7D Mark II - Focus Discussions

MNiceGuy wrote in post #17450969
I think there is a slight misconception about the sensor resolution and how that effects the capabilities of the camera. There is truth to the statement when the image is cropped significantly but barring that exception, there should be no disadvantage to using a higher resolution sensor. I would argue that a crop tight enough to show resolution issues on a 7D2 would not have been successful on the lesser camera either.

If I were to compare two uncropped photos of the same subject, one from a high-res camera and the other from a low-res camera, at the same print/display size, I would expect the high-res image to be as good if not better. In this test I would not expect to have to double shutter speed in order to achieve the same result.

Either I am misunderstanding the science behind this argument or the majority of shooters talking about these focus issues are in fact cropping their images heavily. If anyone can point me back in the right direction please do so.

The issue is in the technique required to match that of a lower resolution camera. If you were to shoot a duck flying at 1/1000th with a 40d/50d, you'd have a nice sharp image. Do that with the 7d2 and the image won't be as sharp because you have more pixels recording motion of the bird.

Same concept when the D800 came out. It showed every flaw of lens and technique. Same will happen when Canon's high MP are released - people who think they're technique is good are going to find out it might not be as good as they think.

huntersdad wrote in post #17451049
The issue is in the technique required to match that of a lower resolution camera. If you were to shoot a duck flying at 1/1000th with a 40d/50d, you'd have a nice sharp image. Do that with the 7d2 and the image won't be as sharp because you have more pixels recording motion of the bird.

It depends on how you define sharp.

If you print both pics to 8 x 12, they will look the same. But if you pixel peep, the lower res pic will look sharper - unless more care was taken shooting with the 7D2.

The moral is, a better sensor is not sufficient to get better pics. You also need better technique. (And a better lens.)

Archibald wrote in post #17451130
It depends on how you define sharp.

If you print both pics to 8 x 12, they will look the same. But if you pixel peep, the lower res pic will look sharper - unless more care was taken shooting with the 7D2.

The moral is, a better sensor is not sufficient to get better pics. You also need better technique. (And a better lens.)

Then the real question is as to whether or not it makes more sense to have a lower resolution camera. Seems like you have to have better technique to use a more advanced camera, have more expensive lenses etc all in order to get a similiar looking image that is less forgiving of camera holding error.

Archibald wrote in post #17451130
It depends on how you define sharp.

If you print both pics to 8 x 12, they will look the same. But if you pixel peep, the lower res pic will look sharper - unless more care was taken shooting with the 7D2.

The moral is, a better sensor is not sufficient to get better pics. You also need better technique. (And a better lens.)

Maybe my samples are bad but there would be a noticeable between printed 8x12s in my case. The 7d2 would look "smeared", where as a lower resolution camera would look pretty clean.

I do agree technique and proper shutter speed/exposure are key. In fact, they may be more important than better glass (though that doesn't hurt either).

Frodge wrote in post #17451231
Then the real question is as to whether or not it makes more sense to have a lower resolution camera. Seems like you have to have better technique to use a more advanced camera, have more expensive lenses etc all in order to get a similiar looking image that is less forgiving of camera holding error.

Exactly.

Upgrading to a high-density sensor while keeping mediocre lenses is in fact a step back in image quality, as the new sensor will only capture the lens' inherent blur that the previous lower-density sensor kindly missed.

agedbriar wrote in post #17451290
Exactly.

Upgrading to a high-density sensor while keeping mediocre lenses is in fact a step back in image quality, as the new sensor will only capture the lens' inherent blur that the previous lower-density sensor kindly missed.

I fully understand and agree with the reasoning. My "problem" is that I've seen pretty sharp, amazing photos going way back to the 20D. Diminishing returns has set it.

Frodge wrote in post #17451231
Then the real question is as to whether or not it makes more sense to have a lower resolution camera. Seems like you have to have better technique to use a more advanced camera, have more expensive lenses etc all in order to get a similiar looking image that is less forgiving of camera holding error.

That only applies if you're looking at 100% crops of both, though. Which, of course, you may want to do, but the lower-resolution camera can't provide that detail at all. The higher-resolution one at least gives you a chance.

Frodge wrote in post #17451231
Then the real question is as to whether or not it makes more sense to have a lower resolution camera. Seems like you have to have better technique to use a more advanced camera, have more expensive lenses etc all in order to get a similiar looking image that is less forgiving of camera holding error.

The high res camera will produce at least as good a print as the low res camera (assuming equal size prints), and better prints if the technique and lens are up to the task.

With a high res camera you will have at least equal IQ and probably better IQ compared to a low res camera, if the results are viewed at the same magnification.

But if the technique and lens are equal and you're pixel peeping (at 100%), then the high res camera will show more defects because the image is magnified more.

It's nonsense to claim that an advance in sensor technology gives worse pictures.

Archibald wrote in post #17451499
The high res camera will produce at least as good a print as the low res camera (assuming equal size prints), and better prints if the technique and lens are up to the task.

With a high res camera you will have at least equal IQ and probably better IQ compared to a low res camera, if the results are viewed at the same magnification.

But if the technique and lens are equal and you're pixel peeping (at 100%), then the high res camera will show more defects because the image is magnified more.

It's nonsense to claim that an advance in sensor technology gives worse pictures.

+1

I never stated that it gives worse pictures, but more stated at what cost does it give better pictures? How much better, and how often can that be attained? I am only one person, but would not like having to fight a camera and be forced to maintain very high shutter speeds, which would force high iso, or empty my pockets for really fast glass. I don't personally see the return in investment. The return, as I stated earlier, may be greater in it's parts but diminishing as a whole.

Frodge wrote in post #17451606
I never stated that it gives worse pictures, but more stated at what cost does it give better pictures? How much better, and how often can that be attained? I am only one person, but would not like having to fight a camera and be forced to maintain very high shutter speeds, which would force high iso, or empty my pockets for really fast glass. I don't personally see the return in investment. The return, as I stated earlier, may be greater in it's parts but diminishing as a whole.

Even if it just happens randomly, when I happen to click the shutter during a super steady moment for my hands, I'd rather have the chance of stunning detail in a shot rather than no chance at all. It's not like 18mpx crop bodies are expensive, these days, but it is, of course, up to each individual.

Frodge wrote in post #17451606
I never stated that it gives worse pictures, but more stated at what cost does it give better pictures? How much better, and how often can that be attained? I am only one person, but would not like having to fight a camera and be forced to maintain very high shutter speeds, which would force high iso, or empty my pockets for really fast glass. I don't personally see the return in investment. The return, as I stated earlier, may be greater in it's parts but diminishing as a whole.

If you don't have the money and don't wish to put effort into availing yourself of the advantages of a better camera, then it is not for you.

Frodge wrote in post #17451606
I never stated that it gives worse pictures, but more stated at what cost does it give better pictures? How much better, and how often can that be attained? I am only one person, but would not like having to fight a camera and be forced to maintain very high shutter speeds, which would force high iso, or empty my pockets for really fast glass. I don't personally see the return in investment. The return, as I stated earlier, may be greater in it's parts but diminishing as a whole.

Then don't pixel peep... Or get better glass or develop better technique... It is that simple. I need higher fees cameras, it gives me latitude in more creative cropping when needed, and once you hit a certain shutter speed, there is no further penalty.

huntersdad wrote in post #17450649
It picked up the water, not the bird. The bird is too small in the frame for the focus mode you used. That would have been an excellent situation to use single point or spot focus on pick up just the bird.

Hey huntersdad and thanks for the analysis. And I think you are right. But the problem with your analysis being right causes even more confusion to me. As you can see on the focus pictures the locking on focus point was directly on the bird. The 4 others are only helping AF points and they did not lock onto the bird. (Original from the canon AF Maual for the AF system of the 7D II: AF point expansion (Manual selection ) Focus using one manually selected point assisted by 4 other AF points (up, down, left, and right)).
If I put the center AF point on the subject ant the camera then focus on the background then I do have no control of the focusing. I basically can not rely on the information: this is the focus point this is where the subject will be in focus. Then it is more like a bet or a guess and I can hope but it is not something I can influence.

This is what the handbook has to say about a single focus point:
Single-point AF is a mode where one manually selected AF point is used to focus. For experienced photographers or when it is easy to track the subject with a single AF point, AI Servo AF can be utilized when continuously shooting moving subjects, however, this mode is more effective for shooting still life and landscapes with One-shot AF mode.

as ist says MORE for: shooting still life and landscapes or easy to track the subject

but birds are not so easy to track. Thats why I bought this camera because i has 65 AF points.

Should I have than better bought a camera with only 1 AF point???

I still don't buy the opinion that since I upgraded from an 18 MP sensor to a 20 MP, my technique is so poor that I've dropped from 95+% keepers to 5%. I can print large prints of "grab" shots from a 7D or 5D3 but not a 7D2? I'm not trying to be pompous, it's just hard to believe that it's technique. Bone-bracing, holding breath, light squeeze of the shutter is not enough to grab focus using an advanced sensor/focus system?

My tripod is apparently not rigid enough anymore either.