Canon's 45 focus points versus Nikon's 11.

[Ian Rance]

A question for those who have tried both Nikon and Canon SLR's.

 

Looking through my Father's EOS book, mention is made of the fact that they

have 45 focus points. Nikon's top CAM 2000 has only 11 points.

 

Is there a real world difference in performance between the two?

 

11 does sound a bit paltry compared to 45 but it is not always the numbers

that count - real world performance is the main thing.

 

Thanks for any info.

 

Ian

[SCL]

IMHO it's irrelevant for 99.99999% of work done. Although I use Nikon SLRs and DSLRs pretty frequently, I much prefer my Manual SLRs....which have a single focus point wherever I want.

[gan_esh]

I've never used all 45 AF points on my 1ds/1v series Canon's. There's a custom function that enables me to select 1 of 11 or 9 points with the jog-dial, which I find much more intuitive.

 

The 1ds Mk'google' which will be released in summer 3069 will have 606 focus points, but most people will still use only 17 of them most of the time.

 

Just my 2 cents. Cheers!

[elliot1]

I always use 1 focus point selecting the position of the one I want depending on the subject matter.

[mark_chappell]

I've used both. It's rare that there's any advantage to 45 AF points over 11. Maybe if one was

shooting a static subject, it would be feasible to fine-tune the focus area down to just one

point, there would be an advantage to the brand C approach. But most of the time it doesn't

matter.

[Ed_Ingold]

The 11 focus points in a D2 camera are more than I generally need. I usually use a single focus point, in the center 80% of the time. It is usually easier to half-press, focus and re-compose than to change the focus point. The 11 point screen gives more flexibility and accuracy than the original 5 points when I use zone focusing for action shots. Nikon focusing is hard to beat for speed and accuracy. Canon's 45 points sounds more like marketing hype rather than a practical benefit.

[Ian Rance]

Well, I tend to use the centre point more than anything else and recompose with focus lock. Find it easier that way. I don't do much action photography though...

 

Along with Stephen, I enjoy using MF camears and lenses as well.

 

Ian

[gary_ferguson1]

I moved from Nikon to Canon a few years ago, there's lots that I miss about Nikon but multiple focus points are a real advantage (and with the new Canon 1Ds MkIII 19 of the 45 focus points will be high-accuracy cross-type points).

 

For portrait shoots you can compose exactly as you wish, place the subject's closest eye directly beneath a focus point, then blaze away with an extremely high ratio of accurately focused results. For tripod mounted shoots, you can again compose and subsequently select the most appropriate focusing point. I've found this more accurate and certainly more convenient than using the centre focusing mark and re-composing.

 

Like I say, as a user of both systems I'd be the first to recognise that Canon haven't got everything right, but multiple focus points is surely one of them.

[wuyeah]

Well, here is my take on focus point. (a Canon to Nikon convert). Canon 45 point focus

does have a lot of "Wow" cool factor but in reality, 45 focus point are rather unneccesary.

 

You can go over at Canon forum and do a research on focus point, you will see most of

Pro sports shooter have turn off the 45 FP feature down to 9 or 11 focus point, some are

lock in on center single FP. When shooting fast action its all about photographer's fast

response and 45FP really don't deliver the first response very well, simply too many FP to

scroll up, down, left or right. Of course in Canon there are 2ndary focus feature when use

9 or 11 focus feature. There is tracking focus too, which Nikon top pro models hv the very

same feature.

 

So, in performance, the 45FP is literally useless than practical. Nikon just keep the feature

simple and functional. I remember I used to rely on 45FP feature because it just looks

cool, but often the 45FP will go randomly off to places that wasn't my intension to focus

on. I still has and still use my Canon 1VHS, which is 45FP, but i do turn off the feature to

center focus only. I found myself respond to situation faster that way.

 

IMO one is not better than the other, but 11 FP is more than enough.

[rafikrkamel]

I think what matters in AF speed when shooting moving subjects is the number of cross sensors u have on board versus linear ones that dont process the data about the moving subject fast enough.

Nikon D70s which i have has only 1 cross while the Mark III as far as i remember has 19 cross sensors!!!

I think that makes a difference in shooting moving subjects.

[john schroeder]

90% of the time I only use MF. When I do use AF I use the center point 90% of that time. Landscapes just don't move that much. Most of the photogs I know primarily use the center Af point as well. I feel that Canon believes that more is better because it is more and not less.

[bruce_stenman1]

Where the extra focus points may help is with predictive focus where the subject moves from one focus point to another or to enable a group of focus points to form a focus cluster which again helps with subjects that are moving. When selecting a focus point with the Canon Mark III, which is state of the art for Canon, the camera has often been fooled by a brighter object in the background. The new firmware is supposed to correct this problem. Where the Mark III is really fantastic is in using the AF point to adjust the exposure setting as the AF point is used to weight the exposure.

 

The D3/D300 with 51 AF points is following the Canon lead but making a substantial improvement in using color to help differentiate a subject from its surroundings. This is all theoretical until the camera has been used in the field by many users in many different situations.

 

Total AF points also do not tell the whole store. TheD200 has 9 AF points but only one cross type that can deal with the horizontal and vertical planes. The Mark III has AF sensors that are twice as sensitive as those in the Mark II and the result is autofocus in low light situations that is remarkable and twice as fast as the D2X.

I have found no mention of how sensitive the AF points are in the new Nikon cameras.