Canon: DSLR's will live on...except the flagship 1DX series

Capn Jack wrote in post #19378668
PDAF = phase detection auto focus?
If so, Canon mirrorless cameras have it! Dual pixel AF is phase detection autofocus.
https://www.androidaut​hority.com …ofocus-explained-1102293/
Other manufacturers have different variations of mirrorless phase detection autofocus.
https://www.digitalcam​eraworld.com …f-and-why-is-it-important

Sorry, I was not clear. I should have said PDAF sensor, or, dedicated PDAF sensor. ie, not AF done on the imaging sensor. So all AF SLR and DSLR cameras.

umphotography wrote in post #19378688
they do anything a mirrorless can do except auto eye focus

That is simply untrue. You could say "they do nothing extra that I want".

EVF provides features not available with DSLR.
Using rear LCD as a substitute can be done in some situations or a Hoodman can be used, but both are far from the convenience of an EVF.

It takes effort to ignore the fact of WYSIWYG. Don't forget, I clearly said you may not want this. Some do.

I can check sensor cleanliness in EVF. Particularly good for Video. Please don't forget....

I need reading glasses. I have reasonable success operating cameras without them, but still make mistakes misreading settings and menu options. With EVF this is easy. Before my need for glasses, EVF would have been much easier to use for setting changes and menu outside in bright light.

Zoom for focus.

Live monochrome view.

Chimping.

Choderboy wrote in post #19378824
Sorry, I was not clear. I should have said PDAF sensor, or, dedicated PDAF sensor. ie, not AF done on the imaging sensor. So all AF SLR and DSLR cameras.

Why should the location of the phase AF make a difference? Phase detection still works the same.

While I don't have a mirrorless, the 7D2 live-view focus is snappy enough, although a bit awkward to use unless on a tripod. I find it useful with a long lens with a teleconverter in low light It uses dual-pixel autofocus, the newer cameras have improved the technology. My experience is that it will go from distant focus to near the minimum focus distance as quickly as the standard autofocus. As the 7D2 uses PDAF both on the sensor and on a dedicated sensor, it is a good platform to compare them although it is older technology.

Canon describes dual pixel AF as phase:
https://www.usa.canon.​com …ii-feature-af-performance
"...each pixel on the camera’s sensor performs both phase-difference detection autofocus and records light. Auto-focus is achieved quickly, easily and silently thanks to phase-difference detection AF. "

At ~1:25, they show the dual pixel AF focusing on different objects:
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=nM8b1oI58R0

I remember a video some years ago where they focused on people, one close and one far away, which was very impressive but I can't find it now.

No, PDAF on imaging sensor is different to a dedicated, seperate PDAF sensor.

I can't say why, but it is.
Canon is never going to say "mirrorless AF is inferior to DSLR AF when subject is extremely out of focus".
The early adopters found this out fast.
On Sony I found this issue frustrating as they don't have full time MF overide.
They have DMF, which is similar but very limiting. The recent Sony 70-200 MKIi finally has a DMF switch on the lens which I believe is the same as full time MF. On Canon, its easy to help the camera out when severely out of focus by twisting focus ring in correct direction and then AF will work.
I knew this before I bought Canon R and also knew about it before buying Sony A9. Many A9 users talked about quickly aiming lens at something and focussing as a work around.
They also found that AF with very small apertures was not only possible, but very good.
The other weakness I noticed was near MFD. I did not know this before I got the R and even posted an example on POTN, thinking it was the subject. It caused much heated debate. I read soon after someone describing the near MFD issue and checked, sure enough, it was now obvious to me. I had been using the 100-400 II for years on muliple DSLRs so was familiar to how it worked near MFD. Its easy to simulate : put a 36mm extension tube on it and using a DSLR, the AF near MFD is not as good. Add 1.4TC, as well as extension tube and it's even worse.
I also noticed that with stacked 1.4 and 2x TCs on my Sigma 500 f4, my first attempt test shots were great. I could get good results with 1DX2, but success rate was very low.

Pros and cons. Differences.

Choderboy wrote in post #19378897
No, PDAF on imaging sensor is different to a dedicated, seperate PDAF sensor.

I can't say why, but it is.
Canon is never going to say "mirrorless AF is inferior to DSLR AF when subject is extremely out of focus".
The early adopters found this out fast.
On Sony I found this issue frustrating as they don't have full time MF overide.
They have DMF, which is similar but very limiting. The recent Sony 70-200 MKIi finally has a DMF switch on the lens which I believe is the same as full time MF. On Canon, its easy to help the camera out when severely out of focus by twisting focus ring in correct direction and then AF will work.
I knew this before I bought Canon R and also knew about it before buying Sony A9. Many A9 users talked about quickly aiming lens at something and focussing as a work around.
They also found that AF with very small apertures was not only possible, but very good.
The other weakness I noticed was near MFD. I did not know this before I got the R and even posted an example on POTN, thinking it was the subject. It caused much heated debate. I read soon after someone describing the near MFD issue and checked, sure enough, it was now obvious to me. I had been using the 100-400 II for years on muliple DSLRs so was familiar to how it worked near MFD. Its easy to simulate : put a 36mm extension tube on it and using a DSLR, the AF near MFD is not as good. Add 1.4TC, as well as extension tube and it's even worse.
I also noticed that with stacked 1.4 and 2x TCs on my Sigma 500 f4, my first attempt test shots were great. I could get good results with 1DX2, but success rate was very low.

Pros and cons. Differences.

Would you please define your acronyms? I'm sure you don't mean "dimethylformamide", something I commonly use but is also "DMF"

I suppose we will disagree because I've never needed to help the live view in my 7D2, with a Sigma 50-500 with 1.4x teleconverter. If the SLR autofocus didn't work, the live view did. As for the phase autofocus, the physics is the same either way.

I googled "mirrorless af not as good severely out of focus"

I discovered Panasonic have a function to work around the severely out of focus issue.
It forces AF to near, or far.

I also found a thread on bcg forums where people describing much of what I said in post above.
On my tablet, can't post a link, but it's from the first page of google results.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19378902
Would you please define your acronyms? I'm sure you don't mean "dimethylformamide", something I commonly use but is also "DMF"

I suppose we will disagree because I've never needed to help the live view in my 7D2, with a Sigma 50-500 with 1.4x teleconverter. If the SLR autofocus didn't work, the live view did. As for the phase autofocus, the physics is the same either way.

"Which I believe is the same as full time MF"

Choderboy wrote in post #19378904
"Which I believe is the same as full time MF"

So it is manual focus?

Up to you. I would not call it that.

FTM is what Canon calls it. I believe you need USM. eg, the 50 1.8 II does not have FTM..

DPreview: Full Time Manual (FTM) focusing is the ability to manually focus while the lens is switched to autofocus.

I had Sigma 70-200 2.8 years ago for Pentax. It did not have FTM.
When I changed to Canon and bought a 20D, the same lens in Canon mount had FTM. My 50 1.8II did not.

So on Sony, I do what many other people do. I point at something closer to the subject's distance and AF on that, then go back to the subject.
With EOS-R, I would, using FTM, turn the ring a little towards where it needed to be to help the AF out.
The Canon 200 2.8L macro had the same issue as all mirrorless do and Canon does talk about it in the user manual.

Since getting Sony, I have both cursed no FTM and praised it.
Particularly if using a bean bag, with FTM, on Canon, I can accidentally rotate the focus ring. So sometimes I'd like to turn it off.
With Sony, I can't help the AF out using the focus ring. I lose the accidental movement issue though.

The new Sony 70-200 2.8 II has a switch.
I assume user feedback takes a long time to result in changes.

My Sigma 500 f4 S has 3 settings for focus:
AF
MO (Manual Over ride, ie their acronym for FTM)
MF

The Panasonic AF-ON Near/Far was a firmware update feature.
I predict there will be other firmware updates from other manufacturers as well as more FTM like functions appearing.
The 'severely out of focus' issue, as I call it, is well known.
The 'near MFD' is less talked about.

Sony's DMF is Direct Manual Focus. On A9, it is only available for single shot, ie, not for bursts and there some other loss of functions.
So, in my opinion, it's the worst implementation of FTM.

Choderboy wrote in post #19378912
Up to you. I would not call it that.

FTM is what Canon calls it. I believe you need USM. eg, the 50 1.8 II does not have FTM..

DPreview: Full Time Manual (FTM) focusing is the ability to manually focus while the lens is switched to autofocus.

I had Sigma 70-200 2.8 years ago for Pentax. It did not have FTM.
When I changed to Canon and bought a 20D, the same lens in Canon mount had FTM. My 50 1.8II did not.

I'm not trying to be funny, and it seems you have a chip on your shoulder with that reply. If you wouldn't call it "manual focus", then what is it?
USM = ultrasonic motor?
And "DMF" = "FTM"?

Last two posts show same post time so only USM needs explanation.
I thought that was common enough to be known. Ultrasonic Motor.

No chip. I'm being careful to avoid conflict, or argument. The last time I mentioned this issue, a long term, popular, prolific poster left the forums as a result......

At that time the issue was the 'near MFD' issue and I only discovered it was a known issue in the following weeks.

Choderboy wrote in post #19378938
No chip. I'm being careful to avoid conflict, or argument. The last time I mentioned this issue, a long term, popular, prolific poster left the forums as a result......

At that time the issue was the 'near MFD' issue and I only discovered it was a known issue in the following weeks.

Thank you for the explanations in the posts above, and spelling out the acronyms.. I intend no conflict- I believe your experiences with your camera, and that others have had similar experiences. It's likely that others haven't had the "near MFD" problem, fueling the debate. My 7D2 is an early one, and I remember people were complaining their copies missed focus- long thread about it. I've no idea why the differences between experiences- I'm just happy mine worked. As for the other guy who left....his choice.
Best regards!