--- Chip Louie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > -----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.
Gee, I didn't realize that all Canon AF users shot
sports exclusively, or even primarily. Perhaps the
centralized 45 AF points is great for sports (although
in my experience using the CF to select 11 works at
least as well), but I use my cameras to shoot
landscapes, kids, interior shots, etc., etc. Having
more widely spaced AF points would be much more useful
in those situations than the central 45. And I don't
believe having widely spaced sensors need compromise
the performance of the more centrally located ones.
> 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).
See above.
> 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.
I don't think the 2 are mutually exclusive.
> 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,
My point isn't really that you should be locked into
the rule of thirds. That request actually came from
the original poster. My point is that the Minolta AF
points cover a much wider area of the viewfinder than
do Canon's 3 / 5 / 7 / 9 / 11 / 45 AF points on any of
their cameras. And I think that would be a valuable
feature. Frankly, with most of Canon's current
cameras, it's just as easy to use the center point and
recompose as it is to use multiple focus points--you
generally end up recomposing anyway.
I think Minolta's angled sensors in the outer corners
is a clever idea, too, although the performance of
current AF sensors (vertical or horizontal) mitigates
the need for them somewhat.
>I'd
> prefer having a blank canvas to work on with no
> marks to interfere with my
> composition.
So you'd prefer NO visible AF indicators, or just one
in the center?
=====
Bob Meyer
I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every minute of it.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
