Quote:Dave, I made the mistake of thinking mirrorless were per se more precise in focus - also the focus points cover a wider area. All of that true. To a certain point...
All I say now is meant for Fuji, I don't know µ4/3 or Sony.
AF-C struggles, as it is not performed with open aperture, the lower the light, the worse.
The coverage is wider - but doesn't contain upper and lower horizontal border arrays.
325 focuspoints sounds great, but need time to scroll through.
The coverage of focus points is only valid with single points in AF-S. Other AF-modes don't show so much points.
Yeah I've heard about this stopping down in AF-C mode, I must be missing something, but why?
I don't know if the A9 does it?
I must say that when I speak of ML AF, really I'm basing that on the A9 and not really any other camera (I know Fuji is also very good) but it's it's rapidity which updates 60 times a second grace of the stacked sensor.
I hark back to my Pentax days when I tested the K3, to check Pentax's claims for what was their new 27 point safox system.
I found that in the AF-C mode, what I call the "dead-band", the amount of subject distance change before the AF refocused was twice that of AF-S, evidently the system is downgraded/simplified in AF-C. No surprise then that the system gets a low hit rate following the action, not to mention what the re-sample rate is, it certainly wasn't anything along the lines of Sony's 60/sec.
I always thought that Pentax's AF-C problem was linked to that, also their claimed object recognition as used in Nikon's 3D mode was just pure fabrication, yes it could see the object but could only recognize it's distance, not it's form/colour etc.
Your last question JoJu,
I'm confused.. the mirror is already up in LV!.........but between systems all being equal, the on senor PDAF sets off in the right direction with no hunting, thus quicker. (unless I misconstrued the question?)
Quote: Well, yes that's why I can't see great FF AF coverage,...... even the D5, although with slightly larger spread, is limited.
What "was" the "ace hand" of the DSLR beating ML in all ways with AF, will in the end be it's limitation, as I doubt in the near future whether we will ever see a FF DSLR have decent coverage, while the A9 covers over 90% of the frame.
I notice that on the D500 with the Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm the AF struggles on the outer edge upper and lower points to focus at F6.3 where the 500mm F4 doesn't! No doubt the oblique angle of light at the edges of a FF AF array would aggravate the problem even more if they tried to cover the whole frame, as well as causing edge inaccuracy, something that the APSc format has few problems with.
No doubt that the 6DII beats the D750 in video. But they just wouldn't give people 4K and when they did in the 5DMK IV it was with motion Jpg just to be awkward, just like the single card slot in the 6DII. (and no headphone socket.....the expression "the halfpenny of tar that sunk the the ship" springs to mind here)
I just don't know why Nikon doesn't get on their case with on sensor PDAF, Canon has such an advance there which could go some of the way to explain Canon's continued lead in the market even in spite of Nikon using Sony's superior sensors. Canon also benefits from their own home grown sensors which gives them the ability to be in total control of their own game.
Either way between Canon and Nikon they both cripple their feature list one way or another.......
Sony must be delighted!
The A9 will struggle in low light, concerning AF. The A9's hocus pocus to get electronic shutter fast enough without global shutter makes for some problematic issues with artificial lighting. All is not rosy in ML land either.
The D500 has f5.6 AF points, they can turn partly bling at f6.3, hence the struggling.
I do not know if the 6D mk II gives better video as the D750. For sure, the 6D mk II has better live view, and better live view and video AF. The 5D mk IV's codec is an asset, not an issue. It gives high quality IQ, which was the whole point of "4K".
The 6D is photo camera, not a video camera for professional use. So I do get why they did not bother with a headphone socket, and with 4K (which would need more heat management.. something Sony does not care about). So, I do not see that as a big issue, 4K video for amateurs is just a spec sheet wish.
Nikon needs a capable partner to work with closely, concerning live view AF advancements. They do not manufacture their own sensors, they have multiple suppliers for their sensors complicating matters to a very large extent. They have made their 1st baby steps with the 18-55mm lens with stepper motor (like STM from Canon), but lack any camera yet making good use of it.
Canon 1st tackled the STM technology in some lenses, improved live view AF routines for them (CD AF in live view) before they started with on sensor PD AF points, after that (sensors with PD AF points) came with dual pixel sensors (making just about every pixel usable for the PD AF stuff). Small steps which by now make a smooth, fast and pretty refined system.
I have not seen any CF card or CD card fail, so for me dual card slots is the last thing i'd worry about.
Quote:
I don't know, so I ask: Having PDAF in LiveView is cool and fast, does this also mean quicker response to shutter release? More specific, can you release in LiveView without the usual mirror bouncing up and down?
PDAF in live view with a older Canon EOS camera, like my former 450D or my 6D, does lower the mirror, does its AF thing, focus confirmation beeps, and then you can take the photo. It uses the PD AF sensor and module.
With the Canon dual pixel imaging sensors, the imaging sensor can provide phase detection. So you have PD AF without needing the PD AF sensor. No need for the mirror to go down and up in live view and video.
In video, you can set parameters for the PD AF, like AF speed. The result is very smooth focus transitions without hunting, so actually AF in video which does not ruin the viewing.
Quote:The A9 will struggle in low light, concerning AF. The A9's hocus pocus to get electronic shutter fast enough without global shutter makes for some problematic issues with artificial lighting. All is not rosy in ML land either.
The D500 has f5.6 AF points, they can turn partly bling at f6.3, hence the struggling.
I do not know if the 6D mk II gives better video as the D750. For sure, the 6D mk II has better live view, and better live view and video AF. The 5D mk IV's codec is an asset, not an issue. It gives high quality IQ, which was the whole point of "4K".
The 6D is photo camera, not a video camera for professional use. So I do get why they did not bother with a headphone socket, and with 4K (which would need more heat management.. something Sony does not care about). So, I do not see that as a big issue, 4K video for amateurs is just a spec sheet wish.
Nikon needs a capable partner to work with closely, concerning live view AF advancements. They do not manufacture their own sensors, they have multiple suppliers for their sensors complicating matters to a very large extent. They have made their 1st baby steps with the 18-55mm lens with stepper motor (like STM from Canon), but lack any camera yet making good use of it.
Canon 1st tackled the STM technology in some lenses, improved live view AF routines for them (CD AF in live view) before they started with on sensor PD AF points, after that (sensors with PD AF points) came with dual pixel sensors (making just about every pixel usable for the PD AF stuff). Small steps which by now make a smooth, fast and pretty refined system.
I have not seen any CF card or CD card fail, so for me dual card slots is the last thing i'd worry about.
The D500 has 15 F8 AF points, which are in the center, F5.6 everywhere else.
4 1/2 hours of 5D MKIV's 4K video needs one Tb of storage, that's ridiculous!!
That is OK for the odd clip here and there, but is not an asset quite the contrary, which is why so few companies use it. Whether Canon couldn't be bothered to put in the appropriate compression or that they didn't want to risk sales of dedicated video cameras (who knows) actually I do, It's the latter!
The 6DMkII could do both pro stills and pro video.....
Whatever the scenario 4K with H264/ H245 or compression is way better than 1080P.
Back we go again to the 10 cents headphone socket,
Why can't ordinary people use a extension microphone? you don't have to be a pro to not like poor sound quality.
Again no second card slot saved Canon 150 cents ( I'm being generous).
These limiting items are nothing to do with being reasonable, it's just market protection.
When the pressure of ML starts tightening the screws, all of a sudden Canon and Nikon will change their modus operandum and give people what they "want" rather than what they decide they are going to be given!
PS. The biggest advantage of dual cards slots is when you arrive somewhere to shoot and you've forgotten to put back in your SD card in the camera, luckily you still have a card in the second shot, I've done it so many times!
Quote: The D500 has 15 F8 AF points, which are in the center, F5.6 everywhere else.
4 1/2 hours of 5D MKIV's 4K video needs one Tb of storage, that's ridiculous!!
That is OK for the odd clip here and there, but is not an asset quite the contrary, which is why so few companies use it. Whether Canon couldn't be bothered to put in the appropriate compression or that they didn't want to risk sales of dedicated video cameras (who knows) actually I do, It's the latter!
The 6DMkII could do both pro stills and pro video.....
Whatever the scenario 4K with H264/ H245 or compression is way better than 1080P.
Back we go again to the 10 cents headphone socket,
Why can't ordinary people use a extension microphone? you don't have to be a pro to not like poor sound quality.
Again no second card slot saved Canon 150 cents ( I'm being generous).
These limiting items are nothing to do with being reasonable, it's just market protection.
When the pressure of ML starts tightening the screws, all of a sudden Canon and Nikon will change their modus operandum and give people what they "want" rather than what they decide they are going to be given!
PS. The biggest advantage of dual cards slots is when you arrive somewhere to shoot and you've forgotten to put back in your SD card in the camera, luckily you still have a card in the second shot, I've done it so many times!
The 5D mk IV's 4K has a high IQ quality codec for serious work. Not some low bitrate high compression job. High compression is fine for some kind of end product, but what the 5D mk IV offers is better for source material, for sure.
The headphone socket needs space and a place. So does the 2nd card. So, bigger camera = 5D, smaller simpler camera = 6D.
Canon should know That the days of disabling features via firmware are over.
I am sure magic lantern Guys should be able to prove that very soon
Toni, it certainly is NOT about disabling features via firmware.
Quote:The 5D mk IV's 4K has a high IQ quality codec for serious work. Not some low bitrate high compression job. High compression is fine for some kind of end product, but what the 5D mk IV offers is better for source material, for sure.
The headphone socket needs space and a place. So does the 2nd card. So, bigger camera = 5D, smaller simpler camera = 6D.
Motion picture Jpg is just a stacking system, a series of Jpg images pumped out into the card and needs little extra processing to produce a movie train and produces within the limitations of Jpg quality itself.
H.264 is an on going compression codec that samples last frame/next differences and from that can reduce the amount of space required when the image remains or only changes slightly, it also has good noise control, reducing the need for full Jpg image sizes for each frame update.
The extra processing power that is required to transform motion image Jpg into H.264 (or the newer H.265) in camera is quite considerable and would require a far more powerful processor within the camera itself which of course equals more expense.
In the end those using MP Jpg will have to choose whether they process their files in their uncompressed form with all the addition time and processing time needed.... or compress them into H.264/5 and have a far more practical file size for processing as well as having far less problems in storage.
The difference in quality "is" there, MP Jpg but it's very very minimal, there are less remaining artifacts caused by movement from frame to frame in comparison to H.264/5, from those using both codecs it is only in very low light that there is, if any, visible difference.
The bottom line is this restricts it's usage to small clips for which it is fine, anything beyond that the files are impractically huge and few to none will store them in the MP Jpg form.
As Jordan from the camera store stated in their review of the 5D MkIV:
Canon have made it clear for some time that, if you want to shoot pro video, they don't want you to shoot your video on their EOS still cameras, they want you to shoot it on their EOS professional cinema cameras!
I see it the same!
And let us look see in the next few years to come to see just exactly how Canon will manage to overcome the space shortage for their missing headphone-jack and second card slot...............
...........when they do it will surely go down in annals of scientific history as to how they achieved this seemingly impossible feat of human engineering! 
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Every five years Canon brings to market a two year out of date camera! 
(actually I borrowed that quote from Dpreview forum, I burst out laughing when I saw it)
What would you guys think it is going to cost? I reckon upwards of 3000 euro in the beginning or less?
Kind regards,
Reinier
|
