TimF
Senior Member
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 16040
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
Readers of BJP will have eagerly devoured the article this week comparing the D3 with Canon's 1D Mk III.
Some, who like me might be doing some research on what system to plump for will be concerned by the comments therein on focuing problems. Reading between the lines this only seems to affect the camera when used with the 70-200mm/2.8 VR (although that isn't stated as such by the author), and of course he only used two optics; that and the 24-70mm/2.8. Any comments from the users here?
Also, in one of the pictures used to illustrate the piece - the Buddhist demo, taken with the Nikon 24-70mm - there is a most curious (and to my eyes, unpleasant) effect where the two foreground figures appear to have been pasted in. Is this a normal thing from the D3, or something to do with the post-processing, or what? I'd guess the shot was takeen at maximum aperture, as with those on the 70-200mm lenses used in the test, so how about trying to recreate this. If it's a normal thing it has put me off somewhat. 
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
The camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own - Susan Sontag
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1066
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Focusing is the bane of my life so it is almost a relief to hear that it can be a problem with top equipment.
|
Mark_Norton
Reged: 29/06/2002
Posts: 1140
Loc: London, UK
|
|
I find the focus rather good actually but of course if you use all 51 focus points, the camera may or may not focus on what you intended. There are lots of options and it takes practice and a clear head to understand them all. The latest firmware, announced at the same time as the D700, is said to improve the AF performance. If, for whatever reason, the focussing is consistently off with particular lenses, you can fine tune it.
The 70-200 is a great lens on DX camera but the edge performance is decidedly off on FF. It's almost as if there is excessive curvature of field and the lens has been optimised for DX use even though it is, in theory, an FX lens. Perhaps it should have been sold as a DX lens.
--------------------
Mark
|
TarquinBiscuit
Sometimes I feel like screaming
Reged: 03/02/2001
Posts: 9380
Loc: Staffs/Derbys border
|
|
I previously had a problem with the 70-200 VR when a teleconverter was attached. But having read the BJ article the other day I tried out the D3 again with the said lens and it was spot on every time, all shot at f/2.8. BUT - I had previously updated with the newest firmware - 2.00 in A and B. Now, the spiel about this said it would correct some autofocus problems and I just wonder whether this has applied to the 70-200 VR.
It is clearly a Full Frame lens, and when used with a DX camera it is magnificent. But, like a lot of lenses, a FF digital camera will catch out so many 35mm lenses. Even my beloved (and, late) Leica-M 24mm ASPH did not perform particularly well in the corners on the M6, but I guess would be a superlative lens on the M8.
Nikon have provided wonderful FX lenses with the 14-24 and 24-70 and I guess they are working on an 'FX' 70-200 at this very minute.
--------------------
Clive BSRIPN
Magic Lantern Show
|
TarquinBiscuit
Sometimes I feel like screaming
Reged: 03/02/2001
Posts: 9380
Loc: Staffs/Derbys border
|
|
Just for reference, Tim, this is one of the shots I tested the combination with on Wednesday (having read the BJ article) The lens does produce beautiful bokeh (not shown in this picture)and I have not experienced the 'pasting effect'
Full Frame at f/2.8 and 200mm:
And the 100% job on the number plate:
--------------------
Clive BSRIPN
Magic Lantern Show
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2400
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Having read the BJP article, would I be correct in assuming that you used the central AF sensor?
I can understand what the author was trying to do, but I'd always use the central spot (aimed at the body of the runner) for someone running towards the camera. Larger target but possibly low contrast unless the T-shirt had printing on it.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
TarquinBiscuit
Sometimes I feel like screaming
Reged: 03/02/2001
Posts: 9380
Loc: Staffs/Derbys border
|
|
Yes: I nearly always use the central AF sensor. When I had problems with the 70-200VR and 1.7xTC I was convinced it was a low contrast problem: I was photographing distant hills in the Peak District.
--------------------
Clive BSRIPN
Magic Lantern Show
|
David_S
newbie
Reged: 11/10/2005
Posts: 24
Loc: Hampshire, UK
|
|
I thought that the stats of this review were appalling! 0% pin sharp for the D3 out of 198 shots taken and only 5.5% "usable". The Canon only fared a little better out of 189 shots 26.9 % were usable and 18.5% pin sharp!
Tim, how does this compare with your own M/F efforts with the Leica?!!! Even my old eyes focusing the R9/DMR with R80-200 I hope would produce a higher rate of keepers and pin sharpers!
I was thinking about the D3 as a possibility for the "old eyes" syndrum, but now I am not so sure!
--------------------
Cheers, Dave
R9,DMR,28-90,21-35,70-200,100APO Macro,2xconverter,LC-1,FZ20
|
Iloca
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3776
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
This is quite interesting as it may relate to a question I asked some time ago. I never did get a convincing answer to my question. 
See Here
It appears that the instruction manuals aren't clear enough about what actually happens when you initiate all the available focus points or indeed under what circumstances one might find them beneficial.
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
TimF
Senior Member
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 16040
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
Funnily enough, during the week, the new copy of Grays of Westminster Gazette plopped through the door. It contains a piece by Simon Stafford on the D3 and D300 in which he says (and I don't have it in front of me - doing this at the library in Hitchin!) that whilst the continuous servo AF (or whatver Nikon call it) works well with (I think) 9 or 21 selected points, the 51 area 3D AF wasn't especially great when the subject was (a) small in the frame, or (b) a similar colour to the background - it being controlled by Nikon's 1005 pixel AF.
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
The camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own - Susan Sontag
|
Iloca
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3776
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Hi Tim,
that seems to be an issue not unique to Nikon, ironically when the subject is small in the V/F that would be when you want as many focus points as possible (I would have thought)
I must try to download the D3 manual to see if it gives any hints as to when one should choose the various options as the manual for my camera is vague at best.
Thanks, Richard
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9311
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
that seems to be an issue not unique to Nikon, ironically when the subject is small in the V/F that would be when you want as many focus points as possible (I would have thought)
I would argue that the opposite is true...
When the subject is small in the finder and the AF is in self selection mode there is an increased likelihood of the AF sysytem choosing a subject that is either larger or has more contrast than the subject with a resultant potential for missed focus. Couple this with the tendency for the outer AF points to a bit less sensitive than the central one and the chances of being off increase markedly. In this sort of situation it's preferable to force the camera to use a specific AF point in my opinion, it won't necessarily be 100% accurate every time bit I reckon your chances are much better.
As an example I was photographing a local charity raft race last weekend using my 20D on all AF points active. It was clear on reviewing the images later that with many of the pictures taken of the rafts well out into the harbour the AF had focussed on the much more contrasty skyline despite the AF points suggesting that it was the raft(s) that were in focus.........
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Iloca
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3776
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
that seems to be an issue not unique to Nikon, ironically when the subject is small in the V/F that would be when you want as many focus points as possible (I would have thought)
I would argue that the opposite is true...
When the subject is small in the finder and the AF is in self selection mode there is an increased likelihood of the AF sysytem choosing a subject that is either larger or has more contrast than the subject with a resultant potential for missed focus. Couple this with the tendency for the outer AF points to a bit less sensitive than the central one and the chances of being off increase markedly. In this sort of situation it's preferable to force the camera to use a specific AF point in my opinion, it won't necessarily be 100% accurate every time bit I reckon your chances are much better.
Thats a good point but it doesn't explain why the need for so many points or when is the best time to use them. Is it possible that the closer the subject or the larger it appears in the V/F the more focus points you should use. Lets face it if nobody really knows when or why to use them why are they there and why is an increase in Focus points deemed an improvement?
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9311
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Mostly I use the central point and only use the outer points when either using the centre point and recomposing isn't practical (eg on a tripod) or there is unlikely to be time to recompose. Pictures I took when the rafts were much closer to the shore were far more correctly focused though again the AF occasionaly picked a point closer than I wanted...
On the other hand a couple of weekends back I was photographing windsurfers and for that I most definitely stuck with the centre AF. Trying to use multiple points just allowed the camera to focus anywhere it liked and rarely was that the subject....
At Focus I did get to have a play with the D3 using all 51 focus zones and dynamic area AF and I must say it seemed near infallible even in the low light of the hall though mostly the subjects were quite close. Distant moving objects may have been a bit more tricky...
Quote:
...why is an increase in Focus points deemed an improvement?
[cynic] Because it sells cameras?... [/cynic]
There is something to be said for multiple focus zones provided they are sufficiently sensitive and positioned well. The D3 sytem seems to work well and the 45 zone system that Canon had on the EOS3 (and 1V as well IIRC) was quite effective but I don't think they are essential in many cases. My 20D has 9 points and selecting the one I want is much slower than with my 3 point D30 and positively pedestrian compared to the one point available on my EOS600 bodies... Like I said in certain situations more points can be a benefit, in others they're just a pain in the bum...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Iloca
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3776
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
I like to use them too if using a tripod but in that case I'm selecting an individual point from those available although sometimes I switch to live view and focus manually, that allows me to move the area selection (for the area I want magnified) anywhere in the scene.
That said it's implied that having a higher number of AF points is aimed at sports photography or moving subjects. I certainly wouldn't even select dynamic mode (where you pre select 1 point and the camera then brings the surrounding 4 points as well) for still subjects.
It almost seems that using all available points is to enable you to achieve an acceptable level of focus for those times when you can't be too selective. For the best focus accuracy single point or even better MF is most likely the best option.
Here's an interesting take on the accuracy or otherwise of AF in general. Reading between the lines may go some way to explaining the focus issues that have been cropping up recently with various cameras. Whats the odds that quite a few shots that show up as being slightly out of focus would be fine when printed rather than inspected at pixel level.
The Fallibility of Focus
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9311
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Interesting article and as you say probably throws a lot of light onto AF issues.
Part of the problem is that I think many people take auto to mean infallible and are bemused when things go a bit astray. Doubtless it is possible to build an AF camera and lenses that, assuming the target has sufficient contrast etc, will hit the focus spot on every time - I'm can't see too many 'togs paying the sort of price that would come with it......
I do wonder if the demand (whose?) for ever faster AF hasn't added to the issue. The faster you run AF motors and the shorter the the turn required to focus the more issues like backlash and overrun are going to be proportionally exaggerated unless they are well controlled.
I'd have to agree re pixel peeping. One of the first things I noticed (and fretted about...  ) when I got my 20D is how much softer the images looked. Then it was explained to me that yes they will look softer because the 20D has over double the pixel count and that at any magnification on screen, and especially actual pixels, I may be looking at the same number of pixels but from a much smaller part of the image - much the same as looking at a 6x4 enprint from a foot away then doing the same with a 20x16...
These days I generally assess images at no more than 50% size as this gives a far better impression of acceptable sharpness, mind whether that would still hold true for a 12meg I'm not sure... I think it ought to though, as long as the on screen image is viewed from a suitable distance and looks acceptably sharp then it really should be OK at print size....
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Iloca
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3776
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Quote:
I do wonder if the demand (whose?) for ever faster AF hasn't added to the issue. The faster you run AF motors and the shorter the the turn required to focus the more issues like backlash and overrun are going to be proportionally exaggerated unless they are well controlled.
Good point, that together with ever increasing pixel count and the ease (with Digital) of viewing the image at extreme magnification (who would have enlarged a 35mm negative to 30x24" just to see if it was sharp at a viewing distance of 6" if they were only intending to display a 10x8" print to view at 3') has made us increasingly demanding.
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
TarquinBiscuit
Sometimes I feel like screaming
Reged: 03/02/2001
Posts: 9380
Loc: Staffs/Derbys border
|
|
Tim: there's an interesting letter in today's BJP from a Canon pro sports photographer who tried out the D3 with the 70-200VR.
--------------------
Clive BSRIPN
Magic Lantern Show
|
TimF
Senior Member
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 16040
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
Clive - yes, I saw that. In the same issue there's also an interview with another tog who's been testing the D3 out and is likely to switch. Frankly I don't know what to do right now. Canon still have the better lens choice for what I want, continuous servo/dynamic area AF isn't something I see myself needing much if at all, so I'll wait until the 5D replacement is announced certainly (who knows, maybe Leica will have a new R10 full frame by that time!!  )
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
The camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own - Susan Sontag
|
Neil_L
Reged: 23/05/2003
Posts: 1075
Loc: London
|
|
I use the D3 and 70-200 VR combo at f/2.8 all the time for concerts. I've never had a problem. It's an amazing combination. Bear in mind I'm tracking fast moving singers and guitarists too - the lens very rarely ever hunts and it's more about me not having the focal point bang on the eyes or shutter speeds dropping that spoils shots.
The TC14E2 is supposed to work brilliantly with the 70-200, TC17E2 pretty well and TC20E has very mixed reviews on degrading image quality. I'm taking a 17 and a 20 on safari next week that I've rented as the 70-200 is the longest glass I've got so we'll see what the quality is like.
I also shoot at ISO 800 + too...again, no problems with quality.
Cheers, Neil
--------------------
Cheers,
Neil
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
