New lens or new camera

[Cap'n Jack]

I don't see why I should have to.

You are allowing the camera to choose the auto focus point. That comment isn't much different from leaving the camera set to the "green box", fully automatic, and asking why one should have to bother with learning about how to set aperture priority, shutter speed priority, or whether manual mode is best.

Since it doesn't have your brains, or creative vision, it often chooses the wrong focus point.

If I don't know what I'm shooting, I'll "default" the camera to an expanded center point. I'll let that point focus, take my finger off the focus button and recompose if I have time, then fire away. If no time, I'll fire as soon as I have focus and fix the composition (if possible) post process.

This shot won't win any awards, but it demonstrates my point. Using the center AF point let me get the bird's eye in focus (or close to it- I suspect this lens is back focusing on this body slightly and I suspect a micro focus adjustment would improve sharpness for me. The other lens appears dead-on). I was able to use a single AF point to focus my subject. Letting the camera choose the AF point would have maybe given me a shot of leaves or branches, not a bird.

This shot is likewise auto focused in "live view". Again, it won't win any awards. But the moons of Jupiter are in focus, Jupiter is over exposed. There is some slight movement picked up too.

 

[wsuffa]

But I don't always know in advance what I want the AF point to be. Depending on the subject and situation, it can be any of the four goldens, and I typically don't have time to reprogram settings. The best thing I have found is to just use center spot and half click to lock then shift frame, but in a high speed situation, I often lose my composition, or if I slip off the shutter button, boom, it's lost.

The Canon 5D/III has several autofocus tracking options, which make shooting of moving objects much better. If you're really good at manual focus, maybe you can do better, but it's harder to focus manually on these cameras.

I do it as Cap. Jack suggested.

 

[Henning]

The Canon 5D/III has several autofocus tracking options, which make shooting of moving objects much better. If you're really good at manual focus, maybe you can do better, but it's harder to focus manually on these cameras.

I do it as Cap. Jack suggested.

I just don't get the proper effects I'm looking for with the cheap body. Even doing what he says, it still buzzes off at times if I am planning on a moving object. Like I said, I am hoping that upgrading to a better body will solve that. I bought the cheapest body I could to go with the lens because I didn't know if I would be happy with it and maybe go back to a Nikon mount. The lens though has proven adequate.

 

[wsuffa]

I just don't get the proper effects I'm looking for with the cheap body. Even doing what he says, it still buzzes off at times if I am planning on a moving object. Like I said, I am hoping that upgrading to a better body will solve that. I bought the cheapest body I could to go with the lens because I didn't know if I would be happy with it and maybe go back to a Nikon mount. The lens though has proven adequate.

I don't know about the older/cheaper bodies. I *think* the 7D can do some tracing, too, but don't recall. Some of the canons have eyeball tracking of focus points, haven't tried that either as I'm not sure how it will work with eyeglasses. I find that AF is not as accurate with my Sigma lens as it is with Canon L glass. I think the Sigma is slower / not ultrasonic focused.

 

[Henning]

I don't know about the older/cheaper bodies. I *think* the 7D can do some tracing, too, but don't recall. Some of the canons have eyeball tracking of focus points, haven't tried that either as I'm not sure how it will work with eyeglasses. I find that AF is not as accurate with my Sigma lens as it is with Canon L glass. I think the Sigma is slower / not ultrasonic focused.

I'm using a Sony system at the moment.

 

[mr_happyland]

The value of a quality lens will far outlast that of your camera. That said, it's the sum of both parts that contribute to consistently great images. Check your local Craigslist or Ebay for potential deals (and scams.)

If you do get a new lens, in your case a Canon EF mount, be aware that if you upgrade to new, non-Canon, camera system (Sony, Nikon, etc), you will need to get an adapter to make your lens work.

I'm shooting with a Sony A7S these days. The Sony E-mount system is one of the most adaptable mounts out there, but there are often sacrifices made if not using a native-mount lens, such as auto focus speed, metadata, etc.

The A7S is an AMAZING low-light beast. It literally sees in the dark. You can get noise free images even at ISO 50,000!!!!! thus eliminating the need for the typically more expensive super-fast lenses, unless you need that super shallow depth of field. If you need maximum resolution then look at the new A7R II.

Awesome thing with these cameras is they are full frame but with the flick of a switch convert to APS-C mode, practically giving you 2 focal lengths for each lens.

I took this one a couple weeks ago with the A7S and the Sony 70-200 f4 lens.

 

[mtuomi]

The value of a quality lens will far outlast that of your camera. That said, it's the sum of both parts that contribute to consistently great images. Check your local Craigslist or Ebay for potential deals (and scams.)

If you do get a new lens, in your case a Canon EF mount, be aware that if you upgrade to new, non-Canon, camera system (Sony, Nikon, etc), you will need to get an adapter to make your lens work.

I'm shooting with a Sony A7S these days. The Sony E-mount system is one of the most adaptable mounts out there, but there are often sacrifices made if not using a native-mount lens, such as auto focus speed, metadata, etc.

The A7S is an AMAZING low-light beast. It literally sees in the dark. You can get noise free images even at ISO 50,000!!!!! thus eliminating the need for the typically more expensive super-fast lenses, unless you need that super shallow depth of field. If you need maximum resolution then look at the new A7R II.

Awesome thing with these cameras is they are full frame but with the flick of a switch convert to APS-C mode, practically giving you 2 focal lengths for each lens.

I took this one a couple weeks ago with the A7S and the Sony 70-200 f4 lens.

I recommended A7S above as well. That thing is unlike anything else in the market today when it comes to ISO performance.

The new A7R II with the Metabones adapter apparently works with phase detection autofocus with non-native lenses such as Canon L-series. That will be a tough cookie to beat for the DSLR people.

Once you go mirrorless, you won't go back to DSLR...

 

[flyingron]

Look at Sigma in addition to Canon. I have a rather nice 50-500 IS Zoom from them, it's only f4.5 (faster would be a lot heavier) and it was about $1000 if you shop carefully. You can even throw on a 2x teleconverter (but you lose the auto focus, which is sort of dubious on lens of those length anyhow).

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I just don't get the proper effects I'm looking for with the cheap body. Even doing what he says, it still buzzes off at times if I am planning on a moving object. Like I said, I am hoping that upgrading to a better body will solve that. I bought the cheapest body I could to go with the lens because I didn't know if I would be happy with it and maybe go back to a Nikon mount. The lens though has proven adequate.

From this post below, you are using an Sony A33 or newer...

The A-33 isn't bad either, I have that with the 70-400 f/4-5.6, and it does alright. I saw the lens and I liked it for its compactness so I got it and the cheapest body they had to go with it to check it out. I agree, when one is budget limited, always spend on the optics. Digital hasn't changed one thing in photography, if the quality of the light through the lens is no good, the best recording device on earth is going to capture only what it sees. The 70- 400 on the A-33 has the same field of view as a 105-600 on a 135 camera. It is heavy though and requires at least a monopod when shooting in its longer focal lengths.

That camera has 15 auto focus points, and you use "Local" to select them.


This quote below, about selecting the AF points, suggests that you aren't quite doing the same thing as I, and selecting AF points.

I don't see why I should have to.

From this review of the A33, http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA33/AA33A4.HTM

Wide AF bases its focus on the most prominent subject detail in the portion of the image that falls within the AF brackets.

Since you aren't picking AF points, this is probably your problem. That camera is good at face recognition, but none of the images you posted have faces in them.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Look at Sigma in addition to Canon. I have a rather nice 50-500 IS Zoom from them, it's only f4.5 (faster would be a lot heavier) and it was about $1000 if you shop carefully. You can even throw on a 2x teleconverter (but you lose the auto focus, which is sort of dubious on lens of those length anyhow).

I use the same lens, and the results are in many of my images in this thread. The 2x teleconvertor has a reputation for not being very good optically, but the 1.4x is OK.

The shot of Jupiter and moons was done with the 1.4x extender on the Sigma 50-500, and was auto-focused.

So was this set from earlier this year...

So whether AF works or not with an teleconvertor depends on the camera. Since mine focuses on planets, I'd expect the 2x teleconvertor to work fine during the day with more light to work with.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I don't know about the older/cheaper bodies. I *think* the 7D can do some tracing, too, but don't recall. Some of the canons have eyeball tracking of focus points, haven't tried that either as I'm not sure how it will work with eyeglasses. I find that AF is not as accurate with my Sigma lens as it is with Canon L glass. I think the Sigma is slower / not ultrasonic focused.

The 7D can do tracking too; the 7D2 does it better. The 7D2 is supposed to keep focus for a bit even if the tracked object goes behind another. I haven't tried that yet as I'm still learning to track flying small birds. People who use it for sports say it works, when a player runs behind a referee for example, the camera doesn't lock onto the referee but picks up the player again when s/he comes from behind the ref. This is another setting for the AF system

As for the eyeball tracking, I'm not aware of any current Canon body that does this- a few people are bemoaning the loss of this feature.

Some Sigma lenses use a "hypersonic" motor. That us their term for the ultrasonic motor you describe. The 50-500 OS does. I think their newer lenses all use their version of USM now but I can't swear to it.