Timeline for Is recomposing ideal rather than changing focus point?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2018 at 10:07 | history | edited | flolilo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added metering
|
| May 26, 2018 at 0:21 | history | edited | flolilo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 480 characters in body
|
| May 26, 2018 at 0:15 | comment | added | flolilo | As I don't own a 6D Mk II (and never held one in my hands), I can only resort to citing others. From what I see, the 6DII has dense fields, but less area. Also, this review says that "peripheral AF points were less reassuring". But never mind that: There is no wrong and no right in this matter. The best way would be to train both techniques (fast AF changing and recomposing), so you can decide dynamically which you need. And trust me, you will need both eventually. | |
| May 25, 2018 at 23:31 | comment | added | Christopher C. | I use a 6D Mark II, would you say the AF system changes drastically as you mentioned that different bodies/cameras vary. | |
| May 25, 2018 at 22:22 | history | edited | flolilo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| May 25, 2018 at 22:14 | history | answered | flolilo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |