dSLR autofocus ability...

which sucks for everyone who wants a camera that can order your pizza and beer for you...man, i guess I'll have to wait

I have a revolutionary idea for Canon about decreasing costs. Instead of producing at least 4 focussing systems and subvariations (more or less dumbed down) of them, they should produce only 1, the 45 point AF which has thus far been spotted in 1 series EOS only. No more 4 or 7 or whatever differend production lines for the focussing system, no more hiring software people and engineers hired to dumb down a good focussing system for a new budget EOS camera, just one, ONE (1) focussing system for all cameras. Wouldn't that be super cool? Oh and also, after that, there will be significantly less returns of the lenses because of 'being too soft'.

true, that would cut costs. but then think of it from canon's side, why put a professional af device inside an entry-level body? why end up bothering about the pro series if the low end has it? sort of negates the pro cameras in one swoop. much as I like your idea i don't think it will happen soon

Using my 20D with 2.8 and faster lenses has produced quite good focusing results. The center focus sensor is very precise with the faster lenses. I find that the center focus sensor does pretty well even with 5.6 lenses. Certainly better than my 10D did. I am quite satisfied with the 20D. It Certainly producees many very fine pictures. Capable of much more than 8 x 10 enlargments!

I have 45 AF points on my EOS 3 and 9 on my 20D. On both cameras the mode I use most of the time is the centre AF point only.

The AF system on the EOS 3 is better, but if I don't get a shot with my 20D I don't blame the camera, I blame myself. It's not that difficult to see if the camera is in focus or not. If it is not I should not press the shutter. I should reacquire focus and start again. This can happen with 45 points too. I have got lots of good action photos with the 20D, and with my old D60 which had really primitive AF. Therefore I know the camera can do the job if I do mine. I don't believe in making the camera take the blame if I screw up or try to push it beyond its limits.

I have another great idea to reduce their expenses even further They can make just one camera and the only thing they do, is to change frontcover of manual and little marking on camera. So would be one camera with 1d marking and cost of $4000, another would be same camera marked as 10d and cost of $1000 and third one would be marked with 100d cost of $500. No more useless developing costs for 3 different cameras. No more 3 different production lines etc. Only thing they would still need to keep in 3 parts are machines marking cameras and machines printing manuals.
I'm sure everyone would agree with this Well... maybe not everyone because somehow I don't think they would sell really lot of those marked with 1d

Deliberately missing my point and being sarcastic about it is not going to bring this discussion any further. What I'm saying is this: accurate focus is a basic requirement for any serious photographer. Obviously, you don't agree with that. Your opinion is, that a $600 camera should have for instance 60% focus accuracy, the $1000 camera 70%, the $2000 camera 85% focus accuracy and a >$3000 a 98% focus accuracy (the actual accuracy is probably differend, but this is just an example). There are other things that make the difference between a $600 and a $3000 camera, but they are NOT basic and I know what I'm buying. If it's a 6 megapixel camera I know it has 6 megapixels, if it has enough buffer for 10 raw images, I know that because it's in it's data sheet and I'm paying for it, but they don't put the focus accuracy in numbers and the how-many-points focus information doesn's say anything about accuracy. Furthermore, I think it is unfair to bundle the ability to focus precisely with a camera that has more megapixels than you need, more buffer than you need, faster fps than you need and has more custom functions than you need. Again, being able to focus precisely, either by AF or even MF by means of an appropriate focussing screen is a basic requirement for any slightly more advanced photographer and having paid $1500 for the camera I naively expected that. Now go ahead and prove me wrong, and as you do that, please limit yourself only to focussing system, and don't paint some juicy images of me wanting a camera made of gold for $100.

karusel - its not that we're disputing that every camera should be able to focus accurately, even when manually focused, its just that the 1 series have a system available to them that uses 45 individual points, an entry level camera has 7 or 9... an AF system is fallable, it can be fooled and may on occasion not focus at all but obviously yes, the more focus points the better.
the issue of accuracy I can agree with, I use an Olympus OM1 from time to time, totally manual yet I can get very accurate sharp shots with it. back in its day it was one of the best you could get. now its a bit dated but still capable of excellent shots. todays dslrs have fallen foul of mass production, people get sloppy putting them together and unfortunately design specs aren't adhered to as closely. I often wonder if a 350d today will look as good in 30yrs as the om1 I use, or for that matter a 1d! it is also a problem for digital that you can blow the image up to 'massive' on the screen, at a size you probably wouldnt with a negative, so dslr's come under scrutiny to a much higher degree and yes holes can be picked... the fact that the low end cameras don't have a 45 point focus system is simply because the average user doesn't move beyond the little green square on the command dial. sad but true. and an 'average shot' is more than acceptable. we here are a small group who are intensly interested in photography. some make a living out of it, for others its just a serious passion we love to share with like minded people. to us a highly accurate af system is a must, and i would agree that every camera should focus as accurately as the best of them but unfortunately thats not always the case. in rare cases even manual focus is off, what then? in those case I would suggest returning the camera to the vendor and getting a replacement. to the average user its probably not an issue. to us it is, but if we're a small voice against a mass of 'dont really care' types what would canon do? not a great deal. its crap but thats how it is.

If I remember right, they actually put af accuracy into numbers, but they usually don't write this in tech specs. Eos 1 series af (eos 3 is included into this) are suppose to have 1/3 of stop accuracy. Everything else has 2/3 of stop. Now don't go and sue me if those numbers are not correct, since they are from my memory and my memory is... well lets say it's not really good one
Now it's up to user to decide what he or she wants. It's pretty clear. And to be honest I'm more then sure, that lower end cameras have af accurate enough for use for which they are made. Yes having exactly correct focus at f1.0 is probably too much for low end camera, but I don't think $500 or less cameras are meant to be used with $5000+ worth lens, but that's just my opinion.
And besides all that... it's not something new in digital era. It's same for quite some time, and this wasn't really that huge problem back in film days... at least I didn't know that many people with low end cameras complaining how bad they are.

On that note, back in film days, I learnt the basics with an EOS 1000F (which I still have, somewhere!). When I'd done that I moved up to the EOS 5 to be more creative. It didn't cost me the earth (about £500 i think, and that was with a new flash too). That was a while ago, so inflation has kicked in, but now the basic camera is £600 already.

Therefore, the lower end kit has to work harder than it did before. Mostly, the designs are better now than they were, but clearly the QC can be a bit iffy on the lower end models.

It's more noticeable because people do a lot more with the cheaper cameras than they used to. Certainly, I work the 350D a lot harder than I ever did the EOS-5, as 1. I can't afford a 5D (though I would dearly love one) and 2. being digital, I can see my results more easily, so the determined me tries ever harder.

Actually, it's 1/3 DoF focus accuracy....

primoz wrote:
If I remember right, they actually put af accuracy into numbers, but they usually don't write this in tech specs. Eos 1 series af (eos 3 is included into this) are suppose to have 1/3 of stop accuracy. Everything else has 2/3 of stop. Now don't go and sue me if those numbers are not correct, since they are from my memory and my memory is... well lets say it's not really good one

The 1-series is supposed to be accurate to within 1/3 DOF (not stop), while other cameras vary according to vintage and lens speed. The 20D with an f/2.8 lens is capable of 1/3 DOF accuracy as well, at least with the center point. Other AF DSLR cameras are only accurate to within 1 DOF.

The definition of DOF is important here. It's not based on what's visible at the 100% crop, but is based on viewing a typical print (I believe Canon uses a 6X9 inch or 8X12 inch print) viewed at a "normal" viewing distance (usually the distance of the diagonal of the picture from one corner to another). This is nowhere near what is visible with the full-screen 100% view, and that is part of what makes the AF seem less accurate.

Perhaps it's time to consider that people are viewing images at this level of magnification routinely, even with the lowest-priced DSLR cameras.

On the other hand, perhaps the AF technology & mechanisms are not capable of much better accuracy on a repeatable basis.

i agree with this

however...

i still think that canon is fully justified in giving us a range of focus systems and putting the less accurate ones in their cheaper cameras. this happens with everything you buy, i dont understand why everyone's so surprised about it. you say that it's a basic requirement to have a camera that focuses precisely, this is the same as saying its a basic requirement for cars to stop. i could go out and buy a porsche with ceramic brakes and all sorts of other stuff. being able to stop in less distance may save my life so why isnt it on all cars? i dont see anyone moaning about that. you get what you pay for and should be happy with it, i think most people here would say their cameras are better than the competition, for a similar price, so were not getting such a bad deal are we?

Don't they all?

Without shareholders investing their money in Canon, there'd be no Canon.