EOS 70D autofocus tracking???

[Bazsl]

Will the phase detect 19 point AF system in the 70D track subjects moving toward the camera at 100 miles per hour in AI Server mode? In other words, is the 70D usable for still photos of aircraft in flight, horse racing and automobile racing? Any references to articles on the 70D AF sustem that discuss its ability to track subjects moving toward the camera would be appreciated. Thanks.

Bill

[garryjames]

Dear ebiggs1:

Do you use IS lenses?

Do they improve your keep rate?

GarryJames

[ebiggs1]

 Here's what's in my bag right now.

Canon 6D

Canon EF  24-105mm  F/4L IS USM

Canon EF 70-300mm f 4-5.6 IS USM

Canon EF 300mm F/4L IS USM

Canon 1.4x Teleconverter III

I also have some legacy lenses (Adapted to EOS) form my active days about 30 years ago.  Notables include:

Zeiss Distagon 35mm F/1.4

Zeiss Planar 50 F/1.4

Zeiss Planar 85 F/1.4

A very impressive bag to say the least.  

I also just purchased Lightroom 5. <---Outstanding!  

"I did consider the Tamron 150-600mm F/5-6.3 but it got mediocre reviews ..."

I have looked this lens over a lot. I have not been able to pull the trigger. The only real thing it has going for it is price.

"Am considering the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM."

I will say with out hesitation this is the best 70-200mm made on the planet, bar none.  It can best many primes in it's range.

It is my favorite lens. Along with the 24-70mm f2.8 it is the dream outfit. 

I have been able to try the Sigma 500mm, a used copy, and can say it is very nice.  Well worth the cost.

I have the EF 400mm f5.6 and can easily say it is the best buy in a telephoto.

I have tele converters from the 1.4 to a 3x (various brands). I don't like them at all.  I rarely if ever use one.  But I must say the EF 1.4 on a f2.8 lens works and works well.  Beyond that, not for me. IMHO, of course.

On your EF 300mm f4, the 1.4x III will probably be OK. I have not tried that combo but wouldn't hesitate to.

[ebiggs1]

Do you use IS lenses?

To me IS is a nice thing to have but it is not an end all. The closer you are to getting everything right, the better IS works.

My bag includes lenses from 8mm to 600mm. Both IS and non-IS.

Remember in the olden days we did not have IS and we got along just fine. We didn't even have auto-focus!

Do they improve your keep rate?

Every 'crutch' Canon comes out with improves my keeper rate. I am getting to the point after nearly 50 years of being in the business and the hobby anything they do is appreciated.

But always put your money in the best glass you can get. It really is in the lens.

[ebiggs1]

Talking your telephotos, I suspose you have a 'good' tripod?

I imagine you do but do you have a gimbal head?  That is the next step to better tele photos.

[cicopo]

I've done the photos for the FOV test & will get at them tonight. This is an old test I did years ago re IQ of the longer lenses I had then. I realy didn't find any real IQ differences between the Sigma's & Canon's but the fact that they didn't have focus limiter switches really slowed down the AF so once I started shooting R/C they got sold off.

http://picasaweb.google.com/116179596240613012497/300500Samples

[cicopo]

In my opinion artificial reach as we have been discussing it here is real based on my tests. It is however infuenced by the smaller photosites on the crop sensor too. The helicopter isn't very big & the tail boom's diameter is just 1/16 inch (2 mm) and I didn't do any editing so that no extra info added to file sizes. I used the outline of the panel on the door to do my crops so there is a minor difference file to file, and the difference in lighting is due to a rain shower interrupting the shoot.

http://picasaweb.google.com/116179596240613012497/FOVComparisonSet03?authkey=Gv1sRgCL7TyMbc-LHgxwE#

I have used the older Picasa style album because it shows larger images on screen than the new Google + style does.

Larry

PS the Nikon lenses are soft & I have spent considerable time doing the AF adjustments as per Nikon's instructions.

[ebiggs1]

With out side by side comparisons, I don't know that I can draw a definitive decision.

I can draw the conclusion that I am glad I choose Canon so many years ago!

What is your conclusion of the two series of tests?

This is extremely difficult to make conclusive findings. Because you would have to have very similar cameras except for sensor size to make a absolute conclusion.

A certain two cameras can and could show a difference. It is probably where the crop factor tele benefit came from in the first place.

If a similar test was between a 70D, a 1D Mk IV and a 5D Mk III, I still maintain there would be little to no difference in the crop factor. Or, how about pitting the 1D Mk IV against the 1Dx?  At any rate I believe you will be in the pixel-peeper area. This is a huge debate with the birders crowd.

I shot Rebel XTi's (five of them) for years along with my 1 series. Usually giving them (XTi) to my assistants.  When I got a 5D Mk II, I started to notice how much better just random shots and photos 'generally' were.  But with the 5D Mk III, there simply is no crop advantage to using a Xti for tele work.

Again this is predicated on how the work is to be used. If you goal is to have a Photoshop pixel-peeping display that is one thing.  If it is to be art prints it is another and if you are going to do regular prints another.

Of course if the client wants to go to Walmart and print 4x6's or use Facebook, almost any camera will do. Crop or not.

Thank you for takling the time to do this.  I know it is time consuming but it is very interesting.

[garryjames]

Thanks ebiggs1 for your advice regarding tripod and gimbal head.  

I'm doing birding exclusively with a Canon 6D and Cannon EF 300mm F/4.0L IS.

My goal is poster sized (12"x16" Plus) tack sharp prints.

I have several tripods but have not used them for birding yet.  This is due to the fact that I am taking pictures of  stationary birds (relatively speaking) then I try to take flight pictures as they take off.  So I'm doing everything handheld, relying on IS to save me.  I'm getting some decent shots but nothing that can stand up to serious enlargement.  

I am now considering doing stationary shots with the gimbal / tripod as a dedicated session, saving handheld flight shots for a separate session.  I'm going to buy a gimbal head this week, based on your recommendations.  

I'm coming to the conclusion that cropping is killing me.  I count myself lucky if I can get close enough to fill 10% of the area of the frame with the subject.  As such, I'm shopping for a longer lens.  I jsut bought a new Canon 1.4x III teleconverter but know this will not give me what I need, ultimately.  I bought it for flexibility.  The only options i see are:

1)Canon 600mm F/4L II IS   <- at $13,000 this exceeds my budget

Tamron 500mm F/4.5 DG APO (non-IS)   <-  at $5000 is on the upper edge of my budget.

Used Canon 600mm F/4L IS (1st generation IS)   <- at $5,000 to $7000 this is on the upper edge of my budget.

Used Tamron 500mm F/4.5 (non-DG) APO (non-IS)   <-  at $3000 is within my budget.

I think that my preferred option is #3

[garryjames]

Thanks ebiggs1 for your advice regarding tripod and gimbal head.  

I'm doing birding exclusively with a Canon 6D and Cannon EF 300mm F/4.0L IS.

My goal is poster sized (12"x16" Plus) tack sharp prints.

I have several tripods but have not used them for birding yet.  This is due to the fact that I am taking pictures of  stationary birds (relatively speaking) then I try to take flight pictures as they take off.  So I'm doing everything handheld, relying on IS to save me.  I'm getting some decent shots but nothing that can stand up to serious enlargement.  

I am now considering doing stationary shots with the gimbal / tripod as a dedicated session, saving handheld flight shots for a separate session.  I'm going to buy a gimbal head this week, based on your recommendations.  

I'm coming to the conclusion that cropping is killing me.  I count myself lucky if I can get close enough to fill 10% of the area of the frame with the subject.  As such, I'm shopping for a longer lens.  I jsut bought a new Canon 1.4x III teleconverter but know this will not give me what I need, ultimately.  I bought it for flexibility.  The only options i see are:

1)   Canon 600mm F/4L II IS   <- at $13,000 this exceeds my budget

2)   Tamron 500mm F/4.5 DG APO (non-IS)   <-  at $5000 is on the upper edge of my budget.

3)   Used Canon 600mm F/4L IS (1st generation IS)   <- at $5,000 to $7000 this is on the upper edge of my budget.

4)   Used Tamron 500mm F/4.5 (non-DG) APO (non-IS)   <-  at $3000 is within my budget.

I think that my preferred option is #3.  The lens is quite heavy at 190 ounces as compared with 111 ounces for the Canon 500mm F/4 II.  And I'm not sure how good the 1st generation IS is.  If I'm shooting from a tripod I'm not sure it will matter, except that I'll have to carry it to the site.  This will put my pack above 30 pounds.  

[cicopo]

I forgot to mention that for my test I didn't have either a shutter release nor tripod collars for the Nikon lenses, so there's a tiny bit of that softness.

Re not feeling the crop factor is real please explain to me how 2 identical shots through the same lens from the same distance produced two very different pixel counts for the same area of the photo. The 1D4 shot contains 2.33 megapixels while whe 1Ds2 shot (the Full Frame body) only has 1.46 megapixels there. There is only a 4% difference in the files they produce so by moving to either a 1Dx or 5D3 you will still have fewer pixels for the same area I cropped to

5D3 has 22.3 Mpix vs 1Ds2's 16.7, that's a 33% increase so 1.46 X 1.33 = 1.94 megapixels

1Dx is only an 8% increase so 1.46 X 1.08 = 1.58 megapixels.