> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bob Meyer > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: EOS focusing points > > > > --- "Sturgess, Jeff A Mr JMLFDC" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is it just me or do others feel the EOS focusing > > points are inadequate? I'd like to see them more > > spread out so I can compose using the rule of thirds > > without having to recompose after focusing and > > without having to use manual focus. > > To get back to the original subject... > > Yes, I wish the EOS focus points were more widely > distributed. I think the 45 point AF is over hyped. > Fewer points, more widely distributed, would be more > useful. (Of course, 45 points more widely distributed > would be even better.) Minolta seems to always be a > day late and a dollar short these days, but I really > like the focus point layout in the Maxxum (Dynax) 7. > Actually, I like a lot of things about the Maxxum 7. > If it used the EOS lens mount I would probably have > bought one <g>. This brochure has a diagram of the > focus point layout. Perhaps not quite at the "rule of > thirds" intersections, but pretty darn close: > > http://www.minoltaeurope.com/pe/pdfs/dynax_7_cat_e.pdf > > ===== > Bob Meyer > I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every minute of it. >
Hi All, I think that the "problem" as it is being perceived is due to a combination of technical and design issues regarding the market they expect to use these bodies. First off in order to provide the very high AF speed and accuracy that the EOS 1 family bodies provide you need the maximum light available, at some point the light fall off hits the point that the sensors cannot be assured of a certain level of performance. Second, this plays right into Canon's performance oriented system design requirement for the EOS 1 line bodies and lenses that specifies that fast lenses are needed to achieve maximum AF performance and accuracy. Third, the fact that so many of the sports and PJ shooters out there in very visible spots demand this level of AF performance and the fact that item one and two are technical requirements for this level of AF performance Canon is not likely to change the design any time soon. You won't get many complaints from sports and PJ shooters about an EOS 1V/1D/1DmkII/1Ds body's ability to track moving subjects when combined with the bodies ability to shift AF points to follow a fast moving subject, at least not from me anyway. Being primarily a sports and people shooter I can't fault the very compromises Canon made to get me the best AF performance on the planet for moving targets when combined with their best glass (which I grudgingly bought a ton of after seeing what they laid down on my chromes). More recently as a shooter of architectural subjects I wish that Canon had easier to focus focusing screens. Personally I'd rather have the center weighted 45 AF point system and have the ability to track focus on very fast moving cars and subjects as it is. Reliance the arbitrary "rule of thirds" for composition is a popular layman's misconception about composition. Why not use the "Golden Mean" or some other magical mathematical number picked out of the sky like Pi? Using marks on the focusing screen as a guide to composition is lame IMO, I'd prefer having a blank canvas to work on with no marks to interfere with my composition. Learn to balance your positive and negative space instead and the 45 AF point positions will become less important, especially with the use of FTM. This is one of the best features of Canon's USM lenses, take advantage of it. Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
