| 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
Focus Problems (was Canon Focus Problems)
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
 |
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 2:15 AM on 09.21.05 |
->> When we last saw our heroes, Thomas Witte and Stew Milne had problems with image focus their Canon digital bodies.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=16709#46
I changed the subject because this problem isn't isolated to Canon bodies.
A couple subtle things come to mind that can affect focus.
The body might not be getting good connections to the lens so it can't drive focus correctly.
The lens might not be responding correctly.
You can triangulate the problem by trying the lenses on different bodies and different lenses on the bodies. If the problem follows a lens or a body then you know where the issue lies.
And, it sounds like in both cases the lenses checked out using other bodies, so it sounds like they're OK which points back to the bodies.
If there has been any sort of damage to the lens mount on the front of the body, then the image will never be in focus because the lens won't be sitting at the right angle (90 degrees to the film plane). A portion of the image will usually be in focus though it isn't necessarily where the focus sensor was.
With Canon's software you can check an image to see which sensor was active when the shot was taken. That'll help determine if maybe the wrong sensor was enabled - I mean, who here hasn't done that! Hands up for a count! Dang. I am the only one.
Another thing that's insidious and evil is the sensor alignment itself. The sensor has to be perfectly in-line with what would be the film plane, and if it isn't the image will be soft. It should have a focal plane somewhere in the image, but you wouldn't be able to tell what's up by looking through the finder.
I found out about the sensor alignment by talking to one of the repairmen at CRIS, which is a Nikon/Canon repair shop in Chandler Az.
I have suspicions that the assembly lines for Canon and Nikon don't always get the sensors aligned correctly - usually they're within spec, but laws of probability say there's gonna be some bodies with problems.
All that's kind of academic though. If you've checked the body and lenses by swapping out, and the problem follows a particular piece of equipment, then it's time to send some sample photos with the equipment off the the maker for repair instead of pounding your head against the wall. Ok, another count... who here has tried everything they could think of until they were frustrated and exhausted ... Let's get a count of hands... DANG!!! ONLY ME AGAIN!? |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 4:20 AM on 09.21.05 |
->> Reading both Stew's comments and Thomas' comments in the last thread, I'd guess that the problems are somewhat different.
Stew, it seems to me that if images from your camera have a clearly defined plane of sharp focus, but the focus is either in front of or behind the intended plane of focus, and it is happening with all of your lenses, then I'd suspect that the camera is front or back focusing. This problem becomes more apparent if you are shooting at the widest aperture setting and even more so if your subject is relatively far away. For what it's worth, I've found that my 1D camera needs to be corrected for front/back focusing problems about once per year. My 1DII has been a bit better in this respect, but has still required a recalibration.
Just to throw in a twist, I noticed something strange and maybe related to your problem.... I recently acquired another telephoto lens and after having shot a few events with it, have begun to wonder if it is really as sharp as I think it should be (BTW, this is an L series lens that should be sharp). After looking at a number of images made with that lens on two different systems, I've come to the preliminary conclusion that the way the images are rendered in Photo Mechanic and Photoshop may also be influenced by the computer's display. For instance, if I view the files in PM on my 12" iBook, which I use on location for transmitting, I'd swear the images are softer... or at least the way in which the transitions from in focus to out of focus are rendered are not smooth... rather kind of, ever so slightly smeared. This smeared look seems to degrade the "sharpness" of images and seems to create a slight halo around out of focus areas that have a sudden contrast transition from light to dark (could this be a gamma/calibration problem?). In fact, it put me off so much this past weekend that I didn't file a bunch of otherwise OK images and shot the second half of that game with another lens because I thought the new lens was faulty. When I view the same images at home with my G5 tower connected to a LaCie 19" monitor, the images are more "natural" looking. It's difficult for me to describe better, just that the smearing I noticed with the iBook is not evident when viewed with the LaCie. Areas of high contrast transition that are out of focus look the way I think they should, with smooth gradation. Before I noticed this, I was on the verge of shippng the lens off to Canon for evaluation.... but now I'm not so sure the lens is the problem. It might be a problem with the iBook.
Regarding the apparent exposure variations between your 1D and someone else's 1DII: which firmware version is in your 1D? It's been a while since I've kept up with the 1D specs, but relatively soon after the release of the 1D a lot of photographers complained that it was too noisy at high ISOs. Banding problems, etc. Canon came out with firmware fixes, but also released a couple custom tone curves for high ISO images. If I remember correctly, these tone curves required some exposure compensation. Maybe 1/3 or half stop. What I think Canon did was tweak the curve so that it made the shadow areas even darker to hide the noise, and as a result, midtone areas were also affected. As a result, you had to slightly overexpose to compensation for this. The level of noise reduction (ON1 and ON2) may also play into this, but according to the Canon web site for the version 1.4 firmware update, you no longer need to apply exposure compensation if you use either of the noise reduction settings. Even the standard 1D tone curves in my opinion are dark, especially in midtone and shadow areas compared to the Mark II.
Here's a copy of what Canon states at the firmware 1.4 web site: http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/EOS1D/1D_firmware-e.html
Noise reduction tone curve setting is added to the EOS-1D's monitor menu.
Noise reduction for horizontal banding which may be visible at high ISO speed settings is added to the EOS-1D's monitor menu. With this setting, you do not need to use the driver software to load a tone curve for noise reduction (as required with firmware version 1.3.0 or lower) and you do not need to apply exposure compensation or flash exposure compensation before shooting. Refer to the Noise Reduction Instruction Manual for more details about these settings. You can download a PDF version of Firmware Up date Instruction Manual and Noise Reduction Instruction Manual at the bottom of this web page.
------
As for Thomas... that problem seems a lot more mysterious. If it's happening with all your lenses, but only the 1DII bodies you've tried so far, there must be something specific to the Mark II that is the issue... Caryn Levy made an interesting comment in the previous thread about having to replace the lens mounts on her lenses after switching to the Mark II... who knows, maybe that might be a solution?
I was going to say that since you are an avid long lens shooter for football, etc., that maybe images are suffering from atmospheric distortion caused by heat radiating off the field. Over the last couple weeks I've photographed a few games at various stadiums that all had the new Field Turf surface. All of the games were afternoon starts with some degree of sun, and relatively warm temperatures. All of the images shot at 600 mm or longer suffered degradation from "heat haze". Even with a 400 the problem is evident. IMO Field Turf is certainly better than the old Astro Turf... but still not as good as real grass. Looking at images where the action is relatively far away with the full body of the players in the frame, it's impossible to define a sharp plane of focus on the field because there is too much smearing caused by the heat haze. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 4:19 PM on 09.21.05 |
->> Ron- True, field turf is the bane of our existence with long lenses, but it's not that. This "phenomena" happens when I'm shooting a portrait with a wide lens, under lights, indoors, at f-friggin-22. Under those circumstances something HAS GOT to be tack sharp. Things will look okay in the photo but when you really look at it at 100%, you'll see that "Vaseline on the lens" type thing that Stew mentioned.
I'm on the verge of a break through with CPS about it though. This should be fixed soon. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 4:52 PM on 09.21.05 |
->> Wow, Ron, that's a lot of info. Thanks. I just shot some frames using my 1D and a 85/1.8 at 1.8. I'll post those in a few minutes.
I believe I have the latest firmware (1.4.something), but
will chekc that as well.
I just took my 300/2.8, 14/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 for repairs
and/or check-ups.
If it is a camera problem. How much does this cost for CPS to do every year (refocus the plane).?? |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 5:14 PM on 09.21.05 |
->> here is a link to photos i just took with an 85/1.8 at 1.8
is the 16 " mark in focus? it looks the most in focus to me.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/stewmilne/focus/
i've always wondered if my camera was one of the lemons. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 5:32 PM on 09.21.05 |
| ->> Stew, that's exactly the same thing I'm seeing. Out of curiousity though, crank up the f stop to like 8 and see if the stud line is still soft. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 5:40 PM on 09.21.05 |
->> Stew, that sample photo looks pretty good to me. The #16 is focused in the middle. The curve of the tape though makes the scale along the edges unusable.
Where I have some issues with your test method is that: 1) front/back focusing is much more noticeable for subjects farther from the camera. 2) try to set up a target that has a single line in the middle for the AF to acquire. The tape measure or a scale could be set away from the middle of the frame to prevent it from influencing the AF. In this case the tape measure has lots of details on it that the sensor could pick to focus on... There has been debate about the accuracy of the sensor lights in the viewfinder relative to the actual placement of the sensors. If this is a problem with your camera, then the sensor would pick up something other than what you thought you were aiming it at. Alternatively, it could be possible that the half of the sensor picking up the area of the #16 that is closer to the camera will get priority over the middle or farther portion of #16.... so a thinner focus target might work better.
If you could try focusing on something 10 or 15 feet away (maybe a sign outside) or even farther, it might give you a better idea if there is a focus accuracy issue.
A quick Google search came up with these links:
Download a focus test chart here: http://md.co.za/d70/chart.html
http://www.photo.net/learn/focustest/ |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 5:46 PM on 09.21.05 |
| ->> Thomas I see what you are getting at... the plane of focus isn't super crisp. The question is, was that image untouched out of the camera? It could also be the nature of the 85 1.8 at f/1.8. Not owning that particular lens, I can't say if that's a typical result for that lens. I screen grabbed the 100% image and added USM at 300 - 0.3 - 0 and it sharpened up nicely. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 8:54 PM on 09.21.05 |
->> Ron: those are straight out of the camera. I agree, they are good enough, that a little sharpening makes them crisp.
I'll run another test, on an onbject further away, but I don;t have my 300/2.8 at the moment, just my 70-200 and the 85. From what I've read, the 85 is a very clean, crisp, sharp lens.
I'll download the focus chart too. thanks. I hope a canon rep. is listening in on coversation. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 11:10 PM on 09.21.05 |
->> Ron, Thomas, Greg, et al.
I've run out of time today, to perform anymore tests, as I am leaving early Thusday morning for a few days of vacation. I'll be monitoring this thread from my destination and when i return home, will run those tests.
I guess I've noticed it most (the smear) on my 300/2.8 I will be shooting the Red Sox, let's day the batter, who isn't moving from his spot. He looks good in through the viewfinder, but when I download the images, the smear is there. I'll post some of those late as well.
I'd hate to think that my gear is failing me. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 3:47 PM on 09.22.05 |
->> This is a good time to mention something I wish Nikon and Canon and our sponsors would institute....
I'd like to see them have a service where, for a bit more money up-front, we could buy lenses and bodies that have been calibrated and tested to be dead-on for all the focus and exposure specs, where IS lens have been checked for a day or so to make sure they won't lock the body with an error-code, etc.
I'd gladly trade money for the knowledge the gear is guaranteed to be working exactly as spec'd, and that there's an extended warranty backing it up along with a pipeline directly to fast, experienced, top-quality support.
The reason I say this is because of how assembly lines work. Though they have their specs saying how cameras and lenses work, if a lens sub-assembly part is at one end of the spec and a camera sub-assembly part at the other then the performance will be marginal. Add a bit of drift due to aging or environment, and the quality of the images suffer. Give us the opportunity and we'll be willing to spend a reasonable amount to have pre-tested, pre-matched gear.
Call 'em "Nikon Prime Select" and "Canon Prime Select"... and now I'm off to the Trademark site to register those! :-) |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 10:53 AM on 09.23.05 |
->> from Ron: "I've found that my 1D camera needs to be corrected for front/back focusing problems about once per year. My 1DII has been a bit better in this respect, but has still required a recalibration. "
what does recalibration cost? (ballpark figure is good enough)
is this something any good camera repair shop can do or just NPS/CPS?
As even another experiment. I took my 1D body with me on vacation, but will be using my father's lenses to shoot some family events. I'll be checking those images closely. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 4:51 PM on 10.05.05 |
->> Hey everybody. i'm back with another non-scientific focus test. The Radio flyer was about 18 feet away.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/stewmilne/hocusfocus/
the first 3 images are shot using an 85/1.8 at f2.8 and the last 3 are at f11 (same lens)
So, how much does it cost to have your focus (back or front) adjusted?
This is driving me crazy. I think my camera must be front focusing, or it's the "smear" thomas and i are experiencing.
So Greg wants to have his lenses graded like the USDA does meat. Hmmmmm, interesting concept. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 6:31 PM on 10.05.05 |
->> I want to toss this thought out . . . I'm thinking the focus issues isn't a lens/sensor hardware issue but a software/processing issue.
I'm thinking that the processor in the 1DM2 can't actually keep up when creating the large/fine jpegs files especially while shooting in large burst. So to compensate or there is a glitch in the jpeg rendering software in camera where it will create some areas of an image soft or an entire image is soft.
Case in point, I'll get a soft image between two sharp ones while shooting a burst of three or more frames while tracking a play. I can take that image, use the sharpen filter once and it there it is, in terms of sharpness, just like the other two images on both sides of it.
I'm thinking this is the case since it generally happens only when shooting back to back sequences and the soft spots show randomly in different spots on a given frame when it happens. There is no consistency on where or when it shows up. No way to dublicate it.
The other evidence supporting this theory/conjecture is I shot a marathon a couple of weeks ago. The client wanted everything shot a medium jpeg. As far as I can tell I did not have one soft image in the lot. I didn't find a soft image in the 200 or so I looked at closely. Shoot large/fine I would have had at least 15 or 20 frames that were borderliners that I would need to just sharpen a bit to fix.
When I have more time or someone else does - try shooting a grid at the different levels of jpeg compression. May be the M2 processor can't keep or there is a software bug.
Do this make sense or do I need to lay off the Red Bull for a few days? Any thoughts? |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 11:04 PM on 10.05.05 |
->> Clark: you need to lay off the Red Bull! that stuff will damage your brain.
you have an interesting theory, however, it does not apply to me, as I am shooting with a 1D (not mkII). i don't think your scenario applies to Thomas's "smear" problem either. the one out of focus frame between 2 sharp ones, as a problem with the camera trying to refocus ona moving object as it tracks it.
the stuff i've been shooting is standing still (well at least the test images i've posted here) and single, non-multiple burst captures. so no buffer problems encountered.
Ron, Thomas, Greg. any more thoughts?
Thomas: have you ever fixed your problem? |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 11:59 PM on 10.05.05 |
->> Hi Stew,
The test shots at f/2.8 look pretty good to me. I can't really tell if there is a focus issue, since the grass under the edge of the wagon seems in focus.
It might be worth trying the chart I linked to above, even if it means relatively close distances, since it should be much more obvious if the single line in the middle is sharp or not.
Regarding cost to recalibrate the focus: I'm not sure since I never deal with Canon USA (I'm in Canada). So far, the front/rear focus fixes have been no charge. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 12:28 AM on 10.06.05 |
->> Ron: i downloaded that chart, just haven't done the test with it. i wanted to check an object at a further distance.
i'll contact CPS to see if a front/back focus fixing would cost me anything. sounds like it should be covered.
i really need to view these images on another computer too. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 2:06 AM on 10.06.05 |
| ->> Stew- I'm not sure. I sent the body to a repair manager and he called and said in a nut shell "okay, it's messed up, we'll just send you a new one". The new body is in transit. I have litereally thousands of examples from the old body though that better demonstrate the issues I've had. Sooner or later I'll update something. Maybe this weekend. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 8:31 AM on 10.06.05 |
->> Clark- Interesting idea but I still get the "smear" when I'm shooting single frame at f/22 under studio lights... In RAW mode.
I finally just put a gallery up to show you how bad mine was. Looking at other people's examples, you got off easy. http://www.sportsshooter.com/photojojo/oof/
You can't, while sober, say that these 100% resolution crops (images 3 and 4) are sharp. But you look at image 4, you'll see that there simply isn't a plane of focus. Motion blur? Hardly. Shot at 1/3200th at f/4 on a 600/4.
Theorize and postulate all you want. All the lenses do it but only on the Mark 2, none of the other bodies. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 9:52 AM on 10.06.05 |
| ->> Thomas - Yeah, me too, in regards to shooting F22 in a studio situation in RAW. My vote is back-focused a tad bit. The plane of focus it looks to me in the one shot is somewhere around the player's name on the back of his jersey. His face mask is slightly a bit soft but nothing that sharpen filter won't fix. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:43 AM on 10.06.05 |
->> "nothing that sharpen filter won't fix"
A: It doesn't.
B: For a $4000 camera, I shouldn't have to do squat to the image to make it sharp.
My 1D's utterly blow the Mark 2 away in terms of out of camera sharpness. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 12:29 PM on 10.06.05 |
->> "My 1D's utterly blow the Mark 2 away in terms of out of camera sharpness."
That's because of all those extra pixels. The camera is sorting through all the pixels in the frame to use, and your Mk2 is picking all the out-of-focus ones. Dang the luck. :-) |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 6:24 PM on 10.06.05 |
->> Thomas: I agree. I spent $3000 on the 1D and I would expect it to take a sharp photo. I shouldn't have to do any sharpening in PS to fix it. Did you talk with CPS staff before you sent it in? And along the way when they were diagnosing the problem?
OK, I just took a look at Thomas' focus gallery. That's the
same s@*t i'm talking about. At first I think that my images are fore-focussed, then I look again and can't find a sharp
blade of grass in the pic.
I'll upload a recent NFL pic to show you.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/stewmilne/focus3/
tell me this is the same problem as Thomas, or it's a fore-focus issue. you decide. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 9:00 PM on 10.06.05 |
->> There are a number of workflow essays online from respected photographers that state sharpening is part of the normal digital workflow during post production. To expect to do no sharpening at all to a FINAL image is unrealistic thanks to the way current sensors create images (there are reasons why you shouldn't sharpen images if you won't be the end user). The issue we all face is how much sharpening, and why should it be different from camera to camera? Going from the 1D to the Mark II means there are some very significant changes. 1) Resolution - the Mark II resolves more 'lens problems' as well as camera movement detrimental to sharpness. 2) CCD vs. CMOS 3) Anti-aliasing filters. 4) Digic vs. non-Digic image processing. These all contribute to give each camera a different 'look'. I will agree that the 1D tends to have a sharpness about it, but the files are also much more 'fragile' to the effects of curves and levels adjustments. Mark II files in contrast almost seems as though they have more 'depth' to the image, as if a painter had used double or triple the amount of paint to cover the canvas. The Mark II files in contrast to the 1D tolerate a great deal more post processing adjustment but seem to need more sharpening to get the same crispness as 1D files.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/rscheffler/sharpnotsharp/ But if you look at this you'll see that the 1D too can have a soft look to it. Just a note about the sharpened images: They might seem a bit harsh. I suspect that could also be due to the jpeg artifacts caused by the relatively high comression selected for those files.. but it also depends on whether your viewing on LCD or CRT. LCD will appear harsher. For example, the crosshatch pattern on the ball is not visible on my CRT but is on my LCD.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1182 and go to the bottom to see the comments about sharpening.
Thomas, I'm not disagreeing with you that there is probably something funny happening with your camera if you can't get anything sharp no matter the lens or aperture. While it won't necessarily fix the problem you're experiencing, I'd suggest that your problem image is a result of several factors. My experience with the Canon 600 means I prefer to use it at f/5 (2/3 stop from wide open) or f/5.6... If you're still using the older 600, this will make an improvement in quality (also won't hurt on the IS version, which seems to have a touch more snap). I also believe there is some heat distortion coming into play even though it's a grass field....
I'm not sure what to say other than what you see in that football image is what I see under certain conditions in my images with both the older 600 and the new IS version, and also with other lenses too. Most of the time I've attributed the soft images with the 600 to heat. I've been having a heck of a time on any artificial fields during sunny games with the temperature in the 70s or higher. However, last Sunday I finally had a hot sunny game on a grass field and the results were generally much better. Same thing if I'm using the 600 for motorsports - if it's sunny, the Mark II files seem to have less absolute sharpness. If it's overcast, sharpness is much better. Sometime back I'd speculated that it could also be an oversatuation issue, with details blending away in out of gamut colors... but I don't think that would explain the problem under all sorts of conditions. http://www.sportsshooter.com/rscheffler/oog/
Stew, I'd agree that your image is soft in the upper body/head area, though it appears the back of his shoulder might be more in focus? You should really try doing a controlled focus test with the 300 on your 1D. I've also found that AF tends to be a bit less reliable in backlit situations. Maybe when working with the sun, because there is more contrast, the AF has an easier time, and also because the image contains more contrast, it will appear sharper to the eye...?
There are probably a number of factors at play to explain why each of us has had poor results... trying to pin down the primary reason(s) seems to be quite difficult. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
New England | | USA | Posted: 9:11 PM on 10.06.05 |
->> My EOS 1Ds just developed an odd line through the filter over the CCD. In getting the body back from service (I had it FedEx'd out to my assignment this morning in California) I shot my gig, started to edit, and noticed that when shooting vertically everything above a certain point on the CCD is not sharp.
It was hard to notice at first because I was using a Canon 24f3.5 T/S with a heavy shift on my subject, but at f11 and f18 everything outside that shift zone should be sharp and it is not.
Man this sucks, my 1Ds has to go back to Canon again, estimated down time is 2 weeks on the service and I have 7 more full page photos and a some covers to shoot (guess it is rental time). |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 10:52 PM on 10.07.05 |
->> Ron, I understand that, I and still will implement a bit of an unsharp mask, but seriously, look at those examples and tell me that's not acceptable. When I get back to the office Tuesday I'll dig up examples from the 14 through 600 so you can see that the ONLY common denominator is the body.
That example doesn't even begin demonstrate the severity of my problems. That was a random pick from that cameras files from that game. There are other photos I have where it looks like a 4 or 6% gaussian blur was applied to the image. |
|
Michael Hickey, Photographer
|
Kokomo | IN | United States | Posted: 12:10 AM on 10.08.05 |
->> Hey guys, there is something to all of this. I got one of the first Mark II's in Indiana, and there WAS a sharpness issue to it, I sent it in for a different reason and told them to check the sharpness and they performed an adjustment and it came back nearly perfect, still not quite as sharp as the 1D but much sharper.
On a different issue, I shot the Cincy game on Sunday and had a nightmare, I was using a 600 f4 IS with a 1.4x and the heat thermals absolutely KILLED me. So Thomas I think your problem from the Cleveland game is a combination of the camera AND the heat thermals coming off the field. I agree you shouldn't HAVE to but unsharp mask will be part of your workflow. It wouldn't hurt to send it in for a focus adjustment, and I think you'll see a noticeable improvement. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 1:59 AM on 10.08.05 |
->> I know what thermal distortion is. I'm one of the first ones to complain about this when field turf became so common. However, the same thing happens when it's 10 degrees out in the middle of December. I'll show you some images from the AFC Championship game where I had snot frozen to my gloves.
I've had three Mark 2's over the past 15 months and sent each one in three times. The first one wasn't that bad, the second one was abysmal, the third one was like the first. I'm getting a replacement probably this week, we'll see how it does. |
|
Michael Hickey, Photographer
|
Kokomo | IN | United States | Posted: 11:01 AM on 10.08.05 |
->> Do they artificially heat the turf fields in the winter?
By the way I'm not sticking up for Canon, I'm just as disgusted with the camera as you sometimes. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 1:27 AM on 10.09.05 |
->> Maybe, but I don't have the heat up that high when I'm shooting in the studio. I know at least 30 other people who have the same issues I'm having but like anyone who's spent 50k on a mountain of gear, brand loyalty interferes and doesn't allow them to raise hell.
I'm ostensively livid about this as you can plainly see. Earlier this year after shooting back to back assignments for one of my better clients, they stopped using me citing that the files were unacceptably "out of focus". I've recently reconciled with them thank god by going back to film for the time being... Shooting film on the same lenses I was using on the Mark 2... These images however are sharp. Ergo, the common denominator was not heat, lenses, lens mounts or gremlins, it's the friggin Mark 2.
Maybe I'm being overly anal about detail, who knows, but one of the prerequisites to making a good photo is having it in focus in the first place. Stew's tape measure photo and my football shot are NOT sharp. They aren't "out of focus" because like I keep saying, there isn't a plane of focus in the image in the first place, that would denote a simple problem of front or back focusing which could be easily fixed. |
|
Andrew Wheeler, Photographer
|
Capitola | CA | USA | Posted: 2:28 AM on 10.09.05 |
->> Thomas, what firmware are you running?
I have noticed some oddities between the latest and the pre-latest..
Andrew :) |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 11:04 AM on 10.10.05 |
->> Thomas: so who at Canon have you been talking with / sending your cameras in for repair?
I too have had a client comment on "out of focus" looking photos. Very annoying, since they look (and are) in focus through the viewfinder. I actually went back to film, like Thomas, to shoot for a client (same lenses) and they liked the photos.
Is there a support group for us? Who are these other 30 photogs? |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:18 AM on 10.10.05 |
->> Stew, I won't name names publicly, either with the CPS rep or the other photographers, but I'll send you an email later.
Andrew- All the firmwares at some point... But not at the same time. :) |
|
Robert G. Stevens, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 11:36 AM on 10.10.05 |
->> Thomas:
Is it the CMOS chip or the firmware that made the images go soft, or was that particular camera always soft.
Though I am not shooting much sports lately, I tried a new Digital I got a few weeks ago on a football game. This camera has a CCD chip, and the images are brutally sharp compared to my Canon images. Perhaps Canon needs to go back to CCD technology like in the 1D.
Here are the pictures posted to another forum.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/285111#2384636 |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 12:29 PM on 10.10.05 |
->> Is there a support group - sure its called Nikon users.
But I'll warn you, the tune doesn't change just the station - High ISO noise, FF sensor, rubber peeling on the CF door, etc.. - are some of the things being talked about over here. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 11:55 PM on 10.10.05 |
->> Mike: I thought the Nikon user group had disbanded, due to lack of participation.
Thomas: OK, will wait.
What is the fundamental difference between a CCD chip and a CMOS chip? Which is better? Cheaper, Sharper, etc?
Does the Sony recall on CCD chips affect the Canon 1D? I didn't see it listed. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 3:17 AM on 10.11.05 |
->> Stew, from what I recall the 1D sensors may not have been supplied by Sony (Philips comes to mind), but I could be wrong. But the problems listed in the Sony recall appear to be much different from the problem you are apparently experiencing.
I wish I had the technical background to be able to explain the difference between the two sensor types... all I can say is that the images coming out of my 1D have a different quality than what I see from my 1DII. The 1D files do seem a touch crisper, but nothing I can't match with the Mark II and slight USM. It's difficult to say if it's purely a sensor type difference, or related to pixel size, AA strength, resolution... there are just so many variables. What I do know however, is that with my Mark II, I clearly get much more resolution (fine image detail) in an image compared to the 1D files.
The digital camera that Robert is referring to is actually the new Leica digital back for certain R series Leica SLR cameras. It's a 10MP CCD back which has a significant difference from the Canon (and most other) sensors - it has no anti-aliasing filter. That means images will be much sharper out of camera, but could also suffer from various moire problems (though so far that doesn't seem to be the case based on user reports). Time will tell whether it will generally work better than sensors with AA filters but so far the reports have been very positive. Hopefully that in turn will encourage Canon and others to work harder at their own products.
Thomas: I'm not disputing that your Mark II has problems. The image you posted is not sharp. I have spoken with other Mark II users who have complained of consistently soft images. I just haven't seen it personally. If you have the time to post some other images, I would be interested to see them. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:30 AM on 10.11.05 |
| ->> You got it. I'm landing late tonight and decompressing tomorrow so I might do it then. |
|
Paul Montague, Photographer
|
Swisher | IA | USA | Posted: 11:32 AM on 10.11.05 |
->> Stew,
At the risk of dragging the thread "off topic", here's a very abbreviated comparison of CCD and CMOS. This is a one-hour talk condensed to three paragraphs, so there are a lot of gaps...
In both CCD and CMOS technology, a photon hits a silicon substrate and generates (in an ideal world) a single electron. Those electrons accumulate as electrical charges. The way that those charges are amplified, then converted from analog to digital information differs between the two chips.
CCD chips have a single amplifier and analog–to-digital (A/D) converter associated with a single read-out register. The charges in the individual wells (the chip version of a “pixel”) are all laundered through the same amp/converter before output. Any bias or noise generated by the amp will be applied equally to every well, making it fairly easy to filter out.
CMOS chips have these components “sandwiched” with the silicon layers, so there is in essence an amp for every well. The noise generated by the amp layer will vary from well to well, making it more challenging to remove from the final image.
CMOS chips are cheaper to produce because they can be manufactured on the same assembly lines as computer chips.
Now we return to your normally scheduled program.... |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:55 PM on 10.12.05 |
->> Thomas-
In terms of RAW files what are you using to convert the files? CS2, DPP, RSE? |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 5:29 PM on 10.13.05 |
->> Paul: Thanks (i think my head hurts now). No, good info. I knew that CMOS were cheaper, just didn't know which technology was better. I guess there are benefits and downfalls to each.
I'll be talking with CPS soon about my problems. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 5:23 AM on 10.14.05 |
->> Stew:
Also, from what I read CMOS chips also require less energy to 'record' an image hence the longer battery life with the Mark 2 series cameras. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 10:51 AM on 10.14.05 |
->> Clark: Yah, i thought so.
Can we hear from some ss members who have encountered this "smear" issue and brought it to Canon, or Nikon's, attention?
(Thomas: you're exempt). Did the camera co. respond to your
concerns? Did they blame you, blame your lenses, etc. Did they
acknowledge that their product was defective? How did the whole process go? Good, bad, ugly? I'm just wondering how many
people out there have had this problem. |
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 11:23 AM on 10.14.05 |
->> Thomas: here's a level shot at f8. 85mm lens at about 5 feet.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/stewmilne/level/
I don't see the "smear", but don't have another camera body (1D) to shoot the same image for comparison.
Ron, I will eventually shoot that focus chart. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|