Canon Celebrates 12th Straight Year of No.1 Share of Global ILC Market

[AvTvM]

Yes. Actually any Canon camera with liveview would be fully capable to do full automatic in-camera AFMA. All that's needed is a rather simple piece of software. But for whatever reasons, Canon seems unable to deliver it.

What makes you think they're unable? I trust you're aware that unable and unwilling aren't the same.

If Canon were able to, why would they be unwilling? Nothing to be gained from having dissatisfied users who claim their Canon lenses are not well focussing on their Canon cameras.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes. Actually any Canon camera with liveview would be fully capable to do full automatic in-camera AFMA. All that's needed is a rather simple piece of software. But for whatever reasons, Canon seems unable to deliver it.

What makes you think they're unable? I trust you're aware that unable and unwilling aren't the same.

If Canon were able to, why would they be unwilling? Nothing to be gained from having dissatisfied users who claim their Canon lenses are not well focussing on their Canon cameras.

1. Loss of face from further supporting what could be perceived as acknowledgement that gear leaving the factory is less than perfect (they aren't perfect, of course, but an automatic correction tool highlights it).

2. Concern about causing more problems than they solve – lighting and target choice cause variability, and something 'automatic' should just work. In that context, note that the Canon manuals warn that AFMA can result in improper focus.

3. The more automatic they make it, the fewer billable calibration repairs.

That's off the top of my head, and granted some are conflicting (but that's not uncommon in a business case).

 

[Don Haines]

Yes. Actually any Canon camera with liveview would be fully capable to do full automatic in-camera AFMA. All that's needed is a rather simple piece of software. But for whatever reasons, Canon seems unable to deliver it.

What makes you think they're unable? I trust you're aware that unable and unwilling aren't the same.

If Canon were able to, why would they be unwilling? Nothing to be gained from having dissatisfied users who claim their Canon lenses are not well focussing on their Canon cameras.

1. Loss of face from further supporting what could be perceived as acknowledgement that gear leaving the factory is less than perfect (they aren't perfect, of course, but an automatic correction tool highlights it).

2. Concern about causing more problems than they solve – lighting and target choice cause variability, and something 'automatic' should just work. In that context, note that the Canon manuals warn that AFMA can result in improper focus.

3. The more automatic they make it, the fewer billable calibration repairs.

That's off the top of my head, and granted some are conflicting (but that's not uncommon in a business case).

My bet is that your second point is bang on the money. Look at the amount of ways there are to screw up AFMA using focal.... poor shutter speed, vibrations, poor lighting, misalignment of the target, the floor shook when you moved..... now try and do it without a standard printed target! Now consider that the people who buy Focal are the fanatics and the gearheads, arguably a more technical bunch than the public at large, and try to imagine what would happen.

Manual AFMA used by only the most determined may well be the lesser of two evils to Canon. Making it automatic could end up being a disaster.

 

[AvTvM]

"Automatic" does not mean "no user control whatsoever". I would like to hve it implemented in the menu system, and it has to be started by the user, but then the calibration sequence runs on its own. Similar to having the camera store information about dirt on the sensor/specs and then applying it for auto correction, which is possible in many/all? EOS DSLRs. Or like setting a capture as custom white balance. Of course there is margin for user error, same as when you select a shot of the deep blue sea as the custom wb image for a tungsten lit scene ... Results may not be as expected. A clear set of instructions displayed on the lcd could lead users to correctly set up the af target and lighting (maybe automatic use of pop-up flash or requiring external speedlite).

possible user error should definitely not serve as an excuse to not include an automatic AFMA procedure in cameras with liveview/contrast or on-sensor phase af.

There would also be no loss of face for canon at all, as long as they would just call it something like "worlds first and most advanced closed loop self-calibrating ultra precision autofocus system! Or something similar in marketing blather. Canon normally has no problems with that part of the exercise.

Again, no acceptable reason for not

 

[neuroanatomist]

All that's needed is a rather simple piece of software. ... Canon seems unable to deliver it.

Again, no acceptable reason for not

I'm sure you're right, Canon software engineers are so totally incompetent that they can't code what you describe as a relatively simple piece of software. Yes, that makes perfect sense and must be why they haven't done it. Thanks for your pithy insights.

EDIT: Sorry, looking back I realize you stated "no acceptable reason," and I guess you mean acceptable to you. Canon has a reason, and they don't care a whit whether or not you find it acceptable. But if you've ever used FoCal with less than ideal lighting or stability, you may have some ideas of an acceptable reason.

 

[Don Haines]

"Automatic" does not mean "no user control whatsoever". I would like to hve it implemented in the menu system, and it has to be started by the user, but then the calibration sequence runs on its own. Similar to having the camera store information about dirt on the sensor/specs and then applying it for auto correction, which is possible in many/all? EOS DSLRs. Or like setting a capture as custom white balance. Of course there is margin for user error, same as when you select a shot of the deep blue sea as the custom wb image for a tungsten lit scene ... Results may not be as expected. A clear set of instructions displayed on the lcd could lead users to correctly set up the af target and lighting (maybe automatic use of pop-up flash or requiring external speedlite).

possible user error should definitely not serve as an excuse to not include an automatic AFMA procedure in cameras with liveview/contrast or on-sensor phase af.

There would also be no loss of face for canon at all, as long as they would just call it something like "worlds first and most advanced closed loop self-calibrating ultra precision autofocus system! Or something similar in marketing blather. Canon normally has no problems with that part of the exercise.

Again, no acceptable reason for not

I can see several easy ways of implementing this....I think the best would be to keep a running tally of how far off the various lens/focal length combinations are off by and do some form of statistical averaging over time. It could be done by setting a "learning flag" and then when you take a picture, while the mirror is still up, re-focus in live view and record the difference.

This is so simple that it is a wonder that Canon isn't doing it already.... unless there is something they found out when they tried it that keeps it from working.... the thing is, we don't know. Perhaps they are working on it and haven't got it reliable enough yet.... we just don't know. What we do know is that if they had it working, they would slap it into their new cameras (Firmware update for 7D2 and 70D) and lord it over everyone else as to how superior their system is for focusing ability.

 

[Foxdude]

How is this possible with this crap Canon sensors/bodies, Sony is soooo much better in every way...

Something tells me your sarcasm will go over the heads of many on this forum.

I think so, too. Guys, this is not that serious...

 

[AvTvM]

Re. Automatic AF calibration I am sure Canon is unable to, not unwilling.

They could easily write the software to only work with Canon lenses, leaving Sigma, tamron and all other third party lens makers in the dust - one more time. It is a game that canon just Loves to play normally. Especially when the competitors deliver really great lenses, that beat older design canon lenses that were not updated in a long time (eg 50mm/1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2 etc.). Canon not offering auto-afma exclusive for their own lenses is fairly clear evidence they are not able to do it (yet).

 

[fragilesi]

Re. Automatic AF calibration I am sure Canon is unable to, not unwilling.

They could easily write the software to only work with Canon lenses, leaving Sigma, tamron and all other third party lens makers in the dust - one more time. It is a game that canon just Loves to play normally. Especially when the competitors deliver really great lenses, that beat older design canon lenses that were not updated in a long time (eg 50mm/1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2 etc.). Canon not offering auto-afma exclusive for their own lenses is fairly clear evidence they are not able to do it (yet).

Yes and having been a software developer and worked with lots on various things it's amazing how often something "simple" suddenly turns into something near impossible to get right in the "real world".

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe it's semantics. They could certainly (and I suspect already have done so) write the code to compare a set of live view shots with phase AF shots, determine the offset, and apply it as an AFMA. That's what I mean by 'able' to do so. However, I doubt such an implementation would be robust enough to work effectively in the hands of the masses. Thus, they are 'unwilling' to release it.

A clear set of instructions displayed on the lcd could lead users to correctly set up the af target and lighting (maybe automatic use of pop-up flash or requiring external speedlite).

Sorry, I don't really believe you've thought this through adequately. On screen instructions starting: "Mount camera on stable tripod," something which the average user probably doesn't even have. Automatic use of popup flash? What's needed is bright, continuous lighting during repeated autofocusing steps.

 

[Marsu42]

They could certainly (and I suspect already have done so) write the code to compare a set of live view shots with phase AF shots, determine the offset, and apply it as an AFMA. That's what I mean by 'able' to do so. However, I doubt such an implementation would be robust enough to work effectively in the hands of the masses. Thus, they are 'unwilling' to release it.

This is about what Magic Lantern dot_tune does, freely available on all Canon camera bodies except a few exotic models :->. Imho the measurement itself is rather fool-proof - *if* you really take the pain to set up the camera properly which the more difficult to do as you pointed out.

The real problem is that it varies so much with subject distance, or at least that's my experience. That's why *any* method to automatically measure afma with the current system would backfire on service costs as people of course would expect the results to work "out of the box".
.

 

[neuroanatomist]

They could certainly (and I suspect already have done so) write the code to compare a set of live view shots with phase AF shots, determine the offset, and apply it as an AFMA. That's what I mean by 'able' to do so. However, I doubt such an implementation would be robust enough to work effectively in the hands of the masses. Thus, they are 'unwilling' to release it.

This is about what Magic Lantern dot_tune does, freely available on all Canon camera bodies except a few exotic models :->. Imho the measurement itself is rather fool-proof - *if* you really take the pain to set up the camera properly which the more difficult to do as you pointed out.

The real problem is that it varies so much with subject distance, or at least that's my experience. That's why *any* method to automatically measure afma with the current system would backfire on service costs as people of course would expect the results to work "out of the box".

Exactly my point. I also think (based on personal testing) that DotTune adds some additional variability, enough to make it unreliable IMO.

 

[unfocused]

...I think the best would be to keep a running tally of how far off the various lens/focal length combinations are off by and do some form of statistical averaging over time. It could be done by setting a "learning flag" and then when you take a picture, while the mirror is still up, re-focus in live view and record the difference...

... unless there is something they found out when they tried it that keeps it from working.... the thing is, we don't know. Perhaps they are working on it and haven't got it reliable enough yet....

Yes and having been a software developer and worked with lots on various things it's amazing how often something "simple" suddenly turns into something near impossible to get right in the "real world".

I'm going with Don and Fragilesi here. I'd be willing to bet Canon is working on this – it's such a natural and obvious outgrowth of DPAF that I can't imagine they haven't considered it.

I'm no software engineer, but I know from 60+ years of life experience that when an outsider claims something is "simple" or "easy to do" they are invariably wrong.

I don't buy the argument that Canon is somehow withholding the feature – that's just nonsense. I also don't think it has anything to do with protecting their repair business – Most repair facilities are run at cost or even at a loss, so anything that might reduce the volume would be seen as desirable.

I do, however, believe that Canon would not implement the technology until it is perfected, simple and reliable and I suspect that takes more time and research than people here imagine.

 

[sanj]

Neuro. Peace.
Lets forget and move on.

Yikes, that's a creepy picture!

That is what Mr. Rude calls me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Neuro. Peace.
Lets forget and move on.

Yikes, that's a creepy picture!

That is what Mr. Rude calls me.

It seems you are incapable of any of those. How sad.

 

[RGF]

How is this possible with this crap Canon sensors/bodies, Sony is soooo much better in every way...

Why haven't you switched - serious question, not a cheap shot. Cost or does canon offer some benefits such as range of lenses that does not?

Or should I read you smily face as a wink?

 

[RGF]

The entire market is shrinking. Canon, being the market leader is leading the way into decline. There is no one else to blame. The higher they sit, the deeper they fall (DEC, Nokia ... and a few other examples out there).

Where is the innovation and strategy to lead people back into ILC?

Sony, Samsung, Nikon ... are eating their way into this shrinking market. Yes, they have the most complete system, but they are loosing just about every single IQ comparison I have seen. Where is Canon's counter attack?

Sony and Samsung is flooring Canon in mirrorless. Where is the counter attack?

Cell phones are killing point&shoot. Where is the counter attack?

Sigma 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and soon 85/1.4. Where is the counter attack?

In my view Canon is showing all the signs of a market leader falling asleep at the wheel ...

DEC - I have not heard that name for years. What happened to them and their VAX computer? This will definitely show my age but in grad school we had a PDP 11/40 running RT11.

 

[RGF]

Now how about an AFMA tool so photogs dont have to waste time with this nonsense.
Sigma can do it, why lazy canon

Can you share some more info on this Sigma AFMA tool?

If he is talking about the Sigma lens dock, I don't think it does what he thinks it does. On the other hand, I do hope Canon soon finds a way to use DPAF to make AFMA automatic. As I understand it, DPAF guarantees that in live view, the lens plane of focus will actually fall on the sensor. (Probably not using the right terms) It does seem as though there ought to be a way to feed that data back to the lens and then adjust it for the viewfinder.

It would be great if this could be made to work

 

[RGF]

If he is talking about the Sigma lens dock, I don't think it does what he thinks it does. On the other hand, I do hope Canon soon finds a way to use DPAF to make AFMA automatic. As I understand it, DPAF guarantees that in live view, the lens plane of focus will actually fall on the sensor. (Probably not using the right terms) It does seem as though there ought to be a way to feed that data back to the lens and then adjust it for the viewfinder.

Yes. Actually any Canon camera with liveview would be fully capable to do full automatic in-camera AFMA. All that's needed is a rather simple piece of software. But for whatever reasons, Canon seems unable to deliver it.

Yet another wasted opportunity to create additional, massive unique sales propositions for the EOS system that would be truly useful to every serious photographer.

Just like the refusal to bring back Eye Control AF in a much improved, digital-age version 2.0

Or the strange hesitation to really push the radio wireless RT speedlite system forward - i.e. to build an RT commander into every single EOS camera and bring a smaller/cheaper 430EX-RT slave flash and a small, reliable and affordable RT-transceiver to allow owners of 580EX II/430EX II speedlites [but not third party flashes] to include those speedlites in a radio wireless flash setup.

Absolutely inexplicable, why Canon still did not implement those 3 things. Would not cost a lot, but generate massive advantages for Canon EOS users and help Canon in the marketplace.

Love to see eye control back though I suspect Canon abandoned it because users were inconsistent in how they placed their eye up to the camera (making the technology very difficult / nearly impossible to implement robustly).

As far as radio controlled flashes, this may be a legal /manufacturing challenge. Different countries allow different frequencies. It is easy to make a flash to listen to all, but harder to make the range of bodies needed for each country. Easier to make flash control unit specific to each country (vs a body).

 

[sanj]

Neuro. Peace.
Lets forget and move on.

Yikes, that's a creepy picture!

That is what Mr. Rude calls me.

It seems you are incapable of any of those. How sad.

Incorrect! I am incapable? Me?? I was the one to who offered peace. But you did not bother to respond. I still want to make peace. Hope you do too. Really hope you do. But if you think it is below you to make peace, it will be indeed sad. I never called you any names - I just said: "You seriously think that them improving technology for betterment of photography and ease of photography is a bad thing? Is it all only about sales for you? I find this mentality so regressive."

Do note: I did not say YOU were regressive, just that that kind of mentality is. I hope you can see the difference.

I have over the last years spoke very highly of you in many posts. But you called me, a 50 year old guy "grow up" and iced that with calling me Pollyana. I still told you that lets forget all this and move on. But you ignored that completely.

And if you do want to peace (not sure you do as you did not respond to the earlier offer), then you would have to admit that calling me Pollyana was below the belt.

Your move.