# Any DSLR's with autofocus while recording 1080p video yet?



## ehMax

I think I saw a television commercial for a new Nikon that boasted auto-focus while recording video. Just wondering if there have been any others on the market that have this feature now, particularly from Canon?


----------



## Joker Eh

The camera is the the D5100. Here is what it says on the site.



> The D5100 is equipped with the D-Movie function that enables recording of high-definition movies (1920 X 1080p, 30p) exhibiting superior video quality. Autofocusing during movie recording is possible using contrast-detect AF. When the focus mode is set to full-time-servo AF (AF-F) and the AF-area mode to subject-tracking AF, the camera automatically maintains focus on a subject moving throughout the frame.


Nikon | News | Digital-SLR camera Nikon D5100


I don't know if this as good as AF on a true video camera or using the picture mode on the camera.


----------



## i-rui

the newer sony alphas do (the a33 & a55). they use translucent mirrors. interesting technology, and it seems sony is really embracing it.

i tried the a55 out. nice quality, although you could hear the focusing motor on the audio track, so thats a bit annoying.


----------



## boukman2

canon 600d/t3i, 60D also has autofocus. according to dpreview, neither it nor the 5100 work spectacularly well. the sony nex and panasonic G's work much better. apparently because they were designed to be used with live view, instead of being a sort of add on to the slr's. the GH2, if i recall correctly, has a very good feature where you can touch an area on the screen while you are filming and it will shift the focus point there...


----------



## okcomputer

My 60D has this feature, but it is very slow. It is contrast-based and not really very usable. 

I like the SONY technology, but I hate their cameras. They are tiny and cheap-feeling. Really strange since the specs are so great. In fact, they "beat" Canon and Nikon in a lot of aspects. They just have terrible designs for people with abnormally small hands.


----------



## i-rui

okcomputer said:


> I like the SONY technology, but I hate their cameras. They are tiny and cheap-feeling. Really strange since the specs are so great. In fact, they "beat" Canon and Nikon in a lot of aspects. They just have terrible designs for people with abnormally small hands.


I agree about the form factor. I briefly had an A55 and it produced nice results, but i hated the ergonomics of the camera. it felt like a toy. Not ALL the Sony's are designed like that. I have an A700 and the build quality on it is great. Ditto for the A850 and A900.

I ended up getting rid of the A55. I decided i was going to wait for the A77 which should feel like a REAL camera.


----------



## Niteshooter

I think the problem is with the design. For DSLR's we have the AF sensor after the mirror usually in the prism of the camera so the moment you start shooting video the mirror goes up and the AF sensor is locked out. This system is called phase detection. 

Decent explanation here, Autofocus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contrast detection will work because it is using the sensor which is fully exposed when shooting video. 

Canon actually used a Pellicile mirror on several of it's cameras in the 70's. I shot with an F1 that could do a then whopping 10 fps with this fixed mirror. The downside was that your light path was reduced so there was a one stop loss due to the mirror. Not sure if the Sony has that problem. I have an EOS RT in my collection which is also a Pellicule mirror. The first thing you notice is the viewfinder is darker than normal.

Canon Pellix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Odd you should say that about the design of the Sony cameras. i also find them a bit odd, though I haven't tried their DSLRs yet. A co worker has the system and having Zeiss lenses appeals to me. 

I too am looking for the 'swiss army knife' of DSLR cameras though it seems elusive.

I have to admit I'm having a lot of fun with our ZS7 and ZS10 Panasonic P&S cameras, the comment about the best camera being the one you always have with you is starting to ring true in our case and they both take some pretty good pix.


----------



## iMatt

If you're a video enthusiast, you should at least look at the Panasonic GH2. Being mirrorless it uses full-time live view and contrast-detect AF that Panasonic has been pushing hard to improve to compete with phase-detect, and it's designed as a hybrid stills/video camera, not a stills camera with video capabilities.

However, the selection of native lenses is lacking compared to the big boys, and still-image quality probably still lags behind comparably priced APS cameras. Ergonomics and build quality may or may not do it for you... the only way to know is to pick one up and play. 

But if you're already invested in another system/mount and just want to shoot an occasional video, it probably isn't worth the switch unless there's something else about Micro Four Thirds that appeals to you (smaller size and lighter weight being the main attractions).

Regarding pellicle mirrors, by design they must prevent some light reaching the sensor. I believe in the case of the current Sonys, the loss is on the order of 1/2 stop.


----------



## Niteshooter

I notice there are quite a few adaptors out for the Micro 4/3 cameras. The Novoflex have pretty much something for every lens mount and a look at the knockoffs from China have Leica M, R, Nikon, and even Canon FD for under $20 cdn shipping in vs $200-300 for the Novoflex. Granted the actual build might be really different still since there are no optics in these things....

The 14-150 lens seems to be the most popular but that starts to put the price into the range of a low end Pro HD video camera. 

The one thing I did notice with the Panasonic is that Leica also make a version of the Panasonic lenses under their own brand name. And Panasonic makes a 4/3 300mm f2.8 which translates out to a 600mm f2.8. That's faster than any DSLR lens in that focal length as far as I recall.

I shoot with the Canon 300 f2.8 in my working kit and we have the 400 f2.8 and 600 f4.0 lenses in the photo pool at work but they are all quite large and heavy so near impossible to hand hold. That would make that Panasonic lens interesting, but so was the price....


----------



## iMatt

Niteshooter said:


> I notice there are quite a few adaptors out for the Micro 4/3 cameras. The Novoflex have pretty much something for every lens mount and a look at the knockoffs from China have Leica M, R, Nikon, and even Canon FD for under $20 cdn shipping in vs $200-300 for the Novoflex. Granted the actual build might be really different still since there are no optics in these things....


In a nutshell, you can adapt almost any lens for Micro Four Thirds. The main exceptions are focus-by-wire lenses from competing mounts, i.e. Sony Nex and Samsung Nx. If it has mechanical manual focus, it can usually be done even if there's no aperture ring (in which case the adapter gets a little more complicated in order to provide manual aperture control).

For the most part, the cheap adapters seem to work fine, though it doesn't take much searching to find people who have problems with one or another of them. Still, at $20 a pop, people who like using adapted lenses can usually justify permanently mounting each lens to its own adapter.



> The 14-150 lens seems to be the most popular but that starts to put the price into the range of a low end Pro HD video camera.


There's an Olympus 14-150, and there's the Panasonic 14-140. The Panasonic is optimized for HD video (silent focus, continuous aperture, etc.), has optical stabilization and costs about $900 (but also sold as a kit lens for the GH2 - you can save about $400 buying it that way). The Olympus is more of a consumer-grade superzoom, for which it's a bit pricy at around $600. 



> The one thing I did notice with the Panasonic is that Leica also make a version of the Panasonic lenses under their own brand name.


Not quite. Panasonic makes two Leica-branded Micro Four Thirds lenses (45/2.8 and the new 25/1.4). There were also some Four Thirds lenses under a similar arrangement (all out of production now AFAIK), and there are a boatload of Leica-branded digicam lenses.

None of these are Leica-made lenses. They're all Panasonic-made lenses with Leica design and QA input/approval. A few compact cameras (LX5, FZ100, one or two others) are also sold as Leicas, with cosmetic differences only, and all of these are also made by Panasonic.



> And Panasonic makes a 4/3 300mm f2.8 which translates out to a 600mm f2.8. That's faster than any DSLR lens in that focal length as far as I recall.


That's an Olympus Four Thirds lens. To mount it on the GH2, you'd need yet another adapter. AF should work, but performance might not be up to snuff. 

(And depending who you ask, it's either equivalent to 600/2.8 or 600/5.6, or both and neither.)



> I shoot with the Canon 300 f2.8 in my working kit and we have the 400 f2.8 and 600 f4.0 lenses in the photo pool at work but they are all quite large and heavy so near impossible to hand hold. That would make that Panasonic lens interesting, but so was the price....


I've never seen the Oly 300/2.8 in the flesh, but it's no lightweight -- it weighs over 7 lb.

There are a pair of native Micro Four Thirds long zooms: 100-300 (Panasonic -- just over 1 lb) and 75-300 (Olympus -- just under 1 lb), but both are f5.6 at the long end. Still, that's a whole lot of reach in a small package.


----------



## Niteshooter

iMatt said:


> In a nutshell, you can adapt almost any lens for Micro Four Thirds. The main exceptions are focus-by-wire lenses from competing mounts, i.e. Sony Nex and Samsung Nx. If it has mechanical manual focus, it can usually be done even if there's no aperture ring (in which case the adapter gets a little more complicated in order to provide manual aperture control).
> 
> For the most part, the cheap adapters seem to work fine, though it doesn't take much searching to find people who have problems with one or another of them. Still, at $20 a pop, people who like using adapted lenses can usually justify permanently mounting each lens to its own adapter.


I guess I'll find out once the postal strike is over, I ordered a Leica M and Canon FD to 4/3 adaptors out of HK a couple of weeks ago.



> There's an Olympus 14-150, and there's the Panasonic 14-140. The Panasonic is optimized for HD video (silent focus, continuous aperture, etc.), has optical stabilization and costs about $900 (but also sold as a kit lens for the GH2 - you can save about $400 buying it that way). The Olympus is more of a consumer-grade superzoom, for which it's a bit pricy at around $600.


I read the reports about the Panasonic 14-140. Oddly the B&H website lists a Panasonic 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario-Elmar (Leica designation for their optics) Aspherical that is about $650 more than the Panasonic.



> Not quite. Panasonic makes two Leica-branded Micro Four Thirds lenses (45/2.8 and the new 25/1.4). There were also some Four Thirds lenses under a similar arrangement (all out of production now AFAIK), and there are a boatload of Leica-branded digicam lenses.
> 
> None of these are Leica-made lenses. They're all Panasonic-made lenses with Leica design and QA input/approval. A few compact cameras (LX5, FZ100, one or two others) are also sold as Leicas, with cosmetic differences only, and all of these are also made by Panasonic.


This Panasonic/Leica branding is quite confusing, I count 5 Panasonic lenses listed on B&H's website that use the Leica designation for their optics. It would not surprise me that Panasonic or perhaps yet another party is making the glass for these lenses. I kept hearing Sigma was making glass for other companies a while ago.



> That's an Olympus Four Thirds lens. To mount it on the GH2, you'd need yet another adapter. AF should work, but performance might not be up to snuff.
> 
> (And depending who you ask, it's either equivalent to 600/2.8 or 600/5.6, or both and neither.)
> 
> I've never seen the Oly 300/2.8 in the flesh, but it's no lightweight -- it weighs over 7 lb.
> 
> There are a pair of native Micro Four Thirds long zooms: 100-300 (Panasonic -- just over 1 lb) and 75-300 (Olympus -- just under 1 lb), but both are f5.6 at the long end. Still, that's a whole lot of reach in a small package.


The lens I'm talking about is listed on Panasonic's Asian website following the link in my text. I've never seen one up close either. I do find this Micro 4/3 standard somewhat confusing as there as you say seem to be slightly different mounts which require adaptors. The 100-300 seems more palatable cost wise. 

We have a couple of Panasonic P&S cameras with Leica optics the ZS7 (Leica V-Lux 20 with a hefty premium for the Leica name and cladding) and ZS10 (Leica V-Lux 30 with a $400 premium for the name and cladding) which are also sold under the Leica brand. I bought the Panasonic versions because I knew under the skin they were identical. 

I picked up a GF2 because B&H has a $100 instant rebate on the body and kit lens (which in hindsight I would not buy as it's focal range is a bit limited) for $499 so thought I'd give it a whirl before caving in and trading in my M6 and M4P on an M9.... though I have a feeling in the end I will go for an M9 and use the GF2 for infrared photography.


----------



## iMatt

Niteshooter said:


> The lens I'm talking about is listed on Panasonic's Asian website following the link in my text.


It may be listed there for some reason, but it is definitely an Olympus lens. (And when I follow the link, I get an Olympus site.)



Niteshooter said:


> I do find this Micro 4/3 standard somewhat confusing as there as you say seem to be slightly different mounts which require adaptors.


There are two completely different mounts: Four Thirds aka 4/3 (mostly Olympus DSLR, plus two discontinued Panasonic DSLRs), and Micro Four Thirds aka m43, which are all mirrorless bodies. The two mounts share the same sensor size and crop factor, and probably some innards, but otherwise are really only cousins. 

Four Thirds lenses can be mounted on Micro Four Thirds bodies using a fully electrically enabled adapter from Panasonic or Olympus, but not vice versa. On some bodies, autofocus will not work, but if you're getting a GH2 I believe all should now work though probably slowly in some cases, as the 4/3 lenses were mostly designed for phase-detect not contrast-detect AF.

All but two of the Leica-branded lenses you're seeing on retailers' sites are for Four Thirds, not Micro. The two for m43 are the 45/2.8 macro and the newer version of the 25/1.4, which you can tell apart from its 4/3 cousin by the fact that it's much smaller and much, much less expensive. 

For Olympus lenses, you need to look for the m.Zuiko designation, not just plain Zuiko.

Also, you'll need to make sure the adaptors you've ordered are for Micro Four Thirds. (Which most adapters are these days, so they probably are.)


----------



## Niteshooter

iMatt said:


> It may be listed there for some reason, but it is definitely an Olympus lens. (And when I follow the link, I get an Olympus site.)
> 
> 
> 
> There are two completely different mounts: Four Thirds aka 4/3 (mostly Olympus DSLR, plus two discontinued Panasonic DSLRs), and Micro Four Thirds aka m43, which are all mirrorless bodies. The two mounts share the same sensor size and crop factor, and probably some innards, but otherwise are really only cousins.
> 
> Four Thirds lenses can be mounted on Micro Four Thirds bodies using a fully electrically enabled adapter from Panasonic or Olympus, but not vice versa. On some bodies, autofocus will not work, but if you're getting a GH2 I believe all should now work though probably slowly in some cases, as the 4/3 lenses were mostly designed for phase-detect not contrast-detect AF.
> 
> All but two of the Leica-branded lenses you're seeing on retailers' sites are for Four Thirds, not Micro. The two for m43 are the 45/2.8 macro and the newer version of the 25/1.4, which you can tell apart from its 4/3 cousin by the fact that it's much smaller and much, much less expensive.
> 
> For Olympus lenses, you need to look for the m.Zuiko designation, not just plain Zuiko.
> 
> Also, you'll need to make sure the adaptors you've ordered are for Micro Four Thirds. (Which most adapters are these days, so they probably are.)


Hmmm you're right, wonder what I was drinking last night.... hmmm I don't remember...

I did order micro four thirds adaptors but I guess I'll wait and see. They seem to just be mount converters with nothing else. Guess it will be a while till the post office comes back. Guess when I'm thinking of buying another part I might post it here so I don't get the wrong thing...


----------



## iMatt

Niteshooter said:


> I did order micro four thirds adaptors but I guess I'll wait and see. They seem to just be mount converters with nothing else. Guess it will be a while till the post office comes back. Guess when I'm thinking of buying another part I might post it here so I don't get the wrong thing...


Yeah, all they can be is mount converters. The only "live" adapters are for Four Thirds lenses. (Actually, that may not be quite right... I vaguely recall seeing something about a fully functional EOS adapter, but very expensive and possibly designed to work only with the top-of-the-line $5K m43 video camera.)

I think Panasonic and Olympus goofed in naming the newer system. Creates far too much confusion. I know why they did it -- the newer one is a direct descendant of the older one -- but still, not a smart move. The original Four Thirds system was arguably a goof in itself. It used a smaller-than-APS sensor with the promise of smaller, lighter bodies and lenses, but didn't really deliver except for a couple of low-end bodies.


----------



## Lee_Roy

I only really follow Nikon since I've invested to much into them with lens and stuff.

HD video auto-focusing is on these models: D3100 / D5100 / D7000

I have a D5000 that does HD video but I never use it cause trying to manual focus a video is quite a pain.


----------

