# Digital Rev quick 2.0.2 autofocus speed test



## FunPhotons (Jul 14, 2013)

How Quick: Canon EOS M Autofocus (Firmware 2.0.2.)

Olympus is the fastest at .17s

Canon & Fuji X100S are next at .4s

In their test Canon behaved oddly by the camera would think it was focused when it wasn't - only on tripod. They used the 22mm lens without IS so I don't know what happened there.


----------



## distant.star (Jul 14, 2013)

.
If he gets any more childish, Hollywood will surely come calling.

He could be in one of those 'Dumb & Dumber' movies I hear about.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 14, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> If he gets any more childish, Hollywood will surely come calling.
> 
> He could be in one of those 'Dumb & Dumber' movies I hear about.



What about the video is childish? Humor?


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jul 14, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



I like this! Childish schmildish it is funny and informative...bravo.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 14, 2013)

josephandrews222 said:


> Jay Khaos said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...




I agree.. I suspect some think it's childish because Kai isnt a Canon fanboy. I think its hilarious, and at the same time they conduct their own tests and give you the POV as if you're there rather than reciting product info and taking screenshots of a test paper that could be biased in an infinite amount of ways by the reviewer who no doubt has at least SOME brand bias... I think it's smart to be personable and entertaining if you're doing a 10+ minute long video. That's how their following is so big! Or maybe illuminati....


----------



## infared (Jul 14, 2013)

Kai is particularly foul-mouthed with this one, (which I don't mind..makes me laugh), but he does have his facts straight no matter how he delivers them...and he reinforced my choice in a complementary mirrorless camera system to my FF kit...Canon entered the foray last and missed, even knowing all the players and what they were holding in their hand. Hence the "sell-off". Perhaps the M2 or M3 will hit the mark, with better focusing specs AND at least the option of a VF....


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 14, 2013)

Why I bought M:
1. $299 - for crop sensor + 22mm f2 prime. Can't beat that
2. Will be used for still shooting

Don't expect too much from $299 camera. Faster focus will be in next version(s). Start your saving NOW, you looking @ $1300-$1500ish.


----------



## bleephotography (Jul 14, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Why I bought M:
> 1. $299 - for crop sensor + 22mm f2 prime. Can't beat that
> 2. Will be used for still shooting
> 
> Don't expect too much from $299 camera. Faster focus will be in next version(s). Start your saving NOW, you looking @ $1300-$1500ish.



Considering the current offering retails for $599 WITH kit lens, I highly doubt a mark II (when/if it's released) would cost more than double. Expect a $800-$1000 price range.

It's a _good_ camera, but it could have been great. For $299 though, one really can't complain...or so you'd think :


----------



## drjlo (Jul 14, 2013)

josephandrews222 said:


> I like this! Childish schmildish it is funny and informative...bravo.



I almost missed the "Extra DVD" past the official end of video. It's hilarious especially the "Can Canon AF beat exploding champagne" bit, and the conclusion was informative: "Canon's AF speed is adequate for everyday situations."


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 14, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Why I bought M:
> 1. $299 - for crop sensor + 22mm f2 prime. Can't beat that
> 2. Will be used for still shooting
> 
> Don't expect too much from $299 camera. Faster focus will be in next version(s). Start your saving NOW, you looking @ $1300-$1500ish.



True... plus this video is only about AF. I think if all cameras were compared side by side and reviews on all of their features and lenses, the Canon wouldn't look nearly as bad—especially if the current prices are factored. Although I have to admit the video makes me feel a LITTLE better about missing the $299 deal! lol.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 15, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> What about the video is childish? Humor?



I thought it was funny, but I wasn't laughing with him.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 15, 2013)

infared said:


> but he does have his facts straight no matter how he delivers them...



No he doesn't. There are plenty of firmware 2 AF test videos online where the camera does not behave that way, including a set of videos linked by canonrumors.com when the firmware was released. He couldn't spent 5 minutes investigating the results of others, or his camera body for malfunction, or his test setup for human error. He was too busy working on his lines to come off as an edgy child.

If somebody gets better results then you do while testing a piece of equipment, then it's time to stop blaming the equipment and start looking for differences. That's how an adult reviewer works.

He's as bad as Ken Rockwell can be at times.


----------



## infared (Jul 15, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > but he does have his facts straight no matter how he delivers them...
> ...



The order of fastest focus speed was and is correct:
1. Olympus 
2. Fuji
3. Canon
Professionally delivered...well no...but I don't think anyone...(including Digital Rev)..is going to argue that...
There are always PLENTY of pixel-peeping reviews for all things photographic for all to rely on for your 
need for high-tech info...but the Kai reviews claim to be nothing more than what they are...somewhat entertaining...somewhat informative...certainly not all serious...the stodgy need not apply, that's OK...the rest of us can all have a laugh and perhaps learn something as well! When my photos are approached in that manner...I usually have a better time of it as well!


----------



## bleephotography (Jul 15, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > but he does have his facts straight no matter how he delivers them...
> ...



I don't understand your hostility, you can clearly see his testing procedure whilst he was doing it. Just because his isolated incident doesn't fall in line with the videos _you've_ seen, that doesn't mean his findings were any less valid. Would you rather he lied and said it functioned flawlessly without any hiccups? Sure, that might make you feel more validated about your purchase, but that wouldn't benefit potential consumers in making an informed decision.


----------



## expatinasia (Jul 15, 2013)

> *Probably on sale soon!*



Haha, that cracked me up. He was spot on with that prediction!! US$299 anyone?! ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 15, 2013)

infared said:


> The order of fastest focus speed was and is correct:
> 1. Olympus
> 2. Fuji
> 3. Canon



I'm not debating that or referring to it. I'm referring to the difficulty getting it to focus at all while he groans in the background. "What, is that not enough contrast for you???"

Whatever...


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 15, 2013)

bleephotography said:


> I don't understand your hostility, you can clearly see his testing procedure whilst he was doing it.



And I can just as clearly see the room for human error. Hence the "hostility."



> Would you rather he lied and said it functioned flawlessly without any hiccups?



I'd rather he test like an adult.


----------



## bleephotography (Jul 15, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> bleephotography said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand your hostility, you can clearly see his testing procedure whilst he was doing it.
> ...



And what exactly is wrong with the room? The other cameras tested were subjected to the same environmental variables, yet they didn't exhibit similar, or any, focus inconsistency for the matter. Sure, his sarcastic attitude isn't for everyone, but it is what keeps his continued subscribers coming back as it is a refreshing and relatively witty approach to the usual monotonous review. To each his own, I suppose.


----------



## infared (Jul 15, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> bleephotography said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand your hostility, you can clearly see his testing procedure whilst he was doing it.
> ...



Um..then perhaps you should not frequent Digital Rev...the whole point is that Kai is campy...


----------



## expatinasia (Jul 15, 2013)

infared said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather he test like an adult.
> ...



I would not describe Kai as "camp". I think his videos are refreshing and entertaining.

Michael Mcyintyre (spelling!) is camp, but he is one of the funniest comedians in the world, and is happily married with kids etc.

Kai also got some points spot on:

1) He predicted a sale on the price of the M
2) The focus is not very good but is better than before the firmware update
3) It is suitable for everyday shots.


----------



## comsense (Jul 15, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Why I bought M:
> 1. $299 - for crop sensor + 22mm f2 prime. Can't beat that
> 2. Will be used for still shooting
> 
> Don't expect too much from $299 camera. Faster focus will be in next version(s). Start your saving NOW, you looking @ $1300-$1500ish.


I expect EOS M II to catch up with the competition and not beat it. If they price at 1300-1500, it would be awesome. So, all one need to do is just sit tight and wait retailers to offload their unsold stock for $300 again.
Fortunately, Fan boys don't generate profits for Canon, otherwise all their products would be priced 5X higher.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 15, 2013)

bleephotography said:


> And what exactly is wrong with the room? The other cameras tested were subjected to the same environmental variables, yet they didn't exhibit similar, or any, focus inconsistency for the matter.



* He put the target in front of a window. If the AF point of any camera is not precisely aligned it can jump between target / window / background. First major sign that whatever his skills as a photographer, he lacks the knowledge and attention to detail to setup and perform valid, repeatable tests.

* It was pretty obvious that the camera distances / positions were not precisely maintained between tests.

* He made no effort to ascertain if the M's failure to acquire focus was due to human error, camera malfunction, or was an accurate discovery of a weakness. He just rolls his eyes and whines "IIITTTT'SSS [email protected]@@PPP!!!"

* He did not test equivalent lenses on the bodies. Pancake lenses are typically slower to focus on any system. He tested pancake against zooms. If I test a Canon 300mm f/4L IS USM against an old Nikon 300mm that relies on the body AF motor, is it a reflection of the body AF subsystem speed or the lens?

He acted and tested like a child. I'm not hostile towards him. I'm just calling it as I see it.


----------



## Swphoto (Jul 15, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> He acted and tested like a child. I'm not hostile towards him. I'm just calling it as I see it.



DigitalRev episodes are for entertainment, with some good, practical information shared in many of them. If you're looking for well designed, repeatable tests with detailed analysis...there are plenty of options for that elsewhere.

This is similar to someone watching Top Gear when trying to decide which car to buy. It's not meant to be serious, and if you watch it expecting it to be, you'll likely be disappointed.


----------



## kennephoto (Jul 15, 2013)

Swphoto said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > He acted and tested like a child. I'm not hostile towards him. I'm just calling it as I see it.
> ...



Awesome! That's been my way of describing digitalrev to people top gear of cameras. That's why I watch both shows!


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 15, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> I'd rather he test like an adult.



I dont get it... Who cares? Are you offended by it? Did his videos mislead you into buying something that you didn't have completely accurate knowledge of? Did you watch all 10+ minutes and still not manage to allow your adult mind to interpret humor and stop taking his statements at face value? ... are you new to the internet?


----------



## distant.star (Jul 15, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> * He put the target in front of a window. If the AF point of any camera is not precisely aligned it can jump between target / window / background. First major sign that whatever his skills as a photographer, he lacks the knowledge and attention to detail to setup and perform valid, repeatable tests.
> 
> * It was pretty obvious that the camera distances / positions were not precisely maintained between tests.
> 
> ...



Thanks. That about sums it up for me. I'd liken it to having the Three Stooges show up at my house trying to sell me a vacuum cleaner.

If this "man" came to my office and made a sales presentation (He does work for a company that sells equipment.) like this, I'd toss him out the front door -- fast and hard enough to make sure he bounced a couple of times.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 15, 2013)

distant.star said:


> Thanks. That about sums it up for me. I'd liken it to having the Three Stooges show up at my house trying to sell me a vacuum cleaner.
> 
> If this "man" came to my office and made a sales presentation (He does work for a company that sells equipment.) like this, I'd toss him out the front door -- fast and hard enough to make sure he bounced a couple of times.



He'll leave you with a red ring if youre not careful.

And if a sales guy tried to make videos on the internet, he would also fail miserably... Good point though


----------



## expatinasia (Jul 16, 2013)

distant.star said:


> I'd toss him out the front door -- fast and hard enough to make sure he bounced a couple of times.



Make sure you get it on film! Just maybe not with a M as it might not be quick enough to get it all in focus! 

DigitalRev has over 6XX,XXX youtube subscribers, that's pretty good in my book, and his videos are far more entertaining - and informative - than some of the drivel on the net. 

Perhaps dtaylor should make a video of the new firmware to show us how he thinks it should be done. ;D  8)


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 16, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> Perhaps dtaylor should make a video of the new firmware to show us how he thinks it should be done. ;D  8)



I probably wouldn't bother with a video. I would describe the test in sufficient detail so that it could be reproduced, and report the results.

Of course my goal would be accuracy, not entertainment and YouTube views.


----------



## archiea (Jul 17, 2013)

This is the dingbat you've been talking about for two pages! ;D

World's First Canon 300mm L Lens Cup (real L lens!)


----------



## bleephotography (Jul 18, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps dtaylor should make a video of the new firmware to show us how he thinks it should be done. ;D  8)
> ...



You do have a point, it wasn't the most technical of tests. However, _my_ point still stands: none of the other cameras tested had any such AF quirks whatsoever, even under the same exact circumstances (barring any conspiracy theories that such footage was withheld, of course  ). The fact of the matter is that its AF ability is much improved after the recent firmware update, and it is good enough for everyday shooting (as he concludes at the very end of the video), but it still lags behind the current mirrorless offerings in functionality, as most reviews out there have conceded. Period.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 18, 2013)

bleephotography said:


> You do have a point, it wasn't the most technical of tests. However, _my_ point still stands: none of the other cameras tested had any such AF quirks whatsoever, even under the same exact circumstances...



No, your point doesn't stand because it was not the exact same circumstances.


----------



## expatinasia (Jul 18, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps dtaylor should make a video of the new firmware to show us how he thinks it should be done. ;D  8)
> ...



That's a pity, because here you are complaining about a video review that has had over 75,xxx views on YT and was created by a channel that has over 690,xxx subscribers, and you aren't even prepared to do a video review so we can all learn how one should be done to your high standards.

Purely from an educational perspective, it would be interesting to see if your accurate review draws the same conclusion as Kai's, and if not, what your conclusion is.


----------



## bleephotography (Jul 18, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> bleephotography said:
> 
> 
> > You do have a point, it wasn't the most technical of tests. However, _my_ point still stands: none of the other cameras tested had any such AF quirks whatsoever, even under the same exact circumstances...
> ...



Great rebuttal : I'd ask if you care to elaborate, but I am now realizing that no matter how many people appreciate and agree with his sarcastically witty review, they will all be wrong in _your_ eyes because such a conclusion would then somehow invalidate your purchase? That's just silly.

Try not to take such offense to comments on the internet, especially when those comments are clearly meant to help others, and not meant as a personal attack on those who disagree. You've acquired a good camera that happens to have a few flaws. So what. It's just a tool after all, it's how you deal with its limitations that counts.


----------

