Canon 5DMkii autofocus, real opinions?

EspressoJunkie

EspressoJunkie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,886
Name
Greg
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I'm contemplating a change of system from a Nikon D300 to a Canon 5DMkii. There's a few reasons behind this, and I've done a huge amount of research and searches on the subject.

I know the in's and out of the camera well, and clearly the Autofocus is a well discussed issue. However the internet is full of vented and biased opinions from both sides, so I'd like to hear from people on this (the only forum I trust!) who own or have owned the camera.

I know the AF system is much more basic than even the D300 that I'm coming from, but I don't shoot any sports or really do any action photography. There are however two things that I am concerned about the AF coping with: My kids, and Weddings. I'll be using F4 glass for the foreseeable future if I do switch.

Now I don't do weddings yet, but I am going to be assisting pro a and being a second shooter at a few this year, so how will the Mkii cope in a dim church with no flash? And then there's my kids, who are often the subject of my pictures, and who rarely sit still! Has anyone with kids (or pets actually - as there's probably a fair bit in common in how they move) encountered any issues at all?

I know this has been done to death but like I said this is a forum where I can actually trust the opinions aired.

Just to add I have thought about a D700, but the video (a big selling point) and range of Canon lenses has swayed me towards the Mkii.

All replies appreciated guys, cheers :-)
 
Only you can decide, after all, you have already done the research thing and the same conflicts will be raised in this thread too. Both are good cameras and both have access to brilliant lenses.

If you are desperate for video from a dslr (d700 or 5dII) then there is only one winner but what about a d7000 until you decide if you want to switch systems.
 
I've used one in bad light and as long as you use the center point and recompose you'll be fine as it's very accurate. The outer points are less than useless in low light and hunt and hunt and hunt and...
 
tiler65 said:
Only you can decide, after all, you have already done the research thing and the same conflicts will be raised in this thread too. Both are good cameras and both have access to brilliant lenses.

If you are desperate for video from a dslr (d700 or 5dII) then there is only one winner but what about a d7000 until you decide if you want to switch systems.
Click to expand...

Its not so much that I'm desperate for it, but between the two full frame options from either brand within my price range it is a selling point. Plus the lens line up from Canon appeal much more. I had thought about a 7D but I am lusting after FF, and I don't know if the 7D would be much of a step up from my D300.
 
The23rdman said:
I've used one in bad light and as long as you use the center point and recompose you'll be fine as it's very accurate. The outer points are less than useless in low light and hunt and hunt and hunt and...
Click to expand...

completely agree on the outer points. They're just not working in low light. But I've done a few weddings and parties with my 5D II and my 70-200 4.0 and never ran into serious trouble because of the focus points.

Action shots however are not really the strong side of the 5D - also because it's not the fastest. But as that is not my main interest I can live with it.
 
I've had a 5D I & II, and had no major problems with AF. The center point is decent enough and very accurate - so as long as you don't need to rely on the others (especially in low light) it should be fine for your kind of shooting - though you would need to get the kids to sit still !

However, I now have a D700 which is way superior in terms of AF. I do have two young kids and it is definitely a major improvement, it rarely misses AF.

Get a tidy used D700 and 24-70 2.8 - hard to beat !
 
You do know that DSLR video is not like having a camcorder don't you?

Its video like proper video - which doesn't mean its at all simple. Its designed for proper filmography (is that a word?) and not taking an adhoq video of your kids running in the garden.

I think a lot of people imagine its like having a DSLR quality video like on your mobile phone... its not!

As for (stills) AF with moving kids, the 5D might be a great portrait camera, but your subject IS action and no matter what others say you will get less keepers with moving subjects if the AF isn't up to it. Centre AF point only and focus and recompose? With a moving subject? Good luck...
 
As said before, any comments here will be the same as those you've found doing your research.

I don't have a 5dmkii, but if your interested in spending money on a new setup, either canon or nikon, then rent one and try it out.
Find out for yourself what all the fuss is about with the AF.
 
I use my 5DMKII a lot more than my 7D...

I don't have any issues with the AF on the 5DMKII. I guess it's like most things... You learn to work around a camera's little quirks! :)
 
desantnik said:
You do know that DSLR video is not like having a camcorder don't you?

Its video like proper video - which doesn't mean its at all simple. Its designed for proper filmography (is that a word?) and not taking an adhoq video of your kids running in the garden.

I think a lot of people imagine its like having a DSLR quality video like on your mobile phone... its not!

As for (stills) AF with moving kids, the 5D might be a great portrait camera, but your subject IS action and no matter what others say you will get less keepers with moving subjects if the AF isn't up to it. Centre AF point only and focus and recompose? With a moving subject? Good luck...
Click to expand...

Agree with this, it is manual focus only and very challenging for shooting nice videos of children.

Better to get a decent HD camcorder, or even a compact P&S if it's just recording the kids growing up that you essentially want.

I have a Sony HX9V compact, it does 1080 60p video and has a zoom of 24-384mm, which is incredibly well stabilized. It goes everywhere with us, does OK stills too, cost me less than £200 new and is better than my old Canon HD camcorder for quality - by far.

Check out some sample videos on www.vimeo.com, I think you'll be very surprised!
 
I knew the video was more difficult to use than a dedicated video camera, but is it really hard for kids and the like?

They really are the main reason for wanting video. I intend to shoot stills for money eventually but the video would be purely for family stuff.

Removing the desire for video would throw me straight back to the drawing board!
 
EspressoJunkie said:
I knew the video was more difficult to use than a dedicated video camera, but is it really hard for kids and the like?
Click to expand...

Yes!

Have you never watched how films are actually made? Marks taped to floors to show actors where to stand, focus pullers (yes thats a person who's job it is to move the focus ring on the camera as the subject moves a pre-defined path) to allow the focus to track a moving subject... and the reason why the limit you see of 29mins for a video clip - because everything you see is shot in tiny little pieces of a couple of minutes and then edited together.

THAT is how films are made - not with a camcorder/mobile phone and THAT is what DSLR video is all about... a cheap alternative for proper film makers.
 
desantnik said:
Yes!

Have you never watched how films are actually made? Marks taped to floors to show actors where to stand, focus pullers (yes thats a person who's job it is to move the focus ring on the camera as the subject moves a pre-defined path) to allow the focus to track a moving subject... and the reason why the limit you see of 29mins for a video clip - because everything you see is shot in tiny little pieces of a couple of minutes and then edited together.

THAT is how films are made - not with a camcorder/mobile phone and THAT is what DSLR video is all about... a cheap alternative for proper film makers.
Click to expand...

Hmm, so essentially for what I want it for the video would be next to useless?
 
Honestly, I wouldn't use a DSLR as a camcorder for every day video if you paid me!

Definitely go back to the drawing board, and while you're there pick up a D700 and a separate device for video!
 
EspressoJunkie said:
Hmm, so essentially for what I want it for the video would be next to useless?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would say so. I bought a 5D II, brand new, thinking that the video would be great for the kids etc. Used it once, never again. As for stills, whilst the centre point AF was very good, the rest of the AF points are hopeless, and as others have said it's no good for tracking erratic moving subjects (not what the camera is for). I also decided I didn't really need 21MP.

After a brief foray with a couple of other bodies, I picked up a mint used D700 and haven't looked back. It just nails everything, and paired with the 24-70 2.8G is very responsive and accurate indeed. I don't think you'd regret it for one second if you go down the D700 route - but a 5D II would disappoint because of the AF, for your needs.

In terms of lenses for the D700, I've just picked up a 24-70G (finally), and can also recommend these:

50mm 1.4G (Ultra sharp, very good even at 1.4)
28-300VR (Very good IQ from the ultimate FX super zoom)
28-200 G (very compact and light, super discreet, great sharpness on the D700, brilliant for travel and about £200 used)
70-300VR (sharp and good to pair with the 24-70, and under £300 used)

My 28-300VR just might be on the market shortly. My discreet and light travel combo is the 50mm 1.4 and 28-200G, I can get these, along with the Sony P&S in a really small shoulder bag - for everything else the 24-70G and 70-300VR (or 70-200 if you can stretch to one).

Hope this helps....
 
Last edited:
I shoot video on my D7000 at work for some time and done some video stuff for my friend's wedding.

I can tell you is not easy when alot of people moving around etc. Practice manual focus is the key thing on DSLR video.

Agree like the above said about film making, everything is marked and focus distance is calculated so the focus person will know when to focus etc.

You better off with a D700 for the stuff you want to do. You mention your main priority is to shoot wedding etc for money then the D700 is much more better. Make enough money and buy a small compact video camcorder to record your family.
 
Glad I could help :thumbs:
 
Can I just throw another factor not the mix. Take a look at magic lantern and the additional focus options it offers. It's not going to add full autofocus but it does open other possibilities.
 
Byker28i said:
Can I just throw another factor not the mix. Take a look at magic lantern and the additional focus options it offers. It's not going to add full autofocus but it does open other possibilities.
Click to expand...

I'd not heard of Magic Lantern before, but I did a little googling and it seems that although it would free up some options, that it won't help massively with what I was hoping for with the video option. Thanks for the input though :-)


Im still torn in trying to make a decision though! It'll not be for a couple of months anyway so I've a while to decide!
 
To me, changing systems seems like a lot of hassle and expense, for what in the real world will probably only be marginal improvements. Like everything in photography it's a compromise, if either system was significantly better everyone would be using it.
 
Craikeybaby said:
To me, changing systems seems like a lot of hassle and expense, for what in the real world will probably only be marginal improvements. Like everything in photography it's a compromise, if either system was significantly better everyone would be using it.
Click to expand...

I agree that there will be expense involved, but for me to go full frame with either Canon or Nikon will involve me selling all my kit anyway as both my lenses are only for a crop body, and I don't have any FF compatible accessories.

I know both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, but this is a move which is intended to aid the beginning of paid work as well as my own personal photography, so it's important that I go for what's best for me.
 
backup body is important for paid work so take that into consideration as well.

Either system you buy you will face problem at some point and without a backup you could left with embrassment during your paid work.

With the D300 you got atm is a good backup to a D700 if you decide to stay with Nikon.

If you sell everything and move to canon, make sure you get a backup at some point as well.

Personal i think nikon is better in terms of lens range to use, Nikon system allows you to use older AFD lens which some of them is just as good as the canon L lens or the Nikon Pro glass.
 
As a 5d2 owner I have just discovered the limits of its focusing - a school disco with very little ambient light. I spent hours (or so it seemed) for the damn thing to focus (despite using the centre focus points), during which time my young subjects had moved closer or further away, resulting in so many OOF shots. Working at about 3-6ft from my subjects and at f5.6 it was impossible to be sure of getting sharp pictures no matter what I tried - I did get enough to keep my clients happy, but also enough OOF shots to leave me well cheesed off.
Just my thoughts, but if this is likely to be an issue it has to be worth thinking about..
 
badboy1984 said:
backup body is important for paid work so take that into consideration as well.

Either system you buy you will face problem at some point and without a backup you could left with embrassment during your paid work.

With the D300 you got atm is a good backup to a D700 if you decide to stay with Nikon.

If you sell everything and move to canon, make sure you get a backup at some point as well.

Personal i think nikon is better in terms of lens range to use, Nikon system allows you to use older AFD lens which some of them is just as good as the canon L lens or the Nikon Pro glass.
Click to expand...


I can borrow a second body of either brand should I need to. The D300 will need to go even if I do stay with Nikon to make up the funds for a D700.

Without the video as a decider, a used D700 is looking more likely as both my work, and the guy I'll be assisting use Nikon stuff so there's access to bit's and pieces to borrow.

What older lenses should I be keeping an eye out for? The Nikon 24-70 2.8 will be out of my price range no matter what, so if I do go D700 I'll be looking an alternative lens in that sort of focal range.
 
Older lens i would keep my eye on is a used 28-70 f2.8. Bought my for £500 and the optic quality just as same as the new 24-70 f2.8.

Also prime lens like 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 or 85 f1.4 is great too. Some of the AFD lens is superb that i don't think i will need to upgrade to AFS.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I'm not sure the older range of Nikon lenses is a valid reason to go ff Nikon, Canon also had plenty if not more older AF lenses, including several L models which are still excellent. Go with whatever feels good in your hands.
Click to expand...

They both feel good in my hands! I shot with a Canon 40D before I changed to Nikon about 8 months ago. As mentioned I do shoot with a Nikon in work so I am now more familiar with them than Canon.
 
Spiritflier said:
I use my 5DMKII a lot more than my 7D...

I don't have any issues with the AF on the 5DMKII. I guess it's like most things... You learn to work around a camera's little quirks! :)
Click to expand...

+1 for this. I've used my 5DMkII for everything from macro to BIF and have never really run into any problems so far. In good light the outer focus points are very useable, but fall off quickly in poor light. Having said that, if you focus and recompose you should manage easily enough. I've got a 7D as well but use the 5DMkII about 90% of the time at the moment as the IQ swing it for me.
 
in normal light, i find all the focus points function pretty well. their weakness in low light is well known and documented (they hunt a bit), and i've read from other people that using a f4 lenses tends to not help matters either.

the only thing i would say about the outer focus points is that on my camera, some are a bit more precise and predictable than others at wide apertures. at f4/5.6 they perform pretty similarly.

i shot portraits, "lifestyle" and a few still landscapes and scenes and the AF hasn't hampered me.

the only thing i find annoying about the AF is not the weakness of the outer points, but the positioning of them, but you work around it.
 
If only I had the money I'd hire a MKii for a couple of days and see what I mafde of the AF myself.

I may just have to pop into Calumet and see if I can get an idea from trying one in there. Maybe get them to dim the lights a little and run about a bit for me while I try to take a few shots, although that might sound a bit of a strange request.....!
 
Spiritflier said:
I don't have any issues with the AF on the 5DMKII. I guess it's like most things... You learn to work around a camera's little quirks! :)
Click to expand...

+2.

I use my 5DII for shooting kids a lot recently, often indoors in fairly poor lighting (not really low light, just a bit dim). I find the center point AF is great, and can't see anyone having problems here. I tend not to use the outer points (for reason you know), and this effects my framing (which annoys me sometimes), but to me this is just a quirk / limitation of the camera.

All the large advantages of the FF sensor far outweigh these limitations in my opinion.

So whatever you decide, I'd really recommend full frame, and at this point in time (before Canon have announced a 5dII succesor, which should happen soon), then Nikon probably wins for your type of photography - they have better low light AF and better flash metering/consistency.
 
Having just got a 5DII to replace my 7D I was incredibly worried I would miss the AF and features the 7D offers.
For almost a year I was waiting for the 5DIII or whatever it's going to be called to be released due to the negative comments regarding the 5D AF.
I'm now kicking myself for putting it off so long. For me it's perfect and I've not missed the 7D one bit. Best decision I've made in a while.
 
So the general opinion seems to be that as long as it's the centre point the AF is ok and useable.

I think I might try limiting myself to the centre point on my D300 for the next few days and seeing how much of an impact the focus and recompose technique makes on my pictures.

It should be an easy decision to just go with a D700, but there's just something about the 5Dmkii that just keeps pulling me back to it!
 
I love my 5D MKII, but I hate its autofocus. If find that in daylight its fine, but in the dark it really benefits from having an assist. Seriously, even if I wasn't using a flash I'd keep an ST-E2 on there just for the assist grid if I wasn't shooting in good light.

I'll put it this way, if the 5D MKIII was identical to the II but just had the 7D autofocus system on it, it would sell by the bucketload!
 
EspressoJunkie said:
It should be an easy decision to just go with a D700, but there's just something about the 5Dmkii that just keeps pulling me back to it!
Click to expand...

So what is it about the 5DII ? Having had both, I would go for the D700 every time unless you really need the extra 9MP or plan to do professional video work. The AF just smokes the 5DII. From my experience the high ISO on the D700 is about 2/3 of a stop better than the 5DII as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top