[Brightcolours]

Indeed, I don't consider Foto Magazin's AF "success story" relevant since it represents an outlier. The technology is still flawed. If you take 10 body/lens combination maybe 2 will happen to be perfectly calibrated, 2 will be totally off and the rest will be in-between. This is why Roger's article is much more relevant: he tested a large sample, not a single one.

Now tell me, why do you think a company like Reikan FoCal is still in business if the issue doesn't exist? http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/

Hint: that's because AF accuracy is indeed an issue with DSLRs.

 

Everything else you say is personal and opinion. I said it at the beginning: ergonomics are very personal. I agree to disagree and you should probably do the same since none of it is fact.

 

The last fact is that Canon's DR is sub-par compared to current sensor technology. You can choose to use a camera with comparatively low DR and be happy with it. That's all well. On the other hand, I want more in this regard.

All I wrote is valid, and you were the one shoving it aside to begin with. 

What is not personal, and what indeed is fact, is that my 6D gives me no AF headaches. And no OVF MF headaches even (except with my Tamron SP 500mm f8 ). That you have had bad AF with your former choices does not mean that the current Canon DSLRs are similar in that respect.

 

Again about that DR nonsense: A normal tonal curve has about 7 to 8 stops of DR. More contrasty images less. That does mean that 12 stops of DR gives a crazy amount of headroom already, and moaning about that that is less than whichever camera with Sony Exmor sensor is just nerd talk. Especially odd when someone uses Auto ISO of all things (since the DR figures mentioned always are about base ISO).

Meanwhile:

[thxbb12]

All I wrote is valid, and you were the one shoving it aside to begin with. 

What is not personal, and what indeed is fact, is that my 6D gives me no AF headaches. And no OVF MF headaches even (except with my Tamron SP 500mm f8 ). That you have had bad AF with your former choices does not mean that the current Canon DSLRs are similar in that respect.

 

Again about that DR nonsense: A normal tonal curve has about 7 to 8 stops of DR. More contrasty images less. That does mean that 12 stops of DR gives a crazy amount of headroom already, and moaning about that that is less than whichever camera with Sony Exmor sensor is just nerd talk. Especially odd when someone uses Auto ISO of all things (since the DR figures mentioned always are about base ISO).

 

You may have no AF problem and that's great. But that's not everyone's case, far from it. I'm personally not much of a gambler, especially when it comes to expensive bodies and lenses.

Please answer this question: how come a product like Reikan FoCal is used by many people owning Canon gear if there is no such thing as AF inacurracy? <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/" title="External link">http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/</a>

Why is it so difficult for you to admit and see the truth for what it is?

 

People were happily shooting with comparatively low quality sensors 10 years ago while still producing great work. Of course, it doesn't mean that because your sensor has inferior DR that your shot will be crap.

I just like to have more DR to start with. The final image will have reduced DR due to the contrast curve, but having more DR to start with allow for you to capture more and then decide how you apply your curve and on what part of the image. Exactly the reason why we use ND filters. Assuming you had a camera with 50 stops of DR. ND filters wouldn't be needed for instance. A sensor with better DR gives you more flexbility. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

 

A good auto ISO implementation will actually do a better job at selecting the lowest possible ISO than a human operator in fast changing conditions. If you have all the time in the world, then yes manual ISO is totally fine.

Again, why do you always attempt to deny the obvious?

[Brightcolours]

You may have no AF problem and that's great. But that's not everyone's case, far from it. I'm personally not much of a gambler, especially when it comes to expensive bodies and lenses.

Please answer this question: how come a product like Reikan FoCal is used by many people owning Canon gear if there is no such thing as AF inacurracy? <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/" title="External link">http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/</a>

Why is it so difficult for you to admit and see the truth for what it is?

 

People were happily shooting with comparatively low quality sensors 10 years ago while still producing great work. Of course, it doesn't mean that because your sensor has inferior DR that your shot will be crap.

I just like to have more DR to start with. The final image will have reduced DR due to the contrast curve, but having more DR to start with allow for you to capture more and then decide how you apply your curve and on what part of the image. Exactly the reason why we use ND filters. Assuming you had a camera with 50 stops of DR. ND filters wouldn't be needed for instance. A sensor with better DR gives you more flexbility. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

 

A good auto ISO implementation will actually do a better job at selecting the lowest possible ISO than a human operator in fast changing conditions. If you have all the time in the world, then yes manual ISO is totally fine.

Again, why do you always attempt to deny the obvious?

 

The truth is that mirrorless cameras do not always nail focus. The truth is that I know of no DSLR photographer with that Reikan Focal, and I only read about it on Nikon forums. My guess is that the same people who like reading on DXO about DXO DR scores are the same who go about MFA-ing all their lenses all the time with stuff like that.

The truth is that the Canon EOS 70D did better with the old Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM with clunky micro USM with PD AF (95.6%)  and CD/PD live view AF (95%) than the Nikon D7100 with Nikkor AF-S 50mm f1.4 (83,2% PD, 91.4% CD), the Pentax K-3 with Pentax DA 55mm f1.4 (85%, 89.9%), Sony Alpha 77 II with Sony SAL 50mm f1.4 (86.7% PD, no CD), Olympus OM-D E-M1 (91.2% with 45mm f1.8, 91% with Leica 42.5 f1.2), Panasonic GH4 (84.5% / 85.5%), Sony Alpha 6000 with SEL 55mm f1.8 (85%).

 

Fact about DR: My 6D has more DR above ISO 400 than most other cameras. That is where it starts to count. You must know that, as you happily let the camera choose higher ISO settings. Another thing: the information does not get distributed evenly in RAW. At the dark end, the steps are big, in the light end there is most information. It pays to get exposure right, to get the best tonality. Thinking one can underexpose and then decide later to whereever you want to push the tonal curve will just degrade the end result. 

 

And about "fast changing conditions", come on. Conditions never change "fast". It sounds cool to you maybe, but is just as spec sheet fan-ish as the DR nonsense and the loathing of mirrors.

My camera can't know when I am shooting with the camera well braced, when a long exposure can be done with ISO 100. It does not know which old MF lens I am using for its character, and therefore is unable to make a well informed decision about best ISO setting either. Nor does it know when and how many extension tubes I use, or when I use my 1.7x Soligor TC. Auto ISO is nice for you obviously, it is silly to me. Unless I hand my camera to some snapshooter, but then I also put it in an automatic program mode.

And that ISO stuff anyway has nothing to do with MILC vs DSLR, so why don't you drop this arguing? My initial post is as valid now as it was when I wrote it. DSLRs do have their advantages, and your trying to discredit that with all that biased stuff does not change it.

 

Sorry that in the past you chose the wrong DSLRs and that that skewed your view. On PZ there is another shooter who, because of "advice" on here, went the D800 route. He always never was happy, and went for a 6D (and was impressed with the camera). And he is a very gifted photographer. And it is fine that you like your current MILC too.

[thxbb12]

The truth is that mirrorless cameras do not always nail focus. The truth is that I know of no DSLR photographer with that Reikan Focal, and I only read about it on Nikon forums. My guess is that the same people who like reading on DXO about DXO DR scores are the same who go about MFA-ing all their lenses all the time with stuff like that.

The truth is that the Canon EOS 70D did better with the old Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM with clunky micro USM with PD AF (95.6%)  and CD/PD live view AF (95%) than the Nikon D7100 with Nikkor AF-S 50mm f1.4 (83,2% PD, 91.4% CD), the Pentax K-3 with Pentax DA 55mm f1.4 (85%, 89.9%), Sony Alpha 77 II with Sony SAL 50mm f1.4 (86.7% PD, no CD), Olympus OM-D E-M1 (91.2% with 45mm f1.8, 91% with Leica 42.5 f1.2), Panasonic GH4 (84.5% / 85.5%), Sony Alpha 6000 with SEL 55mm f1.8 (85%).

 

Fact about DR: My 6D has more DR above ISO 400 than most other cameras. That is where it starts to count. You must know that, as you happily let the camera choose higher ISO settings. Another thing: the information does not get distributed evenly in RAW. At the dark end, the steps are big, in the light end there is most information. It pays to get exposure right, to get the best tonality. Thinking one can underexpose and then decide later to whereever you want to push the tonal curve will just degrade the end result. 

 

And about "fast changing conditions", come on. Conditions never change "fast". It sounds cool to you maybe, but is just as spec sheet fan-ish as the DR nonsense and the loathing of mirrors.

My camera can't know when I am shooting with the camera well braced, when a long exposure can be done with ISO 100. It does not know which old MF lens I am using for its character, and therefore is unable to make a well informed decision about best ISO setting either. Nor does it know when and how many extension tubes I use, or when I use my 1.7x Soligor TC. Auto ISO is nice for you obviously, it is silly to me. Unless I hand my camera to some snapshooter, but then I also put it in an automatic program mode.

And that ISO stuff anyway has nothing to do with MILC vs DSLR, so why don't you drop this arguing? My initial post is as valid now as it was when I wrote it. DSLRs do have their advantages, and your trying to discredit that with all that biased stuff does not change it.

 

Sorry that in the past you chose the wrong DSLRs and that that skewed your view. On PZ there is another shooter who, because of "advice" on here, went the D800 route. He always never was happy, and went for a 6D (and was impressed with the camera). And he is a very gifted photographer. And it is fine that you like your current MILC too.

 

Funny how you stand by the only single resource on the whole internet claiming PDAF is more accurate than CDAF ;-)

Meanwhile technology as well as everybody else shows the opposite... A couple of them here for you:

 

1) https://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr : I recommend you read this article, it's quite informative and objective too (something you could learn from). Note they have a section entitled "DSLR Camera Limitations". Point 5 (Secondary Mirror and Phase Detection Accuracy) and 6 (Phase Detection and Lens Calibration Issues)  are exactly what I've been saying all along.

 

2) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t1/19 : this part in particular: "excellent autofocus - in our experience it's more accurate at focusing fast lenses than any APS-C SLR".

 

Besides, Roger Cicala's results are the most telling since he measures lens performance for a living. He knows very well AF calibration is not a myth, even in Canon's land.

 

Tell me, why is that that Canon added micro AF adjust to the firmware of their high end bodies? This is the ultimate proof of the issue, by the manufacturer themselves! "We aknowledge the AF accuracy issue and give users a way to somewhat fix it"

 

Regarding DR and auto ISO: the point is moot. We have different opinions and that's fine. I won't try to convince you you need more DR or auto ISO. So please do the same for me and accept I need better DR and a good auto ISO implementation.

 

Please note that I've never claimed mirrorless is better than DSLRs at everything. As of today, DSLRs are much more capable at tracking things. It's just bound to change, it's just a matter of time. I'm not sure why you don't seem to see it. From a technological point of view, it's undeniable. I also accept that some people prefer OVF to EVF and I'm fine with it.

[Brightcolours]

I know of very few Canon DSLR shooters with AF problems, just a silly little fact. My photos prove that my camera does perfectly well, even with the pedestrian EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. Foto Magazin did above mentioned test.

You can disregard all that, and also keep on disliking the brand Canon for all you like too.

 

I speak out of (happy) experience. 

 

Canon, by the way, tells that lenses need to be calibrated correctly and that MFA is only a stop gap solution, as MFA will not cover every distance and every focal length. So, if you do happen to have a lens that needs AF calibration, get that done. My Canon AF lenses have no problems there.

 

Funny thing is that I wrote why I would probably choose the same again, and for which reasons. You were the one not accepting that. That is how we got into this argument.

[Guest]

The OVF allows for a more artistic experience, and when needed one can simply use live view (including remote live view via an iOS/android device).

I must admit that I am more of an artist than a snapshooter, and I can very well understand that a DSLR is not for everyone. And that the ability to shoot with shallower DOF is not for everyone either.

 

BC, I enjoy your commentary on most things, but this is simply wrong. There are times when an OVF is superior, but it has nothing to do with the 'artistic experience'. You're inferring (intentionally or not) that I'm an artist with my D4 but not my X-E2. That simply isn't true.

[thxbb12]

Funny thing is that I wrote why I would probably choose the same again, and for which reasons. You were the one not accepting that. That is how we got into this argument.

 

Wrong.

Read the thread from the beginning and you'll see that you are the one who started this argument. My first post (#13) had nothing to do with your first post.

 

You were the one who initiated it with this message below:

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">I disagree with AF tracking being the only plus. Ergonomics, including an OVF which shows you the world instead of camera settings, a good grip among other things. Then there is the idea that DSLRs struggle with AF accuracy.... That may be true for some cameras like the D800/D600 (according to user reports) and my 350D way back when, but I have no complaints at all with my 6D.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Foto Magazin's AF test show different too, with the EOS 70D outperforming mirrorless in its PD AF accuracy.

 

[Brightcolours]

BC, I enjoy your commentary on most things, but this is simply wrong. There are times when an OVF is superior, but it has nothing to do with the 'artistic experience'. You're inferring (intentionally or not) that I'm an artist with my D4 but not my X-E2. That simply isn't true.

For me it works that way. When I see the world through the lens, in all its (suggested) 3D-ness, it gives me creative ideas on what I could do, and apply settings accordingly. Seeing the same scene on LCD somehow robs me of that, whether it is on a computer screen, the live view on the back or my smartphone, or in an EVF. There I see the flat scene according the the camera settings' interpretation. It has a big impact on my photography. 

[popo]

This thread is like a bad road crash. I know it is horrible but I can't stop looking...

 

The truth is that mirrorless cameras do not always nail focus. The truth is that I know of no DSLR photographer with that Reikan Focal, and I only read about it on Nikon forums. My guess is that the same people who like reading on DXO about DXO DR scores are the same who go about MFA-ing all their lenses all the time with stuff like that.

 

I'll be your first then. I bought FoCal early on so got it at a low price. To me, all focus systems (including mirrorless and MF too) have two errors: how close the average is to ideal, and how much variation there is around the average. FoCal helps DSLRs with the first, and can't help the 2nd part. At some point you get good enough and stop worrying about it.

 

At a practical level, I find I only need to AFMA fast short primes. It is a one time job then I can forget about it. And since I only really use fast primes on a full frame sensor, I only bother to do the 5D mk2 and neither of the 7Ds. Before FoCal, I had to do the poor man's LensAlign using a random target and a slanted tape measure next to it, manually tweaking values. FoCal now means I just press some buttons on a laptop and come back in 5 minutes instead.

 

There may or may not be some useful information from the produced reports. For example, when I got the 50 Art and ran it, it confirmed my suspicions the longitudinal colour wasn't as perfect as I'd like and ideally I'd have 3 AFMA values for each channel. Of course, that is impossible and is a feature of the lens design. But if I wanted to, I could bias the best focus for a particular part of the spectrum. I didn't bother in the end, since for normal use this is irrelevant. Another feature is it can give a sharpness rating for different aperture settings, if you're curious about that stuff. I think the author of the software is looking at putting even more lens analysis features in it, so over time it might becomes a poor man's Imatest.

 

For reasons unknown, I find the focus offset error is usually greater on APS-C sensors (higher pixel density revealing the error more?), and I've never had to adjust longer focal length lenses (150mm+). Even the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is fine without, but the 50mm f/1.4A needed a tweak. I suspect this is in part due to the error being related to any physical distance offset relative to the focal length, therefore the error effects are greater as focal length shortens. This error might grow faster than the effective DoF increases for shorter focal lengths, all else being equal. On paper, the DoF of the bigger lens is much smaller than the Art for a given subject distance.

 

On mirrorless systems, the average error should be pretty small with no significant offset. I have heard, but no experience, that some bodies may take a shortcut to increase speed over accuracy. Get it within the depth of field and stop. DSLRs likely do similar so not a big deal either way. For one shot AF, I find both DSLRs and mirrorless to be good enough. Still waiting for tracking improvements from the latter.

 

And finally, the EVF and OVF argument, I'd like to add a 3rd variable, if it is TTL or not. I thought the Fuji X100 would be fun so picked a used one up to play with. After using both the EVF and OVF modes, I found I actually didn't like the OVF! The problem for me was that I'm used to using a DSLR, so you can see an indication of the focus. As the OVF of the X100 wasn't TTL, you go no such feedback. So if I messed up the focus, I didn't notice until later. In this instance, EVF does give you the TTL view.

 

The possibility of adding extra overlay info to DSLR OVF has long been talked about, and I think would add value. I'd even love it if a crop body could offer >100% view, at least for FF lenses to get some extra situational visibility.