Are there any canon dslrs with auto focus or tracking?

Yeah but they all suck...

lets not forget what these cameras are intended to be.. if you need good auto focus on video get a 'video' camera.

these DSLRs are 'stills' cameras with some video features.

dont mean to be blunt, but that is the reality of the situation.

Cheers
 
Face tracking does not suck on the GH2. Here is an example: https://vimeo.com/25699020

I have used face recognition tracking on the GH2 with the video optimized 14-140 lens, and can vouch for the fact that it is almost as good as tracking autofocus on my TM900 camcorder.

Here is what the Sony DSLTs can do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGVVeq6m6hw

Some will say that "pros" don't use autofocus, but here is a pro waxing eloquent about how great it is to have autofocus with the new Sony NEX-FS700 digital cinema camera using the same alpha lenses that are available on NEX and Alpha still cameras: https://vimeo.com/40369782

So you don't need a camcorder for tracking video autofocus that 'doesn't suck' - unless, of course, you are a Canon DSLR shooter :smile:

P.S. I am not a Canon hater, I kept my best EF-S lens when I sold my T2i, just in case Canon figures this out. Maybe with the T4i?
 
Last edited:
This is why event and doc shooters are better of in a lot of cases with a dedicated video cam. Auto focus is a worthless feature (I'd rather not pay for) in narrative work, but pretty important to those guys.
 
Sorry, g_e. I have to respectfully disagree. I shoot narrative, and a follow-focus is a piece of equipment I'd rather not pay for. For me, autofocus is not optional, it is mandatory. And I can't afford a dedicated large sensor video cam yet. To each his or her own, I guess.

Cheers,

Bill
 
brunerww said:
Sorry, g_e. I have to respectfully disagree. I shoot narrative, and a follow-focus is a piece of equipment I'd rather not pay for. For me, autofocus is not optional, it is mandatory. And I can't afford a dedicated large sensor video cam yet. To each his or her own, I guess.

Cheers,

Bill
Click to expand...

One of the two or three most vital and useful tools in a director's hands (or cinematography) is the use of selective focus to put the audience's attention where you want it to be in the frame. Taking that tool out of your hands and turning over to a chip is so... I don't even know what to say to that because it just makes no sense to me. There's always the original follow focus. It's called a hand, it has fingers you can put on the lens and turn the focus ring.
 
True back in the 20th century when I went to film school (35 years ago). With a 21st century camera, I touch the screen and the chip racks it right to the object of interest. Same result on the screen - a lot less work and money ;-)
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
One of the two or three most vital and useful tools in a director's hands (or cinematography) is the use of selective focus to put the audience's attention where you want it to be in the frame. Taking that tool out of your hands and turning over to a chip is so... I don't even know what to say to that because it just makes no sense to me. There's always the original follow focus. It's called a hand, it has fingers you can put on the lens and turn the focus ring.
Click to expand...

Well, I get it. I mean, not every scene needs selective focus that can't be found by a chip. Sometimes you just want to focus on a dude's face. But what gets me is, I always see it as a sign of unprofessionalism or inexperience when someone uses autofocus for film. Learning to focus on your own is one of the first things a cinematographer learns, or should learn, and should be so natural that even if all you want to do is focus on a dude's face, you should be able to get that done without even thinking about it.
Every situation is different, fine, and it's a tool that maybe isn't necessary 99% of the time... but just like a graded ND filter or green gels, every now and then autofocus may be just what you need. But god help you if you use it when you don't need it.
 
Wow, you nailed it...that is exactly what I need facial tracking for....running shots. I truly think it's almost impossible to stay in focus manually while someones moving constantly and at different speeds...that gh2 facial tracking looks awesome!
 
With a 21st century camera, I touch the screen and the chip racks it right to the object of interest. Same result on the screen - a lot less work and money ;-)
Click to expand...
IF it were a true capacitive touch screen i MIGHT buy that. but you have to touch the screen firmly enough, its entirely possible you might move the camera.
 
wgzn said:
IF it were a true capacitive touch screen i MIGHT buy that. but you have to touch the screen firmly enough, its entirely possible you might move the camera.
Click to expand...

Works just fine, thanks. Doesn't shake the camera noticeably if it is locked down, on a rig or even handheld, as in this example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od8hTLTMHIA

Fast, quiet, accurate. I will never go back to follow focus mechanisms or hiring focus pullers. But to each his or her own.

Cheers,

Bill
 
Last edited:
Fast, quiet, accurate. I will never go back to follow focus mechanisms or hiring focus pullers.
Click to expand...
what do you do if you need a slower focus change than the auto will allow?
 
I'm the head of the Luddite club. It took a ten email thread for my editor to convince me to let him do a sky replacement in a shot in one of my shorts. That's how "cutting edge" I am with technology. I'm a believer that part of art is process. HOW you get the shot is as important as the shot itself.
 
So far, I have not had the need, but if I did, I would choose a system lens with a slower AF mechanism like my Olympus or Sigma.
Click to expand...
thats not going to give you the smooth crawl you get from a follow focus (or even your hand). nowhere even close...

but as you've said "...to each his or her own."

HOW you get the shot is as important as the shot itself.
Click to expand...
whole-heartedly agreed.

but with that said. in 15 years of shooting, ive probably had about 8 situations where i NEEDED a follow focus. and only about 2 of those couldnt have been done simply "hands-on-lens"
 
wgzn said:
thats not going to give you the smooth crawl you get from a follow focus (or even your hand). nowhere even close...

but as you've said "...to each his or her own."


whole-heartedly agreed.

but with that said. in 15 years of shooting, ive probably had about 8 situations where i NEEDED a follow focus. and only about 2 of those couldnt have been done simply "hands-on-lens"
Click to expand...

My DP who is a union operator and focus puller usually just uses his hand. I (without his 20 years of experience) like the focus marks and the ergonomics of a FF.
 
WhiteMonkey said:
no, you're looking at the wrong products for auto-focus. Not a feature on a Canon.
Click to expand...

WM - FYI - in addition to asking whether Canon DSLRs offered video AF or tracking, the OP was looking for a list of other cameras with AF in video mode. I offered the Panasonic GHs as an option, thus the extended conversation about its touchscreen AF capability. One of the reasons I sold my Canon was because it did not offer this feature.


gonzo_entertainment said:
I'm the head of the Luddite club. It took a ten email thread for my editor to convince me to let him do a sky replacement in a shot in one of my shorts. That's how "cutting edge" I am with technology. I'm a believer that part of art is process. HOW you get the shot is as important as the shot itself.
Click to expand...

I respect this completely. I'm a Luddite myself in many other areas of life :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top