Autofocus old vs new

[defconfunk]

I have limited experience with autofocus. All my film cameras are manual focus. My digital camera (Olympus E-510) has three autofocus points. When paired with a 14-54 F2.8 SWD II lens, it focuses sufficiently quickly; sufficient means I can auto focus on a moving puppy at the humane society in moderately low light (F2.8 @ 1/60). This is not *fast* but it is fast enough, and much faster than what I could do with the kit lens - and way more accurate than I would be with a manual lens.

DPreview posted their review of the E-M1 and in it they lament the ‘slow’ (or at least slower than expected) auto focus speed on 4/3 lenses. They include a video to show just how slow it is. I look at that and I think it is at least as fast as what I’ve got now, probably better. You’d hope a new semi-pro would focus faster than a five year old consumer model, so that isn't really news. In the other cameras I’ve played with (D60, D80, T3i) I never found a huge difference in focus speed. I’ve been told this is because I haven’t played with true pro models (1D, D4, etc) where fast focus makes or breaks someone’s pay-check. I’m told that these focus much faster.

So my question is this: How good are high end film SLR auto focus systems?

Okay, the Nikon F6 doesn’t count, because it has a D3(?) auto-focus system. I’m more thinking about the Canon 1 series that I could pick up for $150 on KEH. Or the Canon ELAN with it’s eye tracking AF (I wear glasses, so of no use to me, but very useful to my friend who shoots canon digital and maybe tempted by the film darkside). Are these cameras as fast as a modern good DSLR? More important than speed is accuracy – an out of focus AF shot on digital isn’t a real loss (so long as you’re chimping), but on film it would really suck.

If you were used to a modern consumer DSLR, how would it feel to transition to 1990s pro/semi-pro film AF?

 

[froyd]

My experience is with the F4, now a $200 camera. It's single point (which I prefer) and despite it's age, I have no need for anything faster than it. It's also accurate and fast in low light situation that stump my modern digi P&S and would be hard for me to focus manually on the Leica.

 

[Fraser]

I have limited experience with autofocus. All my film cameras are manual focus. My digital camera (Olympus E-510) has three autofocus points. When paired with a 14-54 F2.8 SWD II lens, it focuses sufficiently quickly; sufficient means I can auto focus on a moving puppy at the humane society in moderately low light (F2.8 @ 1/60). This is not *fast* but it is fast enough, and much faster than what I could do with the kit lens - and way more accurate than I would be with a manual lens.

DPreview posted their review of the E-M1 and in it they lament the ‘slow’ (or at least slower than expected) auto focus speed on 4/3 lenses. They include a video to show just how slow it is. I look at that and I think it is at least as fast as what I’ve got now, probably better. You’d hope a new semi-pro would focus faster than a five year old consumer model, so that isn't really news. In the other cameras I’ve played with (D60, D80, T3i) I never found a huge difference in focus speed. I’ve been told this is because I haven’t played with true pro models (1D, D4, etc) where fast focus makes or breaks someone’s pay-check. I’m told that these focus much faster.
As for modern DSLR the Canon 1dx focus speed is amazing!

So my question is this: How good are high end film SLR auto focus systems?

Okay, the Nikon F6 doesn’t count, because it has a D3(?) auto-focus system. I’m more thinking about the Canon 1 series that I could pick up for $150 on KEH. Or the Canon ELAN with it’s eye tracking AF (I wear glasses, so of no use to me, but very useful to my friend who shoots canon digital and maybe tempted by the film darkside). Are these cameras as fast as a modern good DSLR? More important than speed is accuracy – an out of focus AF shot on digital isn’t a real loss (so long as you’re chimping), but on film it would really suck.

If you were used to a modern consumer DSLR, how would it feel to transition to 1990s pro/semi-pro film AF?

Having owned all of the Canon 1d series at some point and also having a couple of Eos 1v I would say they are as good as Eos 1dmk2 in the focus department, and there is not a lot of difference between a 1v and a 1n. The autofocus in my opinion in the 1v is also a lot faster than the Nikon f5 but my Nikon lenses are older Af ones. Considering Eos 1n and Eos 3 are seling for a £100 secondhand I don't think you can go wrong.
As for modern DSLRs the focus speed of the Canon 1dx is amazing!

 

[Takkun]

having owned the N90, F100 and F6, along with the D1 which I'm led to believe has the F5's AF system, they're all ridiculously fast. The only difference between all of them was the number and accuracy of tracking points.
the F6 has the D2 tracking system, FYI. the D3 has 51 points, and the F6 has 9.
I've shot sports with many of these. Speed was never an issue so much as keeping the right thing in focus, and I've been split between using a single point and tracking. The former is easier to understand and predict (it only focuses on what you point it on) but tracking's especially nice for soccer and football, where things are flying into the frame in different directions. Compare that to baseball or, say, running, where you have some idea where competitors are going.
However, one of the reasons I'm more a fan of MF these days is that I couldn't ever figure out the damn things.

As for coming from a pro SLR to a compact: I've found the X100 is easy enough to figure out, being single-point AF and working much like an SLR (as opposed to some compacts I've used that seem to jump all over the frame), but the hunting is tedious for anything moving. I asked a relative to photograph me with it during a race not long ago, and there wasn't a single in-focus shot, though that could well have been operator error.

 

[mdarnton]

Since this is a RF forum, I'll say that I have one of the very first film Nikons with AF, and the thing, in spite of all its hunting and buzzing, still focuses faster than I can focus my Leica M4. Since I realized that, I've been a lot more patient with AF cameras.

If you think of it as a race, you'll probably never be satisfied if there's any perceivable delay at all. 🙂

 

[Pioneer]

In a lot of cases auto focus gets there faster, and more accurate, than I can with manual focus. I still prefer manual focus if the lighting is good, I just use it differently. I pre-focus and from there it rarely requires more than a tweak or two to get the action in focus. But, I like the freedom of auto focus as well so it really is more of a toss up.

In poor lighting everything becomes more of a toss up, but my aging eyes usually compete poorly against relatively decent auto focus. In other words, tonight I will use an autofocus camera. 🙂

 

[jajong]

Takkun,

do get the firmware upgrade for your x100: it'll be a new camera🙂.

Cheers,
Jan

 

[nobbylon]

Having owned all of the Canon 1d series at some point and also having a couple of Eos 1v I would say they are as good as Eos 1dmk2 in the focus department, and there is not a lot of difference between a 1v and a 1n. The autofocus in my opinion in the 1v is also a lot faster than the Nikon f5 but my Nikon lenses are older Af ones. Considering Eos 1n and Eos 3 are seling for a £100 secondhand I don't think you can go wrong.
As for modern DSLRs the focus speed of the Canon 1dx is amazing!

Maybe it is the lens you are using Fraser on the F5 as mine feels like it's going to rip my 50 1.4 apart! It's faster than both d700/d3 and also faster than EOS 5Dmkiii with a 50 1.4
As far as Nikons go though if anybody wants a fast and accurate cheapy then the F100 is the way to go.
My 'S' lenses also seem quicker on the F5 and apparently the F6 is a tad quicker but I couldn't see a difference other than the F6 had lost that 'rip your lens apart' feeling that the F5 gives. Maybe they are just better damped at the end of the focus procedure.