Nicholas Wright wrote:
> Anyway, the main reason that I'd go with the EOS 3 is for the
> 45 point eye controlled focus. So the first obvious question is how good is
> eye control anyway? I've heard so many conflicting reports about the
> accuracy of eye control, it's hard to tell who really knows what they're
> talking about and who simply just doesn't understand the technology.
I have a 3, and I'm not certain ECF will be terribly useful for you, for sports.
I wear glasses and ECF works for me--I just don't care for the way it works. The
45 sensors are clustered in the center of the frame, so you still need to move
the camera in order to keep a moving subject within the focusing zone. Also,
even in AI Servo mode, once the camera has selected a focusing point using ECF,
it holds that point until you take pressure off the shutter button, so if you
find yourself selecting different focus points by eye in rapid succession you
need to keep pressing and "un-pressing" the shutter button. Personally, I find
the procedure of looking deliberately at one spot and then pressing the shutter
release half-way, and then lifting a doing it again, etc. non-intuitive and
cumbersome. No doubt others will disagree, but it is IMO something to be
considered.
That said, the 3 is still a good choice for sports because of its fast AF and
good metering; also, it balances well with larger lenses. With Canon, AF speed
is a function of both lens and body, so you can experience a difference in AF
speed with a particular lens depending on what body you use. Using the PB-E2
with the NiMH battery back can increase AF speed slightly, from what I've read.
As far as shutter lag goes, all I can say is that the lag between my eye and my
shutter finger seems to be greater than the 3's shutter release. I can't find
the shutter-lag spec in the "EOS 3 Technical Overview," but someone on the list
probably knows what it is.
> one thing that I've noticed is that most camera manufacturers list the
> ~maximum~ fps but that it goes down considerably when you switch into servo
> focus mode. What fps rates can I expect from the 3 and 1N RS in servo AF
> mode?
In AI Servo mode, the 3 is rated at 3.3 fps; with the PB-E2 it is rated at 7 fps
with the NiMH battery pack or 5 fps using AAs.
> Then, if I turn off the eye control how easy is
> it to manually select the focusing point?
You can use custom functions to select one of several different ways to select a
focusing point, depending on what works best for you.
> I know that you can limit the number of points to 11,
> but I have not found a diagram that shows which
> points are active when you do that; how are they placed?
You get three each across the top and bottom, and seven across the center; the
pattern includes those sensors at the perimeter of the focus area (the sensors
you drop are intermediate ones).
> Okay and then the biggest thing that I'm wondering about is AF lock on.
Once focus is achieved, the shutter button acts as a focus lock--focus doesn't
change until you release pressure on the shutter button. It is also possible to
use a custom function to shift focus lock to another button, or to shift AF
activation to the button that normally serves as the AE lock, so the lens only
focuses when you press that button.
In my experience, the main thing is to develop a technique that works for you,
and this will probably take more than a half or a game. In this, it is no
different really than working with MF--however the technique itself may be
different. My experience was that it didn't take too long before I started
getting more sharp shots with AF than I had been with MF (this with ice hockey,
mostly), but the nature of the missed shots was different. If you miss a shot
with MF due to poor focus you're usually not too far off, but with AF you can be
WAY off (as when the camera focuses on the wall on the far side of the rink
instead of on a player), which can be disconcerting. But the overall percentage
of in-focus shots will probably be higher. Also, you may find that the *kinds*
of shots you miss may be different with AF compared to MF. In the end, your
personal experience will depend a lot on how you work and how well you adapt to
AF--and you won't know until you try it.
As a starting point I would suggest using a single focusing point and moving the
camera rather than your eye to follow the action. With a telephoto lens I
generally prefer shooting verticals, with the uppermost focusing point selected
(the one furthest to the right when the camera is held horizontally), which
places the focusing point close to the eyes of the players (rather than their
waists), and gives you a good vertical composition with the heads of the players
near the top of the frame. Using a single focusing point gives you the fastest
possible AF performance and lets you give more attention to the action than to
the operation of the camera, since you don't need to be thinking about which
focus point is active, which one you want active, where you're aiming your eye,
etc. Again, some of this is a matter of personal preference so after some
practice you may find that some other technique works better for you, but I
believe this is the best starting point. The same can be said for the use of
zoom lenses--lot's of sports shooters like them, but I personally find fiddling
with a zoom too much a distraction when the action is fast, and prefer to use
two bodies, one with the long telephoto and one with a moderate tele (or even a
wide angle). But this is a matter of personal preference.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
