| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Canon Focus Problems
Harvey Levine, Photographer
 |
Harrisburg | PA | | Posted: 7:30 AM on 07.19.05 |
| ->> Just go my Mark 2 back from Canon. I had them check the focusing. Saturday, I shot a bicycle event. It was one of those charity rides. I shot all my pictures from the top of a hill. Suffice it to say the no one on the ride was named Lance Armstrong so nobody was moving all that fast. I was shooting with my 400 2.8. Shooting riders coming right at me, shooting in AI servo, out of burst of 10, I would get maybe 3 that were sharp. I've checked the settings on my camera and the lens and I cant see that I am setting anything wrong. I use custom setting 4-1 using the back button to focus. I have also tried both standard tracking and fast tracking. Made no difference. Looks like a return trip top Canon but all suggestions are welcome |
|
Eric Wynne, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 9:34 AM on 07.19.05 |
->> Harvey,
Actually considering you were shooting a burst of 10 frames, three sharp ones are pretty good.
Remember the camera is continually trying to find the focus and frames in between sharp ones, especially with a 400, it has a tendency to be a hair out of focus.
Try using standard more. I find fast tracking to be the most inefficient in focusing when dealing with bursts. Or you could try zone focusing.
Cheers,
Eric |
|
Harvey Levine, Photographer
|
Harrisburg | PA | | Posted: 11:11 AM on 07.19.05 |
| ->> Eric-The frmware is current. This can't be. What you're saying is that if a running back breaks through the line and runs 70 yards for a TD and I am shooting from the endzone and he is coming right at me and I shot off a burst of 10 or 20 shots, I can only expect to have s few sharp frames? If that were the case, nobody who shoots sports would use Canon. I switched from Nikon last year and I can tell you, my Nikons could track well enough that in the above situation alomost all frames were tack sharp. The fact that almost everyone I know who shoots sports has switched to Canon, tells me that what you are saying is incorrect. |
|
Doug Steinbock, Photographer
|
Feeding Hills | MA | USA | Posted: 11:25 AM on 07.19.05 |
->> Harvey,
I am having auto focus problems with both of my MK II's as well.
Never mind burst mode. I auto focus on the front petal of a stationary flower and up with an focus point behind the flower! Regardless which body or which lens I use.
70-80% of my sports are soft. My portraiture is soft as well.
I have no idea what to do to resolve this issue. I just assumed it was my lack of skill. But, the more I read on this message board, the more I think the problem is not me, but, the MK II.
I'm tempted to buy a Nikon D2X with lenses to see if it makes difference. But, I don't have an extra $10k laying around. |
|
Eric Wynne, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 4:06 PM on 07.19.05 |
->> Harvey and Doug,
Really? I guess I've just gotten so used to the autofocusing quirk of today's modern cameras that I just chalk it up to normalcy.
I remember the old Canon 1V used to have almost perfect focus tracking. But the 1D and Mark II haven't lived up to the old film body.
I know I can't use the fast or ultra fast on the 1D or Mark II just because it jumps around too much. |
|
Robert G. Stevens, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 6:38 PM on 07.19.05 |
->> Harvey:
Which version of the 400mm were you using? The older original version has a hard time keeping up with the newer 1 series cameras.
What focus points were you using? If you open the files in the Canon software you can choose an option to show which focus point was used. I sometimes try this when I am worried about the camera. The out of focus ones are always where the focus point was on the background somewhere, such as under an armpit or over a shoulder.
The other source for info on Canon and focus issues is the PDF posted on Canon's site. Pay particular attention to the AF specifications. The closer the subject is, the slower it has to be moving for the AF to keep it in focus. There is a graph on page 7 of the document which shows the relationship between suject distance and speed.
http://photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf
If none of the info in the PDF helps, send your camera or lens in for repair. |
|
Pete Lorence, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Loughborough | Leicestershire | UK | Posted: 7:56 PM on 07.19.05 |
->> Just got in from shooting a local friendly football match for the fun of it with my MkII and a 70-200 f2.8 L IS, NONE of my shots came back sharp! Some might say this is down to lack of skill, but given in the same conditions my MkI would work perfectly, this is evidently a technical issue.
Going to be sending it off to Canon next week, hopefully it'll be repaired. |
|
Monty Rand, Photographer
|
Bangor | ME | USA | Posted: 9:33 PM on 07.19.05 |
| ->> Sounds exactly like the issues I'm having!!!!! I'm going on 2 months of dealing with this and it's still not fixed. |
|
Vern Verna, Photographer
|
Greenville | SC | United States | Posted: 9:47 PM on 07.19.05 |
->> guys i have found that our focus problems or so called problems are coming from the file size of the camera not from the camera not focusing right.
i have found one that my old 400 vers. i is not near as sharp as the is version. i have both and use the old one for a remote lens for mlb. it has nothing to do with ai servo speed or my manual focusing abilities. canon has now made a camera that is so damn good it is showing inadequaties in the old lenses and our focusing abilities.
you said u had 3 tack sharp images so the camera works 3 times out of 10. shoot a still object with the same camera/ lens combo. is it sharp? yes then it is not a focusing problem, no then u need to send it to canon.
my theory is this with the old camera (mark i d30,d60 etc.) we had these same out of focus pictures but we didnt see them jump out as us quite as much because of lack of resolution. we routinely crop as image off a mark ii and blow it up to a 10" long size @ 300dpi and then we notice, hmmm, it is not quite sharp.
the other thing we have got to think about is we all have bigger screen than we did years ago. bigger screens let us blow up the pixs more and see the inadequaties. 5 years ago we had 15" desktop monitor and 12 dual scan screens, now i have a 17" pb and a 23" cinema display.
that is just my 2 cents worth. both my cams are brutally sharp when they are in focus and i have never seen any evidence of what people said when they first came out that they are softer than a mark i. now not all my images are brutally sharp and that is my fault not canons. |
|
Kurtis Kunoth, Photographer
|
Oceanside | CA | United States | Posted: 9:58 PM on 07.19.05 |
| ->> Vern, I couldn't agree with you more. |
|
Vern Verna, Photographer
|
Greenville | SC | United States | Posted: 10:23 PM on 07.19.05 |
| ->> thanks kurtis, it took me a long time to get to that conclusion and tell myself i am not as good a shooter as i thought but them is the facts. the big tale tale signs that hit me were shooting golf with a old 400 and an old 1.4x. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 11:25 PM on 07.19.05 |
->> Hi Harvey,
Any chance of posting a hidden gallery with a sequence and maybe some close up crops? It might help us to better help you.
As you probably will gather from the replies, there is no one answer. I agree very much with Vern and Robert that technique is a huge issue, and part of that is learning how the Canon gear works differently than what you were coming from. Cycling can sometimes be tricky to photograph. The challenge when using AF is which sensor to use and where to place it. With a rider coming right at you, AF might pick up the handle bar or the crotch while somewhere in between is the riders face.... and if you're shooting at 2.8, focus that is off will be very noticeable. Maybe the AF point was on the face? But was there enough contrast in that area for the AF to reliably lock onto? Robert is right on regarding apparent speed relative to subject distance. AF has a much harder time once the subject is close. A little secret that many probably overlook is that shooting something like cycling or motorsports or even football is sometimes easier with a lens like a 600 because the relative change in distance while the subject is physically far away, yet maybe close to full frame in the viewfinder, is much less than shooting with a lens like a 300 or even a 400 - and the camera (and operator) have an easier time keeping up with the subject. The greatest difficulty though could be finding the $$$ to justify a 600mm lens.
Anyway, without knowing a lot more about how you photographed the cyclists, the advice you receive will be speculative and subjective. Maybe there is a problem with the camera or lens... maybe it would be prudent to do some "controlled" tests with another camera or lenses. Perhaps cars driving towards you. Unfortunately, as with anything else, Canon equipment is not perfect. I have had focus issues related to back focusing, and have complained enough times to Canon Service to wonder if they think maybe the problem is operator error.... At least with the back focusing Canon was able to adjust the camera and eliminate it (for now). For the record, this has been a problem with my Mark II and my original 1D. It seems they need to be recalibrated about once a year for me. It was also a problem with 1V bodies borrowed from Canon, as well as my EOS-3 when using specific lenses. If you wade through past complaints on the message board here, you will find that this is a relatively common topic, also for Nikon users.
Regarding Doug's comments: I'd strongly suggest you have Canon look at your camera and lenses. It can be a camera problem and it can be a lens problem... something is severely back focusing. It's better to ship it all in, though of course, very inconvenient.
Here's another thing to consider, in addition to Rob and Vern's comments, though maybe not directly addressing Harvey's issues: exposure. Yes, you want to accurately expose an image, but it seems to me that if an image is somewhat hot - a bit overexposed, but maybe not blown out - that it doesn't look as sharp as an image that may be a tad dark. My take on this: over saturation of colors leads to a loss of fine detail. Basically fine shades of a given color end up all one shade and everything blends together. You know how a lot of times the Mark II has problems with bright red, well, if you desaturate that red somewhat, suddenly the detail reappears (so long as it wasn't severly overexposed - also referred to as clipped). So, my point is, watch the exposure but also any other way in which you may inadvertently boost saturation too much, be it with the in camera parameters or afterwards in Photoshop. It could actually lead to a loss of image detail and thus apparent sharpness. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:57 AM on 07.20.05 |
| ->> Vern, I wish I could agree, but why then do all my lenses from the 14 up to the 600 look great on a 20D but always look soft on the Mark 2? Same sensor from my understanding. Even on the 1DS the lenses looked great. I can't get squat to look sharp under studio lights at f/22 with the 14mm and 1DM2 combo if it's shot near the infinity range. Just the other day with tennis the 600 was soft at 80 feet, yet not on a 20D. |
|
Pete Lorence, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Loughborough | Leicestershire | UK | Posted: 1:23 PM on 07.20.05 |
->> Vern,
Nice idea, but sadly not the truth. These shots are plain unsharp! Nothing to do with being able to see them better, they're just out of focus! |
|
Wayne McAtee, Photographer, Assistant
|
Hesperia | CA | usa | Posted: 2:50 PM on 07.20.05 |
->> The thing is canon EOS 10D, 20D, and 1DMKII some times dont track, focus well. We have had lots of post on this. I get some shots that are spot on then some that suck with no change in settings. Other users have no problems at all, Canon is geting over on us with this problem. I have started a file on most of the post and will take them to CPS the next time I go to get service. This will some day bite Canon in the ASS with the sports shooter as they go to other MFG to get good gear. I want to use Canon but I have lost some good one frame, one time only shots and it is getting old.
Wayne |
|
Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 4:11 PM on 07.20.05 |
->> One thing you can do, that may seem counterintuitive at first, is to set the tracking to "slower".
Meaning, it tells the Servo system, once it's acquired a lock, to not be so antsy about finding a new one.
This actually makes sense. It also makes it less likely that a player crossing in front of a player you are tracking will throw the autofocus off.
The other thing about the tracking system is that if you keep it on and fire a burst of shots at a stationary subject, you will wind up with out of focus shots as the system occasionally "looks around" to make sure it is still in focus.
Try setting the tracking speed to "slower" |
|
Harvey Levine, Photographer
|
Harrisburg | PA | | Posted: 9:10 PM on 07.20.05 |
->> Ron-I NOW HAVE A HIDDEN GALLERY up of 10 consecutive shots the last 3 appear sharp. Other than that the 4th one is sharp. None odf the others are. I checked the Canon software and the focus point ( I used the top point shooting vertically) is on the face and front of the helmet. I also used CF 17-1 I basically uses SI's suggested settings)
Andy-I first noticed the problem using standard tracking. I switched to fast at the suggestion of a photo friend. Neither seems to work though what you are saying makes sense
http://www.sportsshooter.com/negativeh/test |
|
Vern Verna, Photographer
|
Greenville | SC | United States | Posted: 11:02 PM on 07.21.05 |
| ->> pete, u r missing my point with the 1d we had as many out of focus shots, just the resolution of the camera and our screen sizes (we all didnt have 23" cinema back then) we didnt notice it as much. i not saying the pixs r in focus, they are not. when we shot with the 1d because of its resolution something that was slightly out of focus looked ok because of the smaller file size. now with the bigger file size and bigger screen we see more detail than we did before and hence we catch pixs that are out of focus or not as sharp. |
|
Robert G. Stevens, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 11:50 PM on 07.21.05 |
->> Harvey:
Were you shooting that tight or is it quite a crop from the original? If you are shooting that tight, some of the problem is shooting distance versus subject speed. The Canon PDF refers to the 300 2.8 IS. Since you were using the 400mm, you distance would have to be proportionally further away to track focus. |
|
Harvey Levine, Photographer
|
Harrisburg | PA | | Posted: 7:30 AM on 07.22.05 |
| ->> Robert-no I was not this tight. In the originals the whole bike and biker was in the frame with some additional space. I cropped this close just for this gallery so people could see what I was talking about. |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 4:12 PM on 07.22.05 |
->> Harvey,
You may have hit on something when you mentioned "I used the top point shooting vertically."
I don't know if others have noticed the same problem, or what the explination is, but I have noticed that when I switch focus from the center point to a point off to the far left or right to shoot people vertically, the camera seems to struggle a bit while acquire focus.
Has anyone else noticed this? |
|
Christina Barany, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Ventura | CA | United States | Posted: 4:22 PM on 07.22.05 |
| ->> Yes, I noticed the same thing. I always end up using the center focus point. Through trial and error I found that the farther you get from the center focus point you have a smaller chance of getting an in focus shot. |
|
Pete Lorence, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Loughborough | Leicestershire | UK | Posted: 7:09 PM on 07.22.05 |
->> Vern,
All the same though, most of the time my shots on the 1D are sharper than the MkII, nothing to do with the viewing method/resolution unfortunately.
Compared the shot with another guy's 1D MkII and they were perfect.
Pete |
|
Keith Carson, Photographer
|
Roanoke | IN | U.S.A. | Posted: 8:04 PM on 07.22.05 |
->> Christina,
I also always use the center focusing point. But, if your shooting cycling from a far distance using that method would be a little more tricky. It works great with football though.
Also, this is very worrisome. I shoot with the Canon 1d and because of this I hope it doesn't take a dump anytime soon.
Godspeed, be safe and always have fresh batteries
Keith Carson
www.carsonphotography.com |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 1:30 AM on 07.23.05 |
->> Hi Harvey - thanks for posting those images. I agree with Sam that the outer AF points are quite unreliable for tracking moving subjects. I mostly use them only with One Shot AF and generally have good results then. For AI Servo, I try to stick with the center point as much as possible, or I'll try to use one of the other cross sensors (that unfortunately are not useful for the kind of vertical subject matter you were photographing). Using the middle sensor for cyclists is somewhat tricky. If the cyclist is on a road/race type bike, and not sitting upright, then placing the center sensor on the handlebar stem usually works OK. It's not perfect, but I've found the odds of getting in focus images using this method to be better than relying on one of the perimeter sensors.
I'm pretty sure it is how I created this image: http://www.pbase.com/scheffler/image/22135606 which is pretty much full frame, just cropped a bit on the sides. You will note from the exif that it is a 1D image, not MarkII, however, I use the same technique successfully with the MarkII - photographing bicycles, motorcycles, etc... Fortunately/unfortunately, the center sensor is the key.
Looking at your images, there are a few that are definitely soft, though a few are still reasonable depending on how large the image would be printed. Sharpening might help bring some of those back from being borderline.
Robert, regarding your last comment: not sure if you meant that shooting that cyclist full frame on a 400 would be easier or more difficult for the camera than if using a 300. I agree that the camera will have more difficulty as the subject comes closer due to the greater relative change in distance between subject and camera. But, the longer the lens used, the farther the subject will be from the camera for a full frame image. Therefore, the relative change in distance when the subject is farther away will be much less and will be easier for the camera to follow focus. |
|
Caryn Levy, Photographer
|
Weston | FL | USA | Posted: 10:56 AM on 07.23.05 |
->> Harvey-
The center spot is DEFINITELY the fastest for tracking. If you pick any other spots, it WILL slow the focus. Another thing to check are the lens mounts. Last July I did a test with 2 brand new MarkII's & nothing was sharp. Everything was sharp with the 2 - 1d's. I was using 4 lenses on each of the bodies (500 f/4, 400 f/2.8, 200 f/1.8, 70-200 f/2.8). It turned out that I needed new lens mounts on all of the lenses. For some reason they still made good contact with my old bodies, but not with my new ones. One other thing... the MarkII images need considerably more sharpening than the 1D images. |
|
Harvey Levine, Photographer
|
Harrisburg | PA | | Posted: 9:18 PM on 07.24.05 |
| ->> Well, I shot football this weekend and I use the center focus point for football. The pictures looked great. Given that and also listening to the advice I have been getting, I have come to the conclusion that the outer focus points are not reliable for shooting moving objects. I have another bike event in a few weeks and I plan to use the center point and will continue to monitor this. I was considering taking my camera and lenses to Canon to have them calibrated but for now I think I'll leave well enough alone. Thanks to everyone for your responses. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 1:06 PM on 07.25.05 |
->> I started with a D1x and Nikon's 70-200 f2.8 AFS. I could focus and recompose, and everything looked sharp as a tack.
When I switched to Canon using the 1D and the 70-200L f2.8 USM, I was amazed at how much sharper the lens was. Then I tried the focus/recompose "thang" and was disappointed because images weren't as sharp as when I shot straight on. Using the individual focus points fixed that, but they're hard to use shooting rodeo action because of the randomness of our subjects. So, I rely on the center focus point a lot more often.
I think Canon's particular lens construction emphasizes the focus in the center of the lens - maybe it's optimized for that - it seems that way, especially shooting with the aperture open at f2.8 - f4.
The 20D images don't appear as sharp as the 1D when viewed at 100% on a screen, but then again, they're smaller pixels so at 100% I'm zoomed in farther so they should look softer. Backing out to 50% is a better comparison. The images look great with a touch of sharpening before printing and the detail is there so I don't have a complaint. |
|
Kelly Glasscock, Photographer
|
Jackson Hole | WY | United States | Posted: 6:04 PM on 07.26.05 |
->> You are all correct in saying that the center focus point is the fastest. In fact, it's because it reads both horizontal and vertical lines. the other focusing points will only read one or the other. I think its horizontal lines.
This means the center focus point will have more of a chance to see the subject and focus on them. This would be a big help when focus tracking. I use the center focus point only with my Mark II and I've had success.
Also has anyone played with Custom Function 21. it says "Drive Speed priority Al Servo" you can disable or enable it. Does that mean the frames per second will slow down to ensure sharp focus while tracking? |
|
David Collister, Photographer
|
Isle of Man | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 9:43 AM on 07.27.05 |
->> Has anyone tried selecting the centre focusing point along with an adjacent point so two are lit?
Someone I know swears by it but I'm not convinced, I almost always stick to the centre spot. |
|
Pete Lorence, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Loughborough | Leicestershire | UK | Posted: 9:55 AM on 07.27.05 |
->> Got back from Paris the other day after the Tour de France. Since my last post on here, I've updated the firmware and tried using my friend's 100-400 L IS. As you can see from my member gallery, all my shots came back pin sharp, even in murky wet conditions.
www.sportsshooter.com/pete
So, was it the firmware or my 70-200 causing the problems? |
|
Pete Lorence, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Loughborough | Leicestershire | UK | Posted: 9:56 AM on 07.27.05 |
| ->> Incidentally, pretty much all shots taken that day were sharp, regardless of focus point position. |
|
Pete Lorence, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Loughborough | Leicestershire | UK | Posted: 1:10 PM on 08.24.05 |
| ->> An update from me, received the camera back from Canon after being calibrated and checked over, however the problem presists. Think I'll pester them for a replacement model as it doesn't look like this camera is ever going to fix itself. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 10:47 AM on 09.20.05 |
->> I searched through the threads and this one is the closest to my question/problem.
I've noticed a strange thing when shooting on my Canon 1D. It
looks in focus through the viewfinder (either manual or AF),
looks good/sharp in photo mechanic as thumb or full preview, but the photos look blurry when I open them in PS. I've shot
using all of my lens, 85/1.8, 28-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8, etc. Same problem with any of the lenses. Any idea what could
be happening?
Not sure if this is a camera problem (back focus or whatever)
or a file format, computer software problem.
-stew |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 12:38 PM on 09.20.05 |
->> Are you shooting jpeg only or RAW + jpeg?
Do you have jpeg sharpening turned on in the camera?
When you look at the image in Photoshop are you at 25, 50 or 100%? (25 and 50% display without jaggedies because they're even divisions of the size, where 33 and 66% are not).
The antialias filter in front of the sensor will cause images to appear a bit soft. A minor touch of sharpening will fix the image up nicely. There's a bunch of ways to sharpen so you'll need to find what works for you - there needs to be some applied though. It's just a digital thang. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 12:51 PM on 09.20.05 |
->> Shooting JPEGS (large), no sharpening in camera. View them
at 100%
I was told not to turn jpeg sharpening on in camera by Canon rep.
I've shot a few images using someone else's new 300/2.8 on
my body, but haven't looked at them yet. Will do, and repost
to this thread with results. |
|
Bill Akin, Photographer
|
Watkinsville | GA | USA | Posted: 1:19 PM on 09.20.05 |
| ->> Turn off the IS on the 400mm. This should speed up focusing for you. |
|
Gil Batzri, Photographer
 |
Oakland | CA | USA | Posted: 2:13 PM on 09.20.05 |
->> Not to hiijack the thread, I am suffering from OOF shots on my Mk2 but the images are better then my 1D, so I survive. My question is on USM, what are you guys setting PS for? I used to use 60-80% @ 1px or thereabouts for my 1D shots, and that worked nicely enough but they are not quite snappy with those settings on my Mk2 files.
Discuss... |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 2:22 PM on 09.20.05 |
->> Don't view at 100%. Though it seems like you'd be able to tell whether focus is correct, you're standing too close to the trees to see the forest.
It's like standing with your nose to an oil painting. It won't look right until you stand back.
Today's sensors contain pixels that are a lot smaller than previous generation's sensors, and they're just going to get smaller as sensors get better.
Small pixels don't mean sharper pixels. They do mean better resolving power when it comes to following outlines and the subtleties of our subjects, but you can't tell until you see them grouped together, in other words, on paper or when you've zoomed out a bit. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 3:03 PM on 09.20.05 |
->> I don't own IS lens, don't care for them or need them. I'm
not looking to speed up the focussing.
Even when viewed at 25% or 50% the images look OOF. Let
me find one and I'll post a link to it in a few minutes
so you can see what i'm talking about. Maybe it will look
good on your computer. Maybe it's just mine. Also will include
the test images from somebody else's new 300/2.8 |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 09.20.05 |
->> OK, here's a link to an image shot yesterday of Richard Hatch, yes, the naked guy from Survivor. he was in court on federal charges of tax evasion, fraud, etc.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/stewmilne/blurry/
the first photo is scaled down 25%, the next 50% and the last
is a cropped version at 100%
does this look a little blurry to you? i had photo open in photo mechanic and photoshop at the same size and the one in MP looked much sharper. is there a sharpening preferance in MP?
or are my eyes just deceiving me?
technical info: shot at ISO 100, 500/5.6 |
|
Gil Batzri, Photographer
|
Oakland | CA | USA | Posted: 5:25 PM on 09.20.05 |
| ->> It didn't look soft to me. the 100% was nice and crisp. (unless I am missing something) |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 5:38 PM on 09.20.05 |
->> Gil: That's why i was asking if it was just my eyes.
But there is a difference between seeing the image in PS and PM. really. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 5:40 PM on 09.20.05 |
->> Stew, I'm 100% with you. I'm having the absolute identical problem with mine but it's substantially more noticable. I've noticed that on every lens it seems to get progressively worse the further the subject is from the camera. Other shooters say it's my lenses, but first off, all 8 can't be screwed up and secondly, they look totally fine on a 1DS, 20D and 1D.
I thought I was just being overly anal about image quality but when I can see the detail of someones pores (in a similar shot as yours) on a 1D, I see a faint blur on a 1Dm2.
I'm on my third one this year and am not planning to upgrade from my 1D's until I get one that works perfectly. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 6:08 PM on 09.20.05 |
->> Thomas: When I first noticed the "blur" I thought it was b/c of my aging 70-200/2.8 which needed repairs. But when I got it back from CPS and then bought a used, but pristine 300/2.8, I still noticed it. So I'm left wondering (for almost 2 years now), is it my older lenses, or is there a problem with my 1D?
It's out of warranty now (my fault). How do you test a lens or camera for focus?
I shot a tape measure once with my 300/2.8 on the 1D, focusing at a certain point that I marked with a little red flag. When I looked in PS, the little red flag wasn't in focus, but the
tape before it was. Camera or lens?
So, I've also seen this problem on a brand new, less than 6 months old, 85/1.8 lens.
I;m taking everything in to a local shop for a check-up tomorrow, while I vacatoin for a week. Hopefully, everything well be sharp when they are returned to me.
I've also noticed a different issue. While shooting at Fenway or BC stadium, I get different metering results than say somebody with a 1Dmkii. They read 640iso, 640at2.8, while I get 800iso 500/2.8. i see their photos and they look correctly exposed. So i try to use their settings and mine are underexposed. Bad camera? Bad Lenses? |
|
Robert Dall, Photographer, Assistant
|
Winnipeg | MB | Canada | Posted: 6:13 PM on 09.20.05 |
| ->> It looks soft to me |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 6:29 PM on 09.20.05 |
->> The best way I can describe it without having a photo in a gallery yet for you to see, is that the image isn't out of focus or back focused, there is absolutely no discernable plane of focus anywhere in the image.
Say I'm shooting wide open with a long telephoto lens. I'm shooting a running back coming at me with plenty of grass at the bottom of the photo. Normally under those circumstances the grass will be a blurred field of green with a thin sharp line in the grass under the player. This is the line we used in the beginning when the older generation cameras would back focus. You could easily tell because that line was a few feet behind the runner. The problem I have is that that line isn't in the photos. It just goes from uber blurry to slightly blurry and back to uber blurry. (say that 10 times fast).
I'll post a few samples eventually. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 6:37 PM on 09.20.05 |
| ->> Thomas: I've noticed that too with my 1D. Also noticed the line of focus is before the runner. Check out my ss.com site. It's a littel tough, sicne they are only 600px, but I think you can tell that some are in the blurry zone (not out of focus) as you describe it. Like vaseline on the lens. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|