Will phase focusing go the way of the dinosaur?

RichA wrote:
Forget for the moment the benefits of going away from phase focusing,
such as much lower cost going to contrast focusing. Phase's main
important claim to fame is speed. But that is diminishing, or
contrast is improving. The main problem with phase focusing is the
constant problems with back or front focusing with various lenses,
doesn't matter what brand of camera. This is a pain, one that
contrast focusing apparently does not have or if it does, the
incidence is very small. Most decent DSLR's now come with
compensation features for this, but who wants to have to go though the
elimination process for each lens they own and how often has this
compensation not even been enough, or consistent?

And how many contrast-detection focusing systems can track moving
objects at 10 frames per second?

--
Ray Fischer

On 06 Jun 2010 22:19:01 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

RichA wrote:
Forget for the moment the benefits of going away from phase focusing,
such as much lower cost going to contrast focusing. Phase's main
important claim to fame is speed. But that is diminishing, or
contrast is improving. The main problem with phase focusing is the
constant problems with back or front focusing with various lenses,
doesn't matter what brand of camera. This is a pain, one that
contrast focusing apparently does not have or if it does, the
incidence is very small. Most decent DSLR's now come with
compensation features for this, but who wants to have to go though the
elimination process for each lens they own and how often has this
compensation not even been enough, or consistent?

And how many contrast-detection focusing systems can track moving
objects at 10 frames per second?

If I need 10 frames per second then I put my camera in 30 or 60 frames per
second video mode. Contrast focusing seems to track moving subjects just
fine in video mode. Those are frame-rates far beyond what you seem to think
it can't work at. I guess you don't use cameras very much, or at all.

James Nagler wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
Forget for the moment the benefits of going away from phase focusing,
such as much lower cost going to contrast focusing. Phase's main
important claim to fame is speed. But that is diminishing, or
contrast is improving. The main problem with phase focusing is the
constant problems with back or front focusing with various lenses,
doesn't matter what brand of camera. This is a pain, one that
contrast focusing apparently does not have or if it does, the
incidence is very small. Most decent DSLR's now come with
compensation features for this, but who wants to have to go though the
elimination process for each lens they own and how often has this
compensation not even been enough, or consistent?

And how many contrast-detection focusing systems can track moving
objects at 10 frames per second?

If I need 10 frames per second then I put my camera in 30 or 60 frames per
second video mode. Contrast focusing seems to track moving subjects just
fine in video mode.

And after all, focusing doesn't have to be as accurate with a 2MP camera.

By the way, we've all seen how fast video cameras are at adusting to
sudden changes in focus.

Not very.

--
Ray Fischer

Rich wrote:
On Jun 6, 6:19*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
Forget for the moment the benefits of going away from phase focusing,
such as much lower cost going to contrast focusing. *Phase's main
important claim to fame is speed. *But that is diminishing, or
contrast is improving. *The main problem with phase focusing is the
constant problems with back or front focusing with various lenses,
doesn't matter what brand of camera. *This is a pain, one that
contrast focusing apparently does not have or if it does, the
incidence is very small. *Most decent DSLR's now come with
compensation features for this, but who wants to have to go though the
elimination process for each lens they own and how often has this
compensation not even been enough, or consistent?

And how many contrast-detection focusing systems can track moving
objects at 10 frames per second?

None, yet.

Wishful thinking doesn't count.

--
Ray Fischer

On 07 Jun 2010 06:30:16 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

James Nagler wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
Forget for the moment the benefits of going away from phase focusing,
such as much lower cost going to contrast focusing. Phase's main
important claim to fame is speed. But that is diminishing, or
contrast is improving. The main problem with phase focusing is the
constant problems with back or front focusing with various lenses,
doesn't matter what brand of camera. This is a pain, one that
contrast focusing apparently does not have or if it does, the
incidence is very small. Most decent DSLR's now come with
compensation features for this, but who wants to have to go though the
elimination process for each lens they own and how often has this
compensation not even been enough, or consistent?

And how many contrast-detection focusing systems can track moving
objects at 10 frames per second?

If I need 10 frames per second then I put my camera in 30 or 60 frames per
second video mode. Contrast focusing seems to track moving subjects just
fine in video mode.

And after all, focusing doesn't have to be as accurate with a 2MP camera.


Where on earth did you get that stupid and ignorant idea? Inventing things
as you go along again just because you think it sounds plausible in that
pea-brain of yours? (Just more misguided and misinformed DSLR-Troll's inane
justifications no doubt.)

I have a 2.1MP Fuji Finepix from long ago. It has some of the sharpest and
clearest images I've ever seen from any camera. Resolving all details to
individual pixels in every shot. 8x10 prints from it are the norm. It has
to focus just as accurately on that very small sensor as it does on newer
and larger ones with more pixels. It has a pixel density of 9.0-MP/cm^2.
That's almost twice the pixel density (smaller photosites) than a Canon EOS
550D with 5.4-MP/cm^2 density.

So what you are saying is: the focusing for a Canon EOS 550D, an 18MP,
$1000 camera (today's price, body only), must be less accurate than that of
a 2.1 MP, $149 (10 year old price), P&S camera because 550D's photosites
are almost twice as large.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems James Nagler wrote:
If I need 10 frames per second then I put my camera in 30 or 60 frames per
second video mode. Contrast focusing seems to track moving subjects just
fine in video mode.

And after all, focusing doesn't have to be as accurate with a 2MP camera.

Where on earth did you get that stupid and ignorant idea? Inventing things
as you go along again just because you think it sounds plausible in that
pea-brain of yours? (Just more misguided and misinformed DSLR-Troll's inane
justifications no doubt.)

Full HD video is 1920x1080, which equates to 2.4MP, considerably less
than the 12MP or whatever that the camera does in still mode.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

James Nagler wrote:
On 07 Jun 2010 06:30:16 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

James Nagler wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
Forget for the moment the benefits of going away from phase focusing,
such as much lower cost going to contrast focusing. Phase's main
important claim to fame is speed. But that is diminishing, or
contrast is improving. The main problem with phase focusing is the
constant problems with back or front focusing with various lenses,
doesn't matter what brand of camera. This is a pain, one that
contrast focusing apparently does not have or if it does, the
incidence is very small. Most decent DSLR's now come with
compensation features for this, but who wants to have to go though the
elimination process for each lens they own and how often has this
compensation not even been enough, or consistent?

And how many contrast-detection focusing systems can track moving
objects at 10 frames per second?

If I need 10 frames per second then I put my camera in 30 or 60 frames per
second video mode. Contrast focusing seems to track moving subjects just
fine in video mode.

And after all, focusing doesn't have to be as accurate with a 2MP camera.

Where on earth did you get that stupid and ignorant idea?

Because, asshole, a 2MP camera has a lot lower resolution and a 15MP
camera.

Face it: Video cameras suck at quick focusing. We've all seen the
slow in-and-out hunting for focus that happens all too often.

I have a 2.1MP Fuji Finepix from long ago. It has some of the sharpest and
clearest images I've ever seen from any camera.

LOL! You're really desperate.

--
Ray Fischer

James Nagler wrote:
On 07 Jun 2010 06:30:16 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

James Nagler wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
Forget for the moment the benefits of going away from phase focusing,
such as much lower cost going to contrast focusing. Phase's main
important claim to fame is speed. But that is diminishing, or
contrast is improving. The main problem with phase focusing is the
constant problems with back or front focusing with various lenses,
doesn't matter what brand of camera. This is a pain, one that
contrast focusing apparently does not have or if it does, the
incidence is very small. Most decent DSLR's now come with
compensation features for this, but who wants to have to go though the
elimination process for each lens they own and how often has this
compensation not even been enough, or consistent?

And how many contrast-detection focusing systems can track moving
objects at 10 frames per second?

If I need 10 frames per second then I put my camera in 30 or 60 frames per
second video mode. Contrast focusing seems to track moving subjects just
fine in video mode.

And after all, focusing doesn't have to be as accurate with a 2MP camera.

Where on earth did you get that stupid and ignorant idea?

Because, asshole, a 2MP camera has a lot lower resolution than a 15MP
camera.

Face it: Video cameras suck at quick focusing. We've all seen the
slow in-and-out hunting for focus that happens all too often.

I have a 2.1MP Fuji Finepix from long ago. It has some of the sharpest and
clearest images I've ever seen from any camera.

LOL! You're really desperate.

--
Ray Fischer



--
Ray Fischer