If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic's contrast focusing puts them miles ahead of any competition
nospam wrote:
John Navas wrote: The reality is that both systems have pros and cons, that good implementations of both systems involve some hunting, that both systems can be made to work very well, and that claiming one is "better" than the other is silly and pointless trolling. nonsense. it's not trolling. phase detection is faster. currently, the fastest contrast detect autofocus is about as good as the slowest phase detect autofocus. until contrast detection is as fast or faster than the fastest phase detection, phase detection is very clearly better. Only for speed, not for accuracy. whether someone wants fast autofocus is another story. some people prefer manual focus, which can be 'better' in certain scenarios, such as macro. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic's contrast focusing puts them miles ahead of any competition
"Wilba" writes:
The accuracy of the PD system is directly dependent on careful calibration of all components, whereas the accuracy of the CD system is not. Hmm, it's certainly dependent on the alternate optical path (to the PD sensors) having the same length as the actual image path, but that's true of all traditional focusing systems (SLR focusing screens, rangefinder optics, etc), so it's obviously an issue that's been well handled for a very long time. For that reason, though, a CD system may be a better choice for very cheap cameras, as it's less affected by poor tolerances in construction. -Miles -- Rational, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience and reflection. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic's contrast focusing puts them miles ahead of any competition
Miles Bader wrote:
Wilba writes: The accuracy of the PD system is directly dependent on careful calibration of all components, whereas the accuracy of the CD system is not. Hmm, it's certainly dependent on the alternate optical path (to the PD sensors) having the same length as the actual image path, but that's true of all traditional focusing systems (SLR focusing screens, rangefinder optics, etc), so it's obviously an issue that's been well handled for a very long time. Not always well handled. A significant number of 450Ds (including mine) need to be returned to Canon for calibration before their PD AF works within Canon's specification. I don't know if the defect rate is very different for that model compared to others, or it's just that the 450D has become renowned for it. For that reason, though, a CD system may be a better choice for very cheap cameras, as it's less affected by poor tolerances in construction. And for the same reason CD AF is the choice for ultimate accuracy when speed isn't a requirement. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic's contrast focusing puts them miles ahead of any competition
"John Navas" wrote in message ... "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams A friend of mine who used a Rollei must have agreed with that. Boy, did he eat a lot. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic's contrast focusing puts them miles ahead of anycompetition
Miles Bader wrote:
Hmm, it's certainly dependent on the alternate optical path (to the PD sensors) having the same length as the actual image path, Actually, not for AF. A PDAF depends on knowing the correct offset. If the alternate optical path is 1mm longer and the lens gives the best *overall* results for all wavelengths when defocussed a tiny amount from the wavelenghts the AF is most sensitive for --- no problem, just add up the 2 offsets, don't drive the focus motor to where the AF sees most clearly but to the combined offset from that position and all is well. but that's true of all traditional focusing systems (SLR focusing screens, rangefinder optics, etc), so it's obviously an issue that's been well handled for a very long time. That's true. For that reason, though, a CD system may be a better choice for very cheap cameras, as it's less affected by poor tolerances in construction. It's certainly cheaper. Large format uses a form of CD focussing, it's called ground glass and is then replaced by the sensor plate/film box/whatever. :-) That works well, but is not really suited to action photography. -Wolfgang |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic's contrast focusing puts them miles ahead of any competition
In rec.photo.digital Wilba wrote:
Miles Bader wrote: Wilba writes: The accuracy of the PD system is directly dependent on careful calibration of all components, whereas the accuracy of the CD system is not. Hmm, it's certainly dependent on the alternate optical path (to the PD sensors) having the same length as the actual image path, but that's true of all traditional focusing systems (SLR focusing screens, rangefinder optics, etc), so it's obviously an issue that's been well handled for a very long time. Not always well handled. A significant number of 450Ds (including mine) need to be returned to Canon for calibration before their PD AF works within Canon's specification. I don't know if the defect rate is very different for that model compared to others, or it's just that the 450D has become renowned for it. Some of Sony's cheaper DSLRs also seem often to show AF calibration problems when used with very critical lenses with very shallow depths of field. It could be argued that Sony expect people buying such critical and expensive lenses to be using them with more expensive camera bodies. The kind of small AF errors which show up with very critical lenses at their extremes won't be noticeable with kit zoom lenses. The depth of field will simply always swallow them. It wouldn't be surprising if other camera makers spend a little less care in calibrating the AF in their less expensive models for the same reasons. Fortunately on the Sony alpha models the trimming screws which adjust the distance and orientation of the AF sensor plane are externally accessible and can be trimmed by owners with the technical skills. Some of those who have done so claim to be able with care to trim to greater AF precision than you often get by sending the camera back to the maker for calibration. That's why "have you got accessible AF trimming screws?" is one of the questions I ask of a new DSLR which wants me to buy it :-) -- Chris Malcolm |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic's contrast focusing puts them miles ahead of any competition
"Chris Malcolm" wrote: That's why "have you got accessible AF trimming screws?" is one of the questions I ask of a new DSLR which wants me to buy it :-) Even better is adjustment on a per-lens basis... -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic's contrast focusing puts them miles ahead of any competition
Chris Malcolm wrote:
Wilba wrote: Miles Bader wrote: Wilba writes: The accuracy of the PD system is directly dependent on careful calibration of all components, whereas the accuracy of the CD system is not. Hmm, it's certainly dependent on the alternate optical path (to the PD sensors) having the same length as the actual image path, but that's true of all traditional focusing systems (SLR focusing screens, rangefinder optics, etc), so it's obviously an issue that's been well handled for a very long time. Not always well handled. A significant number of 450Ds (including mine) need to be returned to Canon for calibration before their PD AF works within Canon's specification. I don't know if the defect rate is very different for that model compared to others, or it's just that the 450D has become renowned for it. Some of Sony's cheaper DSLRs also seem often to show AF calibration problems when used with very critical lenses with very shallow depths of field. It could be argued that Sony expect people buying such critical and expensive lenses to be using them with more expensive camera bodies. The kind of small AF errors which show up with very critical lenses at their extremes won't be noticeable with kit zoom lenses. The depth of field will simply always swallow them. It wouldn't be surprising if other camera makers spend a little less care in calibrating the AF in their less expensive models for the same reasons. Fortunately on the Sony alpha models the trimming screws which adjust the distance and orientation of the AF sensor plane are externally accessible and can be trimmed by owners with the technical skills. Some of those who have done so claim to be able with care to trim to greater AF precision than you often get by sending the camera back to the maker for calibration. That's why "have you got accessible AF trimming screws?" is one of the questions I ask of a new DSLR which wants me to buy it :-) Yeah, mine is, " do you have focus micro-adjustment?" :- ) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic's contrast focusing puts them miles ahead of any competition
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Chris Malcolm" wrote: That's why "have you got accessible AF trimming screws?" is one of the questions I ask of a new DSLR which wants me to buy it :-) Even better is adjustment on a per-lens basis... One to make sure the image to focus screen/AF is correct. Lens correction for fine tuning (Sony a900 has this, but goes by FL. So if you have two different lenses of the same FL, it can't discriminate. No real issue for most shooters, but I could see having a 135 f/1.8 and a 135 f/2.8 [T4.5] STF in my kit. OTOH the STF lens is MF only, so shouldn't matter). |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Panasonic's contrast focusing puts them miles ahead of any competition
In article , John Navas
wrote: That's all speculation, and it doesn't take into consideration such critical factors as the effectiveness of the focusing algorithms, the data they have on the systems*, the speed and power of the focusing motors, the masses they need to move, and the distance they need to move it. As we say in computers, GIGO. * An advantage of a non-interchangeable lens camera is that the focusing system can know exactly how the entire focusing system behaves. An interchangeable lens system (SLR) inevitably has _less_ information available. that's wrong. interchangeable lenses contain a rom chip that holds all of the parameters of the given lens so that the focusing system knows how to properly control it. in addition to the obvious data such as focal length and f/stop are the ballistics of the motor and/or gearing, so the camera can accurately determine how much to turn the motor. either system can have all the necessary information. there is no advantage to a fixed lens camera. but it's very surprising if it works better than the phase-based system used in DSLRs. Both contrast and phase based systems can be made to work very well in practice, and it's silly and pointless to make sweeping claims about one being "better" than the other. although both can work well, real world cameras that exist today show that the best phase detect systems outperform the best contrast detect systems. maybe one day that will change, but *today* that's how it is. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Panasonic's contrast focusing puts them miles ahead of any competition | Miles Bader[_2_] | Digital Photography | 19 | September 29th 09 05:58 AM |
700 Miles of Bad Road | ASAAR | Digital SLR Cameras | 14 | July 13th 08 02:28 AM |
Hobbyist sends balloon with Canon A70 digital camera to 30 km (19 miles) above Earth. | Joe[_7_] | Digital Photography | 1 | October 28th 07 05:42 AM |
How bad is Panasonic's Lumix DMC-LX1? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 10 | June 29th 06 11:07 PM |
Panasonic's design philosophy (FZ-30) | Rich | Digital Photography | 1 | January 15th 06 11:38 AM |