Mk II regularly, D100s and D70s on occassion, in
>addition an aging 1DX and both Sigmas.


Then you really are someone else, or the guy who reads for you has
changed, and doesn't remember your other lies.
>The Sigmas are better DSLRs on
>image quality, I'm sorry to tell those who've never held one.


Maybe when you compare 3.4MP images.
An anti-aliasing filter would make them look more realistic, though.
>In
>terms of dynamic range, the Foveon sensor is nothing short of awesome,
>much more cabable than film. The 10D is the worst DSLR in the group
>by a long shot though the jury is still out on the 1Ds MkII, most feel
>that it is on par with the consistently pathetic blow outs of the 10D,
>possibly worse. White clothing in sunlight, properly exposed, is
>simply out of bounds for these Canons. Phil Askey showed the 1Ds Mk
>II has a very similar blow out problem...
>
>http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/can...s/vb2c0083.jpg
>http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/can...s/vb2c0088.jpg
>
>And that terrible, awful lens distortion really shows the wisdom of
>Nikon in forever banishing full frame DSLR optics.
>
>There are several drawbacks of the Sigmas too, one is size, they are
>significantly bigger DSLRs than Canon's 1D body, which actually looks
>smallish side by side and feels quite thin as well. With the extended
>battery/vertical shutter kit on the SD9, the very top of the 1D body
>barely reaches the height of the SD9's viewfinder. The 10D looks like
>a midget spy cam by comparison
>(http://www.smugmug.com/photos/6133903-M.jpg) and the 20D is virtually
>invisible. You can hardly fault Sigma though, they do hold better,
>and I personally prefer a bigger camera though most might not.
>
>Another is that you need to adjust the WB more with the Sigmas. I
>don't view that as a big drawback since attainable image quality is
>still higher. But frame rate is clearly the biggest advantage of the
>1D Mk II, although the inability to shoot in, or under bright light
>without around -1 2/3rds EV set is a serious drawback to sports photo
>quality. Noise shoots up int he shadows as the exposure is reclimed
>during RAW conversion. A downside is shutter noise, which inevitably
>brings a look of shock to a subjects face or even brings little ones
>to tears.
>
>Back to the subject, one of the biggest advantages of the 1D body over
>the consumer lever Canon DSLRs is certainly AF. The 300D/10D's single
>calc distance focusing algorithm leaves way too much slack most of the
>time. In fact if you coninually refocus the 10D, even on a tripod, it
>will hunt for focus differently each time. The 1D Mk II is much
>better. Some have noted the 20D's single calc distance alg is
>marginally more useful than the 300D/10D, but I can't verify the
>potential improvement. Still, Sigma pictures are stunningly sharper
>than 1D Mk II pics, much of that is their sharper sensor, although
>their always pin perfect AF system doesn't hurt. The Kodak 14c (Sigma
>SD9/10 body and AF system) proves that Canon lenses are not the source
>of the problem.


So, who are you really?
preddy's new reader, a new preddy, or just the same old preddy who's
mental state has deteriorated?

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Tough
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
Apparently Georgette Preddy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Unfortunately neither the 10D or 20D's autofocus works properly. The
>10D is unacceptable, the 20D is possibly slightly improved but I've
>found it still misses too often. Continuous focus is unusable on
>both. The 1D bodies are somewhat better.


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...location.shtml

Autofocus on the 20D is so much improved over the 10D as to seem
like from another generation of camera, which it clearly is.
It is fast, precise and reliable. Anyone who has difficulty
getting sharply focused images with this camera, in almost any
light, needs to consider taking up another hobby or profession.

--
Ken Tough
 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
"Ken Tough" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Apparently Georgette Preddy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately neither the 10D or 20D's autofocus works properly. The
>>10D is unacceptable, the 20D is possibly slightly improved but I've
>>found it still misses too often. Continuous focus is unusable on
>>both. The 1D bodies are somewhat better.

>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...location.shtml
>
> Autofocus on the 20D is so much improved over the 10D as to seem
> like from another generation of camera, which it clearly is.
> It is fast, precise and reliable. Anyone who has difficulty
> getting sharply focused images with this camera, in almost any
> light, needs to consider taking up another hobby or profession.
>
> --
> Ken Tough


Which, of course, George would know if he ever had actually picked up the
cameras he talks about and used them.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven Scharf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
"Don" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<I7Mad.23096$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Folks
>
> about to plonk down my money for a 20D but was hoping that those that have
> upgraded from a 10D can advise as to whether the new 9 point autofocus
> (assume use with an L series lens) is faster/better than the 10D's 7 point.
> Look forward to advice from those who know.


I had the same concern, even though the 10D auto-focus is very good,
the 20D autofocus is even better, and not just the two extra focus
points (thought this is an advantage as well). Similarly, the 10D
improved over the D60, and the 10D autofocus was already better than
the Nikon D70 autofocus.

The worst of the worst in terms of autofocus is the Sigma SD9 and
SD10. They have only a single focus point, they don't do well in
low-contrast situations (though the SD10 improved slightly over the
SD9).
 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) (Steven Scharf) wrote:

>I had the same concern, even though the 10D auto-focus is very good,
>the 20D autofocus is even better, and not just the two extra focus
>points (thought this is an advantage as well).


I just bought a 20D yesterday morning, and I am quite impressed. The AF
is fast, even in low light where you'd be shooting at ISO 3200. Didn't
hunt the wrong way with any of several lenses I've tried on it, and
there are no back- or front-focusing problems (my 10D back-focuses
significantly with fast, wide lenses, and ever so slightly with
telephotos). In fact, with none of my lenses could I improve on the
focusing manually after the 20D focused automatically; turning the focus
in any direction made it immediately fuzzier.

I shoot a lot of birds and other animals with telephotos, and with the
10D, I found that I could almost always better the AF by focusing
manually. AF is truly useful with the 20D, as I only had about 5
out-of-focus animal shots out of hundreds. With the 10D, I was deleting
more than half of the animal shots.

The pixels are quieter and higher-contrast than the 10D, just the
opposite of what you'd expect when increasing the pixel count in the
same size sensor.

The buffer write speed, the review speed, and the camera-on speeds are
all great improvements over the 10D. I never once waited to shoot or
review because the camera was busy, or shoot because the camera needed
time to start up. Startup in immediate, whether I use the power switch
or resurrect the camera with a half-shutter press.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Onepercentf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2004
>(my 10D back-focuses
>significantly with fast, wide lenses, and ever so slightly with
>telephotos)


Please could you explain what you mean by 'back-focuses'. I also have a 10D,
hence my interest. Thanks
 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) (Onepercentf) wrote:

>>(my 10D back-focuses
>>significantly with fast, wide lenses, and ever so slightly with
>>telephotos)

>
>Please could you explain what you mean by 'back-focuses'. I also have a 10D,
>hence my interest. Thanks


For example, with my 24mm f1.4L lens, the 10D always autofocuses in such
a way that I have to turn the manual ring to override it. No matter
what distance the subject is from the camera, the adjustment on the
focusing ring is the same amount, in the same direction.

With the 20D I just bought, it focuses perfectly. I bought my 10D in
late May of 2003, when they were shipping a lot of 10Ds with a backfocus
problem.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo Firefox 0 05-08-2008 12:56 PM
equal? versus eql? versus == versus === verus <=> Paul Butcher Ruby 12 11-28-2007 06:06 AM
Canon 10D low light autofocus problems? Bernd Digital Photography 6 11-18-2003 07:17 AM
Canon EOS 10D & Autofocus in very low light Luuk Houwen Digital Photography 15 09-29-2003 10:44 AM
10d autofocus and teleconvertor Don Digital Photography 45 08-29-2003 10:40 AM



Advertisments