Auto Focus points.....

[Eyetattoo]

In my research I have noticed that the Nikon bodys I have been looking at (D40 & D60) have three points and the Canon bodys (1000D & 450D) have 7 & 9. Does this make a big difference or should it even be considered?

 

[musicaleCA]

I'd say that, yep, it should be considered. When you're using fully-auto focus, the more AF points you have, the better.

 

[UUilliam]

more AF points = More places to focus...
so the likes of a canon 1ds mkiii is 39 points i think... (i cba checking google sorry...)
Basically means there are 39 different places you can focus of without moving your camera / manual focusing.
Helps allot, Especially in circumstances your camera somehow wont tilt / position the object on the correct spot therefore you can chage the focus point to where-ever the object is in the viewfinder.

 

[DScience]

It was one of the main reason I upgraded from D60 to the D90.

 

[Samanax]

more AF points = More places to focus...
so the likes of a canon 1ds mkiii is 39 points i think.

The 1Ds Mk III has 45 focus points.

 

[table1349]

The value of more auto focus points is the ability to frame a shot, switch auto focus points to the one that is on the exact point in the shot you want the sharpest in focus, such as the eyes when shooting a portrait.

 

[Eyetattoo]

So if you were choosing between the D60 and the 450D would the additional AF points steer you to the 450D?

 

[choudhrysaab]

i don't think it hurts if another person tell you that the more AF points the better it is so you can choose which area of the picture you'd like to stand out

 

[UUilliam]

the manual set AF points are a great help but you can always focus then re-compose.
or use manual focus.

 

[table1349]

the manual set AF points are a great help but you can always focus then re-compose.
or use manual focus.

Why Focus-Recompose Sucks

Fine for smallerer apertures. But I prefer to have the exact focus point of the photo dead on, not just close. Especially since I tend to shoot a lot of my natural light portraits at very large apertures.

 

[table1349]

So if you were choosing between the D50 and the 450D would the additional AF points steer you to the 450D?

Not necessarily. There are many considerations that should go into a body choice besides focus points. They are just one part of the equation. The type of photography the body will be used for needs to be considered. Different photographic interest require different body features.

 

[musicaleCA]

the manual set AF points are a great help but you can always focus then re-compose.
or use manual focus.

Why Focus-Recompose Sucks

Fine for smallerer apertures. But I prefer to have the exact focus point of the photo dead on, not just close. Especially since I tend to shoot a lot of my natural light portraits at very large apertures.

Easily compensated for by a wee movement of the focus ring. But this is my right hemisphere talking, which thinks more along the lines of "Um...yeah, whatever. Close enough."

 

[Derrel]

This is for the original poster: I know the D40 and D60 are available at *very* attractive prices right now, but the D60 has basically been supplanted/replaced by the D3000, which has 11-area autofocus with 3D focus tracking, basically moving you up to the D90-class autofocusing system, which means the Multi-CAM 1000 AF module,instread of the Multi-CAM 530 module used in the D40,D40x,and D60.

My experience with Nikon bodies is that the higher the focusing module number, the better the camera works with the lower-spec'd lenses, like the kit lenses and slow consumer zooms like 70-300 and other slow, variable max. aperture zooms. When using top-level,pro glass on the D40 (70-200 2.8, 300/2.8, 200 f/2), those lenses focus very fast and reliably on the D40. But with something slow, like the 55-200 on the D40, the weak AF module is not so hot as it is with pro glass. So the conclusion might be, with consumer and kit-level lenses, it pays to go for the more-sophisticated,more-capable AF module bodies, like the D3000 and "up".

I personally prefer an AF system that has a reasonably wide coverage of the frame,more so than an AF system that is highly centrally-biased.

 

[Eyetattoo]

This is for the original poster: I know the D40 and D60 are available at *very* attractive prices right now, but the D60 has basically been supplanted/replaced by the D3000, which has 11-area autofocus with 3D focus tracking, basically moving you up to the D90-class autofocusing system, which means the Multi-CAM 1000 AF module,instread of the Multi-CAM 530 module used in the D40,D40x,and D60.

My experience with Nikon bodies is that the higher the focusing module number, the better the camera works with the lower-spec'd lenses, like the kit lenses and slow consumer zooms like 70-300 and other slow, variable max. aperture zooms. When using top-level,pro glass on the D40 (70-200 2.8, 300/2.8, 200 f/2), those lenses focus very fast and reliably on the D40. But with something slow, like the 55-200 on the D40, the weak AF module is not so hot as it is with pro glass. So the conclusion might be, with consumer and kit-level lenses, it pays to go for the more-sophisticated,more-capable AF module bodies, like the D3000 and "up".

I personally prefer an AF system that has a reasonably wide coverage of the frame,more so than an AF system that is highly centrally-biased.

Well considering the type of pictures I take or plan to take I really dont want to get too high on the price scale. Mid $600 range is the sweet spot for me....

 

[musicaleCA]

Take the extra focus points. You won't regret having them.