Six ingenious ways how Canon DSLRs used to illuminate their autofocus points
exclusivearchitecture.com
exclusivearchitecture.com
The first one seemed perfectly adequate to me. But I guess that's why I'm not a Canon engineer.
It's only with advent of smart focusing of mirrorless cameras with people/faces recognition where there is a big difference.
The difference in focal time between my 5D mkii even with the best lenses, and the R5 C with a cine servo or vcm is insane. The R5 feels instant and only ever searches if it’s been locked to an inappropriate point.
Getting something or someone flying through the air at high and unpredictable speed perfectly in focus is pretty impressive
Modern systems like Canon’s Dual Pixel AF in bodies such as the EOS R5 are very direct descendants of that idea, just implemented on‑sensor with far more processing power.
Every time I see an article such as this, I beam with pride. (Pun intended).
Personally, I’ve only ever provided a summary if I felt the headline wasn’t clear enough.
Arguably more complicated than the anutofocus optics. The engineering of electromechanical cameras fascinates me.
It's a LiDAR that follows a subject and gets distance measurements, and then sends them to an additional accessory which is typically used to control focus in cinema cameras. That second accessory has a motor and is attached to a cinema lens that has certain threading or grooves where the accessory can grip and change the focus.
In cinema, the camera operator (usually) only moves the camera, but not the focus. For that, there's a 'focus puller'. A person who finely operates the focus, sometimes at a certain distance, using some sort of specialized control.
The biggest advantage compared to older SLR designs are that Phase Detection can now work with full light (vs whatever got split off on an SLR pentaprism for the dedicated AF sensor) and can work in conjunction with the contrast Detection for fine tuning focus.
Then, of course, all the predictive stuff added in the last 10ish years as far as processing sensor output to detect eyes/birds/motion/etc.
I suspect it's fairly challenging to implement since the LIDAR sensor doesn't operate through the lens, so you'd have to continuously align the depth map with the image to account for parallax; plus it's only useful for close-ish distances (since the lasers can't be too powerful) and can cause unwanted focus behavior with windows or reflections.
Compared to moderns systems the main difference is the autofocus and video capabilities. Modern mirrorless have cosmically better tracking, eye detect etc.
Not sure why it is a "template".
For instance, human eyes can't perceive the difference between a 12MP and a 50MP image printed in a poster format from a typical 1.5-2meters viewing distance and 8MP is usually good enough for most large prints.
So I would advise choosing a second hand model taking shutter count, general state, lenses quality, autofocus speed and image stabilisation efficiency as more prioritary parameters than sensor pixel count.
(The mk is the version number)
Both take excellent photos, especially in low light. I reprinted some of the original 5D photos 11”x17” and even though they have fewer pixels the quality was fine.
Canons are pretty cheap on the used market because they have a new mirrorless R series cameras/lenses so the older ones value dropped a lot.
A good lens helps a lot. Someone on the thread suggested a 50mm 1.8 “plastic fantastic”. It’s a great choice. Really sharp, lets a lot of light in, feels kind of cheap. I always liked the 24-105mm f4 zoom, but it’s pricier.
Besides the 50mm nifty fifty. There is "middle" range of "ultrasonic" zooms that are actually pretty capable and underrated/cheap. I have few for canon film cameras and their secret huge advantage is weight, optics wise they are pretty good (i have them converted on lumix full frame). I would also mention sigma 35mm art which can be get for less than 300eur and is THE lens if you know you like 35mm (person i ended up being).
On one hand, you have to remember that huge MP doesnt do much if the glass can't resolve well enough.
On the flipside, I have to note that switching to high MP full frame makes it a lot easier to do good, clean crops. Sometimes I might care about a small portion of the frame but for composition reasons (e.x. can't get closer for one reason or another) I at least can lean on cropping more.
That means a camera APS-C or micro four thirds sensor might suit better to someone who is new to photography.
Full frame is heavy yes but it can be pretty affordable (lenses from china are becoming extremely competitive).
Glass is of course important, but I’ve taken nearly all of the digital shots I’m proud of on a mkii.
(Most of the images I’ve captured that I’m truly proud of were on tmax or ektar… various camera bodies usually coupled to decent lenses )
I've tried to get Canon 5D/6D but they are becoming pretty sought after (because of the availability of lenses). Another problem is when they are sold cheap they have huge shutter counts often way after their spec lifetime. Not sure about Nikon maybe there are some cheaps. You can probably get 6D mark I with pretty high shutter count for around 200e.
Best usable 5D mark III deals i could find were around 450eur (thats camera from 2012). I ended up getting Lumix S5 (mark 1, from 2020) for like 500eur that is very different beast of a camera while having L-mount which is becoming only "open" camera mount (third party lenses are being "disallowed" by most manufacturers now).