# Canon T4i owners - How is the video autofocus



## ghostdog (Jul 16, 2012)

I expressed some interest on another thread in the T4i for its auto focusing video.  I currently own a 7d and HF G10 camcorder.  I was able to take some amazing video on the 7d, but the manual focus became extremely challenging when filming my kids at play.  Obviously the camcorder is made for this, but the lack of DOF is the trade off.

My question for T4i owners is how impressed are you with the focus capabilities?  Speed, accuracy, touch screen auto focus, other?  How does it compare with other HD camcorder auto focus systems you may have experience with?

I'm keeping the 7d, but considering replacing the G10 for the T4i depending on the level of pros and cons.  Feedback from actual owners is my first step in my consideration.

Much appreciated.

-Thanks


----------



## sdtag (Jul 17, 2012)

I've had my t4i for 4 days now. So far I love it. I haven't tried video yet. I will try it this week/weekend and report back.
As a test I should shoot video in my driveway spinning 360 letting the camera focus on it's own?
What spin speed? Maybe 1 revolution in 10 seconds or is that too slow? 5 seconds? You want to see focus accuracy and focus speed? 
I didn't get the STM lens, I have the EFS 18-55 lens. Is this a deal breaker? 
My neighbors already think I'm crazy, this should help.


----------



## hukim0531 (Jul 17, 2012)

I thought T4i can only autofocus with STM lens, but it seems other non-STM lenses can be used also.  Youtube search yielded quite a bit of results.  AF speed is nothing to write home about but seem to work pretty well.


----------



## sdtag (Jul 17, 2012)

I tried it in my shop this afternoon. It did ok...
BUT
I can hear the little motor on the video playback. 
It was dead quiet in there. I stood in one spot and spun a 360. I took 23 seconds, longer than I thought.
1920X1088 @ 29 fps. 23 seconds is a 133 mb file
In one spot I was looking down a row in between some shelves. I think it got confused a little - the video got a little jumpy there. 
Overall it's ok, but really, I'm not impressed. I'll keep my t4i for pictures and my video camera for video. 
 
my 2 cents...


----------



## hukim0531 (Jul 18, 2012)

Yeah, I have Canon HV30 for my videos as well.  But I don't usually carry my camcorder with me everywhere while my T2i is usually by my side.  I don't take a lot of videos (files are huge) with my T2i but it's there when I need it.  I try not to use MF much.  If it's bright enough outside I try to stop down the lens as much as possible so the focus is not too big of a deal.  I don't think DSLR makers will ever make it as good as their camcorder counterparts.  I think they're mostly trying to play a none too hurried slow catch up with each other so the video capability (lack there of) doesn't become their Achilles heel in sales.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jul 18, 2012)

I am not sure why everyone is so worried about AF in DSLR's.  It won't be as good as dedicated video cameras, at least not for a while.  A cheap 100 buck camcorder still has better AF than EOS 1D C for 16 grand..


----------



## Raian-san (Jul 18, 2012)

I rather have manual focus to control what I'm shooting. It's not hard to follow focus with your hand on the lens.


----------



## hukim0531 (Jul 19, 2012)

I have a difficult time getting the focus right using the dinky LCD screen using MF method, but perhaps I'm not shooting often enough to get used to the process.  I think a screen scope like this can help with better focus control while a shoulder rig like this to help stabilize the shot.


----------



## Crollo (Jul 19, 2012)

It is a photography camera, it is not designed for video purposes and you should never use it as such [there are exceptions but they don't apply here]. Before the digital revolution, nobody ever tried to use their 35mm SLR as a video camera. Making SLRs digital does not change anything.

Rigging the DSLR to be a decent video camera is just pointless. You spend as much money attempting in vain to bring the DSLR to a decent video camera level, and you've spent more then you would if you just bought a video camera that performs better then your DSLR and rig combined.
If you're so concerned about missing valuable moments, bring your camcorder with the same attitude that you bring your photography camera everywhere you go.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 19, 2012)

Crollo said:
			
		

> It is a photography camera, it is not designed for video purposes and you should never use it as such [there are exceptions but they don't apply here]. If you're so concerned about missing valuable moments, bring your camcorder with the same attitude that you bring your photography camera everywhere you go.
> 
> Rigging the DSLR to be a decent video camera is just pointless. You spend as much money attempting in vain to bring the DSLR to a decent video camera level and you've spent more then you would if you just bought a video camera that performs better then your DSLR and rig combined.
> [Before the digital revolution, nobody ever tried to use their 35mm SLR as a video camera. Making SLRs digital does not change anything.]



Are you kidding me? A Canon Rebel will take better video than any camcorder in the same price range. At this point in time, you can't say "it is not designed for video purposes". If you can show me a camcorder that had the same DOF, quality, and settings, then please show it to me.

-Ken Turner


----------



## Crollo (Jul 19, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:


> At this point in time, you can't say "it is not designed for video purposes".




it is not designed for video purposes


It's about as designed for video as my camcorder is designed for photography.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 19, 2012)

Crollo said:
			
		

> it is not designed for video purposes
> 
> It's about as designed for video as my camcorder is designed for photography.



Are you saying the t200 is better than a T4i for video?

EDIT: also, having a mic jack, HDMI, manual audio controls, live view, flippy screen, and other video features clearly show my T3i isn't built for video at all. I hope you can sense my sarcasm. 

-Ken Turner


----------



## Crollo (Jul 19, 2012)

Are you saying that the T4i is better for photography then a 5DIII?

*EDIT:* Interesting...



TheKenTurner said:


> DSLR is by no means the cheapest way to go. You can get a great (Panasonic TM900 or whatever the newest version is) for about $1000. My T3i + lens is about $1200 by itself.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 19, 2012)

Crollo said:


> Are you saying that the T4i is better for photography then a 5DIII?
> 
> *EDIT:* Interesting...
> 
> ...




I'm sorry I may have missed it, but when did I mention the 5DIII? Statistically speaking, the 5DIII is better than a T4i. Statistically speaking, the T4i is better than the T200. Also, the t200 shoots in .avi. I feel sorry for anyone that has to edit footage from that. 

DSLR is NOT the way to go if you're on a tight budget. BUT for the price, a $1200 DSLR will have better quality than a $1200 camcorder. 

Do we have more issues? I'll be glad to back up my views and thoughts.


----------



## Crollo (Jul 19, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:


> I'm sorry I may have missed it, but when did I mention the 5DIII?



Just now.



> Statistically speaking, the 5DIII is better than a T4i.



That's right.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 19, 2012)

Crollo said:


> TheKenTurner said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry I may have missed it, but when did I mention the 5DIII?
> ...



You mentioned the 5DIII first... also, you seem to be ignoring my question of "Are you saying the t200 is better than a T4i for video?"


----------



## Crollo (Jul 19, 2012)

Maybe if you stopped trolling I'd answer it. Nah.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 19, 2012)

How am I the one trolling?


----------



## KmH (Jul 19, 2012)

*Both of you need to tone it down and keep an open mind.
*
The first DSLR to have video was the Nikon D90.

Canon was the next to offer a DSLR that could do video. The camera makers astonished that adding the video feature to DSLR cameras would be as popular as it has turned out to be. 

It was only recently that TPF created this forum specifically for DSLR video.

No doubt, to do high quality video with a DSLR camera requires adding several acessories, like manual follow focus or an external microphone.


----------



## ghostdog (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm the OP.  Those who are complaining that filming video with a DSLR is a waste of time, have clearly not given it a fair shot.  Granted, filming with a DSLR can require more effort, but that effort does pay off.  This was one of the points I was making in my opening post.  The video imagery created with a DSLR with a shallow aperture does not compare with conventional video equipment.  If the primary  argument to use conventional video equipment/camcorders over DSLR's is simply because "it's made for it" or "it's easier", then IMHO that's not a very strong argument.  With regard to cost.  I disagree that it's very expensive.  It does not have to be.  I already have the 7d.  To add a off camera digital recorder, mic, and hoodman viewfinder was about another $500-$600 +/-.  The rig itself is a couple modified monopods.  Worked great.  Well, to be honest... I actually did buy a Redrock Micro rig at first.  But I found it to be very lopsided no matter how I arranged it, and it was just flat out overpriced for what it was. I sold it, and have had much better luck with two cheap monopods rigged together.  So yeah, it does not *have* to be expensive.

I already know that I much prefer the DSLR footage over my ($1500) HF G10 camcorder.  Hands down.  It just does not compare.  Like I mentioned, DSLR footage is like moving portraits.  There's more to admire in what you're watching than just sharpness.  Clearly, I don't  I don't believe filming with a DSLR is a waste of time, but I will concede it is more time consuming and takes more patience and effort.  Note: I'm not in this field, I only film my family, namely my kids.  The point of this thread was to get real world feedback from actual T4i owners of the AF performance.  It was not intended for an open debate on DSLR vs. Video.

Thanks to those who gave me your feedback on your experience with your T4i's.

TheKenTurner, I agree with you here 100%


----------



## Dao (Jul 20, 2012)

Did you use any follow focus ring gear in your existing rig?  Of course, if the issue is your kids keep running in and out of the in focus plane, then it is hard to focus because you just not able to focus that fast.  I do not shoot much video with my DSLR so I do not know enough.  I often stop by my friend's site which is focus mainly on cams and they may have more experience than people in this site.

DSLR and Still Cameras


----------



## ghostdog (Jul 20, 2012)

When I had the Redrock Micro rig I had the follow focus bundle.  To be honest, for me using the follow focus was not a whole lot different from simply holding the focus ring directly on the lens.  In fact, for me holding it directly on the lens is more natural.  It's also more convenient this way as I can easily zoom in and out and focus with my hand in the same position.

It's is not so much that I'm not able to focus on them at all, but it is challenging since they can easily move in & out of focus.  This also places a limit on the DOF I'm able to film them with.  Too low and it becomes obvious that I'm not adjusting my focus quickly enough. I don't think anything I'm saying doesn't come with the territory so this is not a complaint.  I was just *hoping* that the T4i might offer the best of both worlds with its supposed ability to do touch screen AF and face follow focusing similar to the G10.  Also with its silent STM lenses and built in stereo mics, no off camera digital recording and post syncing would be mandatory for a simple stereo audio track.

Thanks


----------



## Dao (Jul 20, 2012)

I do not have the G10, but I have the M42 and I understand that face follow focus thing on the camera.   When I flip the screen so that it face the same direction where the camera point to, my 7 years old daughter always want to beat the camera to stop it from following her face by moving left and right very quick.  LOL


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 20, 2012)

Keeping this on topic, here are two videos that may help you:






And there's also:
Canon 40mm f2.8 STM Hands-on Review - YouTube


----------



## ghostdog (Jul 20, 2012)

TheKenTurner said:
			
		

> Keeping this on topic, here are two videos that may help you:
> 
> YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfINGg4w6XM
> 
> ...



Those were actually really good impartial reviews.  Exactly what I wanted to know.  Thanks!


----------



## 4meandthem (Jul 24, 2012)

I set mine up on a tripod with the 40mm STM and shot my kids in the kitchen. Every time my daughter took a step or two back the AF followed her and it was kind of annoying to watch going in and out like that.
I can see where it would be a good thing sometimes but not always. I bought a Rode shotgun mic to eliminate the motor noise but forgot to turn the thing on for the test. I did like the touch screen to pick what I wanted to focus on. I just touched my son or daughter on the screen and it changed to focus on them. If I was going to video an event like a recital or something on a stage without movement  I would turn the AF off.
I need more practice with it too.


----------



## ghostdog (Jul 24, 2012)

4meandthem said:
			
		

> I set mine up on a tripod with the 40mm STM and shot my kids in the kitchen. Every time my daughter took a step or two back the AF followed her and it was kind of annoying to watch going in and out like that.
> I can see where it would be a good thing sometimes but not always. I bought a Rode shotgun mic to eliminate the motor noise but forgot to turn the thing on for the test. I did like the touch screen to pick what I wanted to focus on. I just touched my son or daughter on the screen and it changed to focus on them. If I was going to video an event like a recital or something on a stage without movement  I would turn the AF off.
> I need more practice with it too.



Where was the motor noise coming from?  With your 40mm STM it should be pretty silent.


----------



## 4meandthem (Jul 25, 2012)

It's quiet but not silent. It still shows up.


----------



## TheKenTurner (Jul 25, 2012)

4meandthem said:
			
		

> It's quiet but not silent. It still shows up.



Sounds like it's not worth it compare to manual...

-Ken Turner


----------



## DerStig (Jul 29, 2012)

I also have a T2i coupled with a sigma f1.4 prime lens I have used for over a year now. Last year, as my baby daughter started crawling and walking, I realized I needed a video camera and tried all sorts of things to turn my T2i into something more useful and all failed. I then realized I had to get a dedicated camcorder and bought XA10 (I am so glad I bought this instead of G10, but that's another discussion). Fast forward a year, my T2i no longer satisfies me, even with the F1.4 prime lens, its low light performance (or lack of it) is not something I can take anymore. I do have a 430 speedlite flash, but I honestly hate flashes, which is why I have had my eyes on a 5d mark III. I even almost bought it, but hearing about T4i made me wait, I told myself "maybe" the AF on this camera would be the answer to all my questions. The biggest problem with XA10 and T2i is, well, you are carrying two bags all the time. I'd do anything to do have 1 camera that does both. I wasn't going to buy T4i, but maybe 7D II or 60D II, or whatever the high end rebel they will come out with which will have even more improved AF than T4i.

Anyways, reading all the comments, I honestly don't think there will ever be a camera, not even 1D XV, that will match the performance of a camcorder like a XA10. These things, internally are just not wired good enough to act like video cameras (the ones meant for family videos and running and recording videos). If 5D Mark III was $5000 and had the perfect AF, I would buy it yesterday! I am that desperate, but I guess I'll have to keep dreaming.

I will most likely trash the T2i and sigma and grab a 5d mark III and continue using my XA10 for videos.

I also don't think Canon will ever release a video feature superior to 5d Mark III in any of the high end Rebels (60D, 7D, etc). That would be like BMW releasing a 3 series better than a 7 series.


----------



## CaptainZero (Aug 13, 2012)

I for one would love to have the video match the autofocus we get for stills.  I do not entirely know the reasons why we can't, but it is frustrating.  I don't take that much video, but when I do, it's usually outside doing some kind of water sport such as water skiing from inside the boat.  Anyone that thinks it's easy to follow focus on a bright sunny day being bounced around in a boat is nuts!  Even on a tripod, if you're outside it sucks to try to see the screen.  I'm not buying the dslr kit to change it to a movie camera because I only do about 2-3 percent video (if that), but on a camcorder you are watching 'live view' so why is it so hard for my 7d or 5dIII to do it?


----------



## Cinematiceye (Sep 6, 2012)

To say that DSLRS capable of taking video are not good is just not true.  Look up stillmotion, cinematic Bride, Iris & Light, Phillip Bloom jut to name a few on Vimeo.  Autofocus would just not work when film making because the focusing adjusting mid shot or grabbing focus somewhere else would totally ruin it.  If you want a video camera to take video of your kiddos then maybe the dslr route isn't the way to go.  I use my t3i for all my DD's soccer games and have no issues adjusting focus manually.  For the sport I don't film wide open so that I can get more in focus and then adjust accordingly and I still get a good amount of blur.  Plus I get to use some good L glass using my 70-200mm 2.8.  Can't get that look on a video camera.


----------



## dnavarrojr (Sep 17, 2012)

KmH said:


> *Both of you need to tone it down and keep an open mind.
> *
> The first DSLR to have video was the Nikon D90.
> 
> ...



Not true.  My first dozen "video gigs" were done using the kit camera by itself.  I didn't need audio for what I was shooting, nor did I need a follow-focus.  The very first commercial I submitted to a client was done with my T2i and kit 18-55mm lens.  The client and the TV station said it was way more professional looking than anything else done by other agencies in town.

Today, I shoot about a dozen commercials a week for both local and national clients.  Yes, I've upgraded my camera (added a couple more) and I've added lots of fancy tools including a full kit with rails, matte box, follow focus, professional shotgun mic, dual wireless lav mics, track dolly, steadycam, etc...  But on most shoots I don't use most of that stuff.  I still do a few shots a month with nothing but my camera and lens, handheld without a shoulder mount or steadycam.

It's all about knowing your equipment, having a vision and completing that vision.

One of the cameras I own is a T4i and quite honestly, even with the 40mm STM lens made for auto-focus while shooting, it's still not a mature feature.  The GH2 does a much better job.  What's GREAT is using the touch screen for rack focusing when your camera is on a tripod and your scene is well lit.


----------

