Canon 40D

Art,

In Rob Galbraith's recent report on the Autofocus problems of the Canon ID-MkIII, he also included some less than favorable comments about the autofocus capabilty of the Canon 40D.

"While we haven't written about the 40D's autofocus performance before, we have done assignments with it and included the camera in various tests, starting at about the time it shipped in September 2007. Since then we've shot with four bodies, two focus-calibrated and two that came directly from the store shelf. Using focus-calibrated lenses with these bodies, the result has been the same: the 40D has real difficulties accurately picking up the focus on a moving subject and then tracking it from there.

..........the 40D doesn't fare well. It's not that it can't do the job at the level of a more expensive camera, it's that it can't do the job really at all."

I guess this surprises me as I have seen any number of terrific shots of birds in flight in your email bulletins.

Could you speak to the differences between sport and bird photography that might account for the differences, or does this all come down to technique (mine is poor so I can't speak about it myself)?

Are you satisfied with your percentage of acceptably focused shots with your 40D when shooting moving objects?

Thanks
Ken

PS if you have addressed this elsewhere, I just missed it.

I can only speak from my experiences and share the images that I make with the various camera and lens combinations. First off, as regular readers of the Bulletin know, I have never been totally happy with AF performance of any Canon camera that I have ever owned, and I am 99.99999% sure that if I were a Nikon user the same would be true. I have written Canon over the years to the efftect that I would love to see an AF system that was science-fiction-like in it accurcacy: sharp on the eye 100% of the time regardless of light, contrast, focal length, and wing position. Obviously I am dreaming.

Having never done sports--I know deep down that if I ever did I could easily be one of the best as I know both sports and photography--I cannot compare the two but am pretty sure that there are many more similarities than differences.

On the whole, I have been thrilled with the AI Servo AF performance of the 40D. You have seen the images here on BPN and in the Bulletins as well... I really have to wonder what is going on when someone says "it's that it can't do the job at all..."

Just the other day I noticed that the 40D had some problems on the 600 with the 1.4X II TC in low light/low contrast situations... But, I was working on the BLUBB from the car and had the manual focusing ring on the BLUBB so there may have been some user error encountered. Or, a dirty TC, or a dirty drop-in filter.... IAC, there are times when AF with any system will have problems and low lgith/low contrast is at the top of that list...

Well, maybe not the top of the list as there is always operator error including the failure to keep the central sensor on the bird and lots, lots more...

Lots of folks are eager to pass me off as a Canon shill but that is there problem not mine. I make the images and then I share the images.

PS: why don't you send Rob links to some of my flight shots and ask him for his comments.. He always seems eager to comment on Canon AF issues.

What say the rest of you 40D users???

(Royal Tern above with 40D and 400 DO).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Kovak

..........the 40D doesn't fare well. It's not that it can't do the job at the level of a more expensive camera, it's that it can't do the job really at all."

---

That is a pretty strong statement by Rob. Probably purposefully harsh to provoke debate? Who knows. I've seen plenty of excellent, perfectly sharp and focussed flight images with the 40D - here at BPN and elsewhere. If it "can't do the job really at all" then how can one explain Artie's example above, or mine here, or many others around...they can't all be luck now can they?? Didn't think so;)

My example is also a Royal Tern. 40D and the "slow" 100-400 no less.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w...rn_2585-01.jpg

Artie,

Do you see a different keeper rate with the 40D compared to the 1D cameras? Or that you need to do more extensive PS to achieve the same quality?

I mean there must be a difference between the 40D and the 1D series justifying the several $$$K difference in price. Canon can't be happy that you're telling and demonstrating the world that the 40D can take images of the same quality. :)

JR

Artie,

Thanks for your comments and perspectives on the 40D autofocus. I appreciate you taking the time.

Since you suggested it, I may just send Rob Gailbraith some links to your 40D shots and see if he comments.

Thanks again,
Ken

Hi John,

re:,

Do you see a different keeper rate with the 40D compared to the 1D cameras?

I feel that my keeper % for flight is higher with the 40D than with the 1D MIII.

Or that you need to do more extensive PS to achieve the same quality?

Do you mean sharpness or image quality? In either case, the answer is no.

I mean there must be a difference between the 40D and the 1D series justifying the several $$$K difference in price.

There are of course major differences, the two main ones being no AF at f/8 and half the frame rate.

Canon can't be happy that you're telling and demonstrating the world that the 40D can take images of the same quality.

Not sure how Canon feels; not my business :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Kovak

Artie, Thanks for your comments and perspectives on the 40D autofocus. I appreciate you taking the time. Since you suggested it, I may just send Rob Gailbraith some links to your 40D shots and see if he comments. Thanks again, Ken

---

Hi Ken, YAW. I would love for you to send him a few links.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Hi John,

There are of course major differences, the two main ones being no AF at f/8 and half the frame rate.

---

Art,
What do you mean by this?

I've been using the 40D for almost a year now and have not had a auto-focus problem that I didn't cause. Sorry don't have photo to post but I'm at work.
I know a friend had a problem with new 40D but it was a stuck shutter button that was fixed. He seems happy with it now.

Cheryl the 40D will only AF to f 5.6 while the pro bodies will do so to f 8.0 Ex the 400 DO lens will AF with a 2X converter and a pro body... not with the 40D. There you can only use a 1.4X

The 1D series cameras like the Mk111 fire at twice the rate as the 40D

I've had pretty good luck with AF on flight shots with the 40D.

I have moved up the chain from 10D to 20D to 30D to 40D. The 30D was close on flight shots sometimes, but the 40D does much better.

I don't have any experience with the 1D series, but my last film body was a 1N that I was happy with.

jn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred Forns

The 1D series cameras like the Mk111 fire at twice the rate as the 40D

---

(Interesting discussion).

Not quite twice the rate- 6.5 vs. 10 = 1.5x (yes I get 6.5 fps on the initial burst on the 40D).

I have had good luck with the 40D and birds in flight and for me I know that it is my limitations rather than the camera that matters. Photographing BIF is a bit like a shoot'em-up video game and I'm too old to have had much practice with this form of recreation. The main challenge for me is keeping the AF mark on the focus target (eye) when the target is moving and you have a telephoto lens installed. In this regard I noticed a difference between my 40D and Artie's 1D MKIII he loaned me at Bonaventure I. in June. The AF rectangle on the MKIII is bigger than the 40D's and is therefore more forgiving and somewhat easier to place in the vicinity of the focus target.

I have the 40D and a 1Ds3. In now way do I find the AF accuracy and speed approaching that of the pro camera for BIF's or perched shots...It's good, but not that good. Can't speak for the 1D3 though even if RG says that are the same AF wise....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by c.w. moynihan

I have the 40D and a 1Ds3. In now way do I find the AF accuracy and speed approaching that of the pro camera for BIF's or perched shots...It's good, but not that good.

---

I believe what I stated above is that I got a higher % of keepers on BIF with the 40D than with the 1D III. AF speed of inititial focus acquisition is faster with all of the pro bodies than with the 40D but I was referring to AI Servo focus tracking accuracy and consistency which I do find better in the 40D than with the 1D MIII.

I owned a 1Ds III and felt from the get-go that it focused more accurately than the MIII. I sold it because I did not need the extra pixels or the noise.

Again, there is a huge difference between fast AF pick-up and AI Servo tracking accuracy and consistency. You simply cannot equate the two.

CW, you own 40D. Would you agree with Rob's statement..........the 40D doesn't fare well. It's not that it can't do the job at the level of a more expensive camera, it's that it can't do the job really at all."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

(Interesting discussion). The AF rectangle on the MKIII is bigger than the 40D's and is therefore more forgiving and somewhat easier to place in the vicinity of the focus target.

---

John, Excellent point. I too find it harder to keep the central sensor right on the subject and had never thought that the size of the central AF sensor might be the problem..

When I turn AF Search from On to Off the 40D does not see anything unless you pre-focus manually. The MIII is a lot more forgiving in that regard. Furthermore, with the 40D, havind AF Search On turned to Off does not seem to make a difference; when that tiny AF sensor falls off the subject, it does search which does not really make sense considering that I wrote this just above: "When I turn AF Search from On to Off the 40D does not see anything unless you pre-focus manually." The two simply do not jibe.

Lastly, I have been having problems with the 40D when using it on a big lens with the 1.4X TC in low light/low contrast situations. With many images the system appears to be focusing accurately (in AI Servo AF) but the images are simply not sharply focused when I view them on the computer.

This has happened on the BLUBB where there might be some issues involved with tracking moving subjects and the lens barrel rotating slightly, but also on the ground pod where no such issues could arise.. Whenever you notice any focusing accuracy problems the first two things that you should do are check the drop-in filter to make sure it is spotless and clean the contacts... More to follow....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Furthermore, with the 40D, havind AF Search On turned to Off does not seem to make a difference; when that tiny AF sensor falls off the subject, it does search which does not really make sense considering that I wrote this just above: "When I turn AF Search from On to Off the 40D does not see anything unless you pre-focus manually." The two simply do not jibe.

---

I am glad you say that as I've been wondering myself what AF Search Off is trying to accomplish. Initially, I had hoped that it would prevent the AF to immediately jump to the background when the AF sensor is off the object. But as you said it still does it. That being said I find my 40D to hunt much much less if I set AF Search to Off, particularly with a 1.4TC.

JR

I know of at least one accomplished bird photographer whose skills are without doubt but whose first 40D was a complete dude. AF acquisition and tracking was horrible. However, the 2nd body performed like a charm. So, there is some variability out there and of course not all are perfect or bad but there will be some which fall in between.

JR

Well, I will have to say that my first 40D performed great at first. Then I noticed that it would lose focus when I was taking a bird flying across in front of me. The first couple of images would be fine but then all others would be out of focus.Then one day it just quit focusing altogether. Noise was a problem also even at low settings. A couple of trips back to canon repair facility did no good but I am happy to say Hunts Camera replaced the camera for me and I sure appreciated that. This one seems to be doing fine. :) The spoonbill flying I posted a day or so ago was one that I was using High Speed continuous and it was probably the 8th - 9th image of that bird in succession. It sure makes a person feel bad when a camera starts acting up and won't perform correctly.
bf

I usually use a MKIII for flight, but while at Viera last Dec I was trying out a 40D. While not a D, I was surprised as I found it to work fairly well, much better then the 30D. This Caracara was flapping not gliding.

The examples posted so far have the bird flying diagonally, so less of a challenge for the AF tracking system. How about birds flying straight toward you. Where I have had the most problems with AF tracking is fast moving subjects, like an animal running towards me or a bird flying directly towards me. In this regard, I've found the lens is an important factor in success as well as the body. I have found the 1DII (don't have a III) bodies perform much better than 10D, 20D, 30D (I don't have a 40D yet).
Canon specs its AF systems with a 300 f/2.8 lens.

Roger

I have had the same experience Roger describs with the camera having trouble focusing on birds flying toward me, e.g., black skimmers last weekend against a clear blue sky using all focus points. I was using a 400 f5.6 lens at the time. I've been handholding a lot with that lens and have gotten much better at obtaining sharp images like the sanderling posted in the Wild and Free forum. However, I have had some trouble with the flying skimmers.

With a bird flying toward you every camera I came across has trouble keeping focus. The 1D3 has a faster focusing system but not every image of incoming birds is in focus even though it has two processors versus one in the 40D.

[IMG]http://********.org/bpn/40D/_MG_2140.jpg[/IMG]

My 40D does a fantastic job, now do I get all keepers?? sure the heck no but that's a problem with any camera manufacture. Technique is the key!!

This image was taken handheld with a 300mm f/4 IS L.

This thread and Artie's recent bulletins have made me want a 40D badly. I wonder if those who own the 40D and don't like the Af should send it in for service? My Canon 10D was perfect out of the box for flight photography--and the popup flash rocked. I hated the 20D when I first got it--then I realized it was just way more finnicky about having to keep the sensor on the bird. After dropping it once I sent it off to Canon and it came back so much better.....

I use (2) 40Ds for bird photography all the time. I switched to this camera after having two Mark III's in my possession that eventually succumbed to the dreaded "ERROR 99" syndrome. Although the 40D does not have all the bells and whistles of the professional cameras, I am more than pleased with the autofocus of this camera.

One of the two 40Ds is permanently attached to the Canon 600mm, f/4 lens and the other to the Canon 400mm, f5.6 lens. I use them almost every day.

I am anxious however to get my hands on a 50D when they become available in October.

Alan