Focus Speed?

[tstowe]

How much does the camera affect focus speed compared to the lens?

I was reading a thread in SportsShooter. It was an older post and the guy asked how is the 30D compared to the 1D for shooting sports. The first guy to reply really ripped the 30D. He said the FS was faster, which I knew but he also said the focus speed is just much better with the 1D series.

So my question is how much does the camera have to do with focus speed?

[DDCSD]

Its not all about the speed, its also about the accuracy and sensitivity when tracking action. I don't really think that my MkIIN makes the lens get from point A to point B in the focus range all that much faster than my 20D, but it knows how to keep the subject in focus better than the 20D. Hopefully that makes a little bit of sense.

That's not to say the 30D does have a pretty good AF system, its just saying that the 1 series bodies do a better job and can lock onto and stay with subjects that have less contrast than the xxD series cameras.

[liam5100]

Its not all about the speed, its also about the accuracy and sensitivity when tracking action. I don't really think that my MkIIN makes the lens get from point A to point B in the focus range all that much faster than my 20D, but it knows how to keep the subject in focus better than the 20D. Hopefully that makes a little bit of sense.

That's not to say the 30D does have a pretty good AF system, its just saying that the 1 series bodies do a better job and can lock onto and stay with subjects that have less contrast than the xxD series cameras.


DDC is right, the 1 series bodies seem to have better "accuracy" and "lock" rate, in my experiences. And its sensitivity is adjustable. I often change it for bright light or low light situations.

The real question is, how big of a deal is it too you. Often when we are comparing such things the difference although noticable dont really make a big difference to your average shooter. For example, my mk III's shoot at 10fps, but before I had them, back in the day I was shooting "pro" at 4 or 5fps, and I never really thought I was missing alot not having 10. Point is, even though your 30d might not be as fast or as accurate as a 1 series body, in reality this difference will probably be negligable to you, you can still get good shots, good quality and good results from the 30D. It reminds me of the computer mghz days, when a salesman would say "this computer is twice as fast as your old one is", that sounds like a huge advantage but in the real world you were probably talking about 10ths of a second difference. Its the same with the camera's side by side is my 1 series bodies going to perform better than your 30D? probably so, side by side, however in the real world would you even be able to tell the difference or would most people? Probably not. So we sit side by side at a basketball game, at the end I end up with 200 usable shots, you end up with 170, is that a big difference? Not in my opinion.

[primoz]

How much does the camera affect focus speed compared to the lens?
In my opinion, and it's just my opinion nothing else, it's about 70:30 or even 80:20 for camera. No matter what kinda lens you have, if camera doesn't handle this, it won't do anything. 1d is faster and more accurate with some crappy $200 lens, then for example 20d would be with 300/2.8.
But then again... it's kinda hard to compare such things. If you put for example 85/1.2 on 1d, it's still not going to be fast, or if you put it to 20d, it's not going to be much slower, because lens is really slow already.

[liam5100]

85/1.2 on 1d, it's still not going to be fast, .

Compared to what, I use my 85 1.2 for volleyball and basketball all the time on mk III's, its not 300 2.8 or 70-200 2.8 fast, but its not slow either. I get lots of sports shots published with this lens, especially in AI Servo after the focus locks.

[tstowe]

I teach at the local high school (yeah I know, lucky me) and I'm the yearbook advisor. This means I take a lot of the sports photos. IMO I do get some good shots. The school has two 20Ds but I usually use my 30D with a 70-200 2.8 IS lens. We sell the ones we don't use on shutterfly (www.shutterfly.com/Pro/Talon/FallSports) and make a couple of hundred extra dollars every year.
I do...OK. I think I do great considering I've only been shooting for four years and have never had a class or lesson. I look at shots I took three years ago and can see improvement. But now I think that every time I miss a shot or it's not sharp, I'm going to be wondering if I would have gotten that shot with the better camera.

[primoz]

I admit I had it only for week for test, and this is by far the slowest lens I ever hold in my hands... not to mention that you get extremely unbalanced combination with 85/1.2 and 1d (no idea how it seats on other cameras). I tried to shoot one night bike race with it, and after 5 minutes I put it in bag and never took it out again. To be honest, I actually focus faster on manual, then 85/1.2 is able to do with AF :mrgreen: But it's true... this lens is not meant to be sport lens, so...

[emtp563]

I prefer using my 1D/70-200L over my 40D/70-200L combo for sports any day. Using the same lens (70-200L), with the 1D my keeper rate is 95% and with my 40D my keeper rate is 75-80%. The AF on the 1D is just that much better. And I'm talking about the 7 year-old 1D CLASSIC! It suffers from high-ISO noise, it's only 4MP, and the battery life is dismal, but it will blow away the 40D (in terms of all-around performance) and day.

[tstowe]

I prefer using my 1D/70-200L over my 40D/70-200L combo for sports any day. Using the same lens (70-200L), with the 1D my keeper rate is 95% and with my 40D my keeper rate is 75-80%. The AF on the 1D is just that much better. And I'm talking about the 7 year-old 1D CLASSIC! It suffers from high-ISO noise, it's only 4MP, and the battery life is dismal, but it will blow away the 40D (in terms of all-around performance) and day.

What would you consider a good price for a 1D Mark II N? B&H has them for about $1,800. Someone is selling one in the Forums for about the same price with an extra battery. (B&H has a 90 day warrantee).

[primoz]

I'm still naive and somehow hope people are honest, but I'm not naive enough to be buying used gear. I know quite few colleagues who were selling "perfectly working 3 years old cameras with 20 or 30.000 actuations". Do a bit of math, and you will see why I'm so sarcastic about this. 30.000 frames in 3 years is not very possible for pro shooter... even if it's second body, which in all 3 cases I know wasn't ;)
So because of this, I would go with B&H if I would have to choose between those two options. 90 days of warranty is still better then nothing.

[DDCSD]

I buy my bodies used, and look for a steal. That way if the shutter does go out, with a $300 shutter, I have pretty much a brand new camera.

Assuming everything is included, $1800 seems like a fairly good price if it is in good shape. The MkII is a great value right now as well, and is almost the same camera as the MkIIN.

[tstowe]

well...the MkIIN is what I want to get. Sports is what I like to shoot and I want that 8.5 FPS

[DDCSD]

well...the MkIIN is what I want to get. Sports is what I like to shoot and I want that 8.5 FPS

The MkII does 8.5 as well. You'll do best by not using that burst speed though, timing is where its at, not spray and pray.

[gromeo]

Call me crazy, but if the lens motor or what ever is used to move the lens element to focus can not keep up with the camera you are back to having slow AF. A 400 2.8is has the same motor as the the next 400, if a 30D had the same algorithm and focus chip as a 1D, that same 400 would have the same AF speed on both cameras. My 2 cents

[tstowe]

The MkII does 8.5 as well. You'll do best by not using that burst speed though, timing is where its at, not spray and pray.

What is the difference between the II and IIN?

[DDCSD]

What is the difference between the II and IIN?

Far as I know, the N has a larger LCD and picture styles? I got the N because I won it on ebay for about what the II's were going for at the time. Otherwise I was going to get a II.

You might want to do some research though, those are the only differences I know about.

[oomus]

I prefer using my 1D/70-200L over my 40D/70-200L combo for sports any day. Using the same lens (70-200L), with the 1D my keeper rate is 95% and with my 40D my keeper rate is 75-80%. The AF on the 1D is just that much better. And I'm talking about the 7 year-old 1D CLASSIC! It suffers from high-ISO noise, it's only 4MP, and the battery life is dismal, but it will blow away the 40D (in terms of all-around performance) and day.


+1
I noticed the same result on my 1d and 20d's

especialy doing any night shooting at race tracks.

[oomus]

The MkII does 8.5 as well. You'll do best by not using that burst speed though, timing is where its at, not spray and pray.

Agreed but it is nice to be able to intentionally throttle back and know you can speed up if you want to.

plus the multishot overlays can be cool when done correctly.:lol:

[thekid5]

I have a Rebel and Mark II. If you are shooting outdoors in good lighting, the Rebel performs well.
I shoot indoor basketball. The difference in my in focus shots, not keeper rate, is about 30% to 90%. The focus speed is not even close. Someone stated the difference between the MarkI and 20D keeper rate was 95% to 75-80%. This statement did not describe what type of pictures he was taking. I was wondering what others in focus shots % are for indoor sports?

I differentiate between in focus shots and keepers because in shooting basketball you can have a lot of shots where the subjects are in focus but it is not a keeper. The benefit of the MarkII is that you have almost 100% choice of the shots taken on which ones to keep where with the Rebel you have a much lower percentage of pictures to choose from.