| 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
400mm f/2.8 shooting slightly soft / oof??
Adam Heller, Photographer
 |
Grafenwöhr | DE | | Posted: 9:58 AM on 09.20.09 |
->> Hey guys and gals,
I just got done shooting a Bundesligua game, and all of my images are the tiniest bit OOF. I was on center point, f/2.8, iso 100, and still getting around 1/1250 times. It was super bright out. IIRC, my 70-200 is slightly sharper at f/3.2 then 2.8. Is it the same with the 400? It was my first time shooting with it today, I picked up an older non-is model used from Andorama.
Full image: http://i36.tinypic.com/m1noh.jpg
100% zoom: http://i36.tinypic.com/xp7l3l.jpg |
|
Adam Heller, Photographer
|
Grafenwöhr | DE | | Posted: 10:00 AM on 09.20.09 |
| ->> NOTE: I should mention that my 1d MK III is 52xxxx serial #...Right in the middle of the known recall. Think this is the AF problem? |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 10:44 AM on 09.20.09 |
| ->> Your 100% crop isn't at the focal point - which appears to be closer to the black stripes on his sleeve. |
|
William Maner, Photographer
|
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 11:22 AM on 09.20.09 |
->> The depth of field can be so shallow.. If your subject was 100 feet away and you were shooting at 2.8, your effective depth of field (focus) is 2.45 feet. At 50 feet, the DOF is only six inches..
I don't have a Mk III or a 400/2.8, so I can't speak to the specific problem you may have. But I can see how the shallow DOF could be a factor in the situation.
The zoom will have a greater depth of field than the 400mm.
Here's a DOF calculator.. It gives you a good idea of the relationship between focal length, aperture, and subject distance.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html |
|
John Todd, Photographer
|
Palo Alto | CA | usa | Posted: 11:48 AM on 09.20.09 |
->> Adam,
Send in your Mark 3's to get the latest update. Then you can test the 400 better.
I just sent both of mine in for the latest fix and they both work perfect now.
-John |
|
Al Goldis, Photographer
|
East Lansing | MI | USA | Posted: 12:17 PM on 09.20.09 |
->> If it is consistently OOF in the same direction--always front-focused or always back-focused--then you can use the Mark III's AF micro adjustment to fix the problem until you get a chance to have the lens calibrated.
If it's inconsistent then the lens is probably not the problem. |
|
Danny Munson, Photographer
|
San Dimas | Ca | United States | Posted: 12:39 PM on 09.20.09 |
->> Adam I saw your photos on POTN and I wouldn't say it isn't a front or back focus problem because there is nothing in focus. I never really had problems with my MIII but sent it in anyways for the fix and it is still very solid. I was having issues with my MIIn and finally sent it in and now it is very nice.
How does it do in tests in Sevo and normal and do you have problems with other lenses? |
|
Adam Heller, Photographer
|
Grafenwöhr | DE | | Posted: 1:02 PM on 09.20.09 |
->> Danny,
I was actually too ashamed to post those here. haha, forgot quite a few SS members are on POTN. I haven't tested it yet, but I'm going to have to get around to sending it in anyway, I need my sensor cleaned professionally.
I had some issues with my 16-35 and 70-200. I'm considering sending all my gear to Canon and having them match the lenses to the body along with the firmware and a cleaning.
But then again, I'm also considering making the switch. Nikon guys don't have to deal with this stuff do they? |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:50 PM on 09.20.09 |
->> Adam, no Nikon guys don't. It just plain works and 99 out of 100 shots, (at least in good lighting) will be in focus.
I went through several 1D mkIII's and had the same issue you describe. Camera would seemingly track focus fine, but then when I'd review the shots, they'd all be just a little bit soft no matter how much focus adjustment I'd try to dial in.
Sad to say but your basically trying to ice skate uphill if you keep sending in your MKIII bodies and lenses because its not a problem that is going to go away with a firmware or cf function tweaks or anything.
Its just a 1D mkIII issue thats affected most of those bodies. Some report not having issues and there may be some that aren't affected but after 3 tries and half a football season dealing with images like you describe I bite the bullet, bought a D3 and have been much happier ever since. |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
|
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 1:58 PM on 09.20.09 |
| ->> Send in the III - I bought a used one where if the player was stationary it was fine but tracking was horrid and looked an awful lot like this. Since getting it back it's been 100x better. Not sure what happened, when I first got it from the previous owner it worked great for a bit before having the problem. |
|
Adam Heller, Photographer
|
Grafenwöhr | DE | | Posted: 6:31 PM on 09.20.09 |
->> Ok, so.
#1 Going to send in the 1D.
#2 Could a Nikon D3 shooter PM me? I want to pick your brain.
-Adam |
|
Colin Heyburn, Photographer
|
ARMAGH | NI | United Kingdom | Posted: 12:13 PM on 09.21.09 |
->> Two things come to mind. Firstly have you checked your picture style setting? You should check it as that is where the sharpness settings are. The default setting is in the middle whereas the sharpest setting is 4 stops to the right.
Secondly your picture looks as if it was shot in shadow and 1nto the sun which will always require a much faster shutter speed than normal. |
|
Brian Dowling, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 12:48 PM on 09.21.09 |
| ->> Select the custom function "Expand AF" points. I don't remember where it is, but it will help you AF better(I hope) as center point will be a little bigger. |
|
Marc Atkins, Photographer
|
Aylesbury | Bucks | UK | Posted: 2:44 PM on 09.21.09 |
->> If I were you, before anything else I would get the body and 400 to CPS and have them matched. Then go out and shoot again and see what effect it has taken.
FWIW I have a recall MK3 which had similar problems with the 70-200, since doing the above and then using the lens micro adjustment it's been alot sharper.... not perfect, but alot better. |
|
Joseph D. Sullivan, Photographer
|
Long Island | NY | USA | Posted: 6:32 PM on 09.21.09 |
->> I have to offer my two cents on this one. This last Saturday afternoon was a gorgeous day. Bright sun and low 70's. Took the Mark III and the 400 2.8 IS to shoot a pair of collegiate soccer matches.
Occasionally I used a 1.4 with the lens. Chimping during the games, I noticed a lot of shots out of focus. Way out. I was square-on, center point, rear button and no surrounding assist points.
Later that day, I shot a collegiate football game. Same equipment and set up. Many more shots were in focus and one in particular, which ran in the paper, showed a player tackling an opponent and having his helmet knocked off. It's on my 30" screen now and is tack sharp.
I've had everything done to my camera, sub mirror fix, firmware upgrades. Most of the time, it's OK. I re-read Galbraith's original article about the camera and I used my camera, according to him, in what is its worst conditions... bright sun and warm temperatures on Saturday. It's true. I've never had such bad results and it can't be all me. In some shots, it looked like there wasn't ANY plane of sharp focus. I'm fit to be tied.
Some people I know on this site have already dropped their Canon gear and made the jump. Right now, I don't have that luxury. I had hoped to see more from a company that claims to serve professionals with pro gear. My new 5D MkII is tack sharp but the slow frame rate makes it harder for me to shoot sports. I used the 7D for a few frames at a pro baseball game yesterday. Cheaper than the 5D MkII with a faster frame rate. Go figure.
I went back to using my Mark IIN today to shoot high school field hockey and the results look good.
The rumor mill is ripe with talk about a new D series camera announcement after the Olympics. I guess we've all seen it. I can sure tell you that if they bomb on this one, I for one will not be on the slanted deck singing "nearer my god to thee." |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
 |
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 7:18 PM on 09.21.09 |
->> I had the same problem with my 300 mm f/2.8 IS and I took it to Pro Photo in DC which the said my focusing system inside the lens had gone bad. The fix'd the problem and everything is back to when I purchased the lens 3 years ago.
http://suttonm.wordpress.com/ |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 11:49 PM on 09.21.09 |
->> Adam:
I opened your file in Canon's DPP software and it just shows the lens as the EF400mm f/2.8L USM. Do you know if it's the Mark I or Mark II version of the pre-IS lens? See here: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/super_telephoto.html I owned the original Mark I between 1993-97 and it definitely was not as good in some situations as the Mark II or IS versions (which I also owned/own and are very similarly excellent). Some claim it was very good, but that was not always my experience especially in backlit, lower contrast situations (hazy edges).
If it's your first time working with the 400 and getting used to it, I would suggest working at a higher shutter speed until you're more comfortable with it. The Mark III is very nice at ISO 200 or 400. Don't feel you need to limit yourself to ISO 100.
That said it kind of does look like a stereotypical Mark III problem... but is difficult to know without more images. And as already is the impression with this thread, there are many different opinions about the camera. I would try some controlled tests with stationary subjects to first determine if you can get anything in focus (even use live view) to rule out a consistent AF miscalibration. It would be best if you can do this outside at distances similar to when you photograph a match. Also try working in RAW and outputting either the highest quality Jpeg files Tiff. While Canon improved the sharpness of Jpeg files from the III, you will still gain more sharpness from RAW conversions. RAW may not be practical for deadline situations but it removes one more layer of softness at least for your tests.
If your III is eligible for the first recall fix and hasn't had it yet, you should, and also do the second one for the peripheral AF points. And have Canon look at the 400 (if they will still service it). If you absolutely can't get it to work (after borrowing someone else's 400 Mark II or IS version), then maybe think about switching.
At the moment the big question in my mind is the version of the 400 2.8. If it's the Mark I version then test it at various aperture settings to see if it improves. If it's the Mark II version, it should be very sharp at 2.8. And yes, the 70-200 2.8 improves somewhat when at 3.2 or 3.5 at the 200mm end.
Joseph:
Were the games all on natural grass or were some on FieldTurf? Mid afternoon games on FieldTurf (which IMO is the bane of all photographers who like to shoot long) can be very difficult because a lot more heat radiates off those fields than natural turf, which makes it much more likely to get images that appear to have no plane of sharp focus. And FieldTurf is becoming increasingly popular at the college athletics level. The longer the lens the worse it gets. The lower to the field you position yourself the worse it gets. The problem dissipates as the sun sets and the temperature cools. It can also be an issue on very hot mildly overcast days, not just direct sun. This was put into perspective for me when Canada hosted the 2007 U20 World Cup in 2007. Most, if not all games were played on FieldTurf and the European photographers I had a chance to talk to were dismayed with the inability to get sharp cross-field shots during outdoor day games compared to what they were used to at European matches, which I believe are all played on natural turf (for now).
Combine that with the sometimes hyperactive AF of the III and it can result in a lot of inconsistently focused images. For me at least, the latest firmware and outer AF point recalibration (or whatever Canon calls it) helped calm the camera somewhat, but IMO the it's still subject to AF errors (others claim perfect results).
There has been a lot of discussion on various forums about whether or not to use the AF expansion points and when to use CFn. III-4 (which only comes into effect when AF expansion points are enabled). Some claim it helps, some claim the expansion points too quickly pick up busy backgrounds... Whatever the case, I think there will never be agreement about the III. For me personally, it works about as well as the IIN in terms of AF consistency (now), in other words, it's not perfect.
Canon published an AI Servo guide: http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2866. They also have Mark II to Mark III transition guide but it's not as logically laid out for sports photography applications: http://tinyurl.com/34fcgr (it's a pdf direct link from Canon USA). Apparently the combinations of C.Fn III-2, III-4 and III-8 are the mystery to finding an ideal solution...
Ron |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 11:58 PM on 09.21.09 |
->> Adam - one more thing:
DPP shows firmware version 1.1.3 in the EXIF of your sample image. I would suggest you update it to the latest version:
http://www.canon.co.jp/imaging/eos1dm3/firmware.html |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 12:27 AM on 09.22.09 |
->> Adam: I'm back with more...
I looked at your post on POTN and something does not look right with the way the background blurs in some of the images. I really noticed it most with the bottom left corner and file 9bhe2h.jpg (two backlit players battling for a ball in the air) stood out. It looks like there is a diagonally streaked blur in that corner. 2jfko77.jpg is similar though more subtle. Look at the way the out of focus white flowers in front of the background player blur in mtxpgl.jpg. It does not look natural. And the more images I see, the more it looks like the 400 Mark I.
My suggestion is to have the lens checked by Canon (hopefully they will still service it, or suggest someone who can). To me it looks like something is out of optical alignment and I think it is a significant factor. Also get the Mark III fixes done and hopefully the combination will work much better for you.
I'm not sure how much research you did when purchasing the lens, but unfortunately the Canon EF 400 2.8 lens line has an inconsistent history. IMO optical inconsistency of the Mark I lens is too much of a gamble.
FWIW, when I owned the 400 Mark II, one of the inner lens elements fell out of its holder in the middle of a basketball game... so it is very possible that something could have been knocked out of alignment when the lens was shipped to you, or during use by the previous owner, especially considering that the it's at least 10 years old (or more if it's the Mark I version).
BTW, I noticed that sometimes you were shooting at 1/2000... |
|
Adam Heller, Photographer
|
Grafenwöhr | DE | | Posted: 12:52 AM on 09.22.09 |
->> To Ron and everyone who has replied so far: I greatly appreciate the input.
Ron - I've got a UI (1994) date code on the lens. And yes, a good guess. I had figured, 400mm f/2.8 prime....Sure, sounds like a good idea. I didn't realize that not all 400mm Canons have been gems.
To be honest, I've been piecing together this kit for the last 3 years hoping that once I get out of the Army I'll be able to go (avoid college!!!) and make a decent living working for a paper or freelancing. The more and more I read on SS, the less and less that is sounding like a possibility. I absolutely love photography. But our medium is dying. And I'm beginning to wonder on why exactly I have such a massive amount of money invested in a hobby that, apart from posting on POTN and here, hasn't really done too much for me. I've taken photographs literally all over the world...And I'm 23. I can't argue with what the Army has done for me, but I'm thinking that maybe a defense contracting job is more of a liable option than something related to photography. I don't know if I've hit a brick wall or if this is a stereotypical hump.
-Adam |
|
Joseph D. Sullivan, Photographer
|
Long Island | NY | USA | Posted: 7:59 AM on 09.22.09 |
->> Ron: Thanks for the information you offered about my 'problem'. Yes, the field I shot on was a 'turf' field, just installed last spring. I considered rising heat, but out of focus headers? When you are spot on? That's a pretty high radiant heat. Besides, as I tried to relate, the weather was actually cool. I wore a light fleece.
I've shot on turf fields( baseball for example) on warmer days and didn't get the effect I got on Saturday. So, was it heat or the bright sun and warm temperatures as related by Galbraith's initial tests?
Your point it logical however, plastic is going to radiate more heat than natural grass. However, using long glass to shoot down a highway, the radiant heat is obvious but only to a height of 12-15 " or so. All physics aside, I should ask my friends with Nikon D3's if they suffer the same problem... on turf.
As I related, Later that day I shot with the camera at a collegiate football game.. on turf.. and it came out fine.
Yesterday, I shot a high school girls field hockey game with my Mark IIN and aside from the out of focus shots where the camera didn't acquire focus before I released the shutter, the shots were all clearly in focus (on a grass field). It was later in the day, but still warm and very bright.
I will be awaiting the announcement of the Mark IV with some hesitation, hoping that Canon gets it right this time. Can they afford not to? |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 10:18 AM on 09.22.09 |
->> Hi Joseph,
All I can say is that I've found radiant heat to be an issue on days even in the high 60s to mid 70s and I think there are a number of variables that can change depending on location, weather, how long you are shooting, your field position, etc. I have noticed during games that there are sequences where the heat appears to be worse and others where it's not even just a few minutes apart.
I'm not trying to discount your possible problems with the Mark III, rather want to point out that there can be other environmental factors that *may* cause similar effects to the Mark III problem. And the fact that the Mark III seems to underperform in exactly these situations probably compounds the problem.
On Sunday I photographed the Buffalo Bills' 4 pm start. They play on FieldTurf. The first half was in full sun at a comfortable temperature. I shot primarily with a 600mm lens on a Mark III. I have sequences from the first half that are blurred without any plane of critical focus because of the heat radiating off the field, even that late. Shots done with the 300 don't show much, if any, level of image degradation because obviously the action was much closer. As the game progressed the radiant heat became less of a factor and the or sharpness of sequences improved, which is pretty much what I indicated originally and would explain to me why your results improved during the later game.
As for out of focus headers... it depends where on the field those are happening. If you're shooting across the field with the 400 & 1.4x then it's possible radiant heat could still be a factor. Not saying it was, just that I wouldn't completely rule it out without seeing the images. |
|
Joseph D. Sullivan, Photographer
|
Long Island | NY | USA | Posted: 11:33 AM on 09.22.09 |
->> Ron,
Thanks again for your input. I'm shooting another soccer match this afternoon and will use the Mark III as my main camera again. Since I know the venue, I'm sure the game will be played on grass.
I already had those links you sent bookmarked and decided to tweak the settings a bit. We'll see.
However, I must give credit to those who have posted that "tweaks" and CF adjustments won't cure the root cause. The camera's AF system is just a poor design and Canon just circled the corporate wagons to cover up the fact.
Still, I've always liked the Canon system since switching a dozen years ago. If they are furiously testing a new camera as rumors would have it, I'll remain hopeful but, another critical problem and the only circling will be their professional division going down the drain. IMO |
|
John Cheng, Photographer
|
New Milford | CT | USA | Posted: 6:35 PM on 09.22.09 |
->> I'm with Ron here on turf heat...
I shot the Rams/Redskins game this past Sunday. Game time was 1pm and noticed some of my shots were a little "artsy" on certain parts of the field. Eventho FedEx Field has a grass field and the temp was in the high 70s I believe, the bright sun can still generate enough heat off the grass to affect your images if you like to shoot with a long glass and from a low position.
Below example was shot across the field with a 400/2.8 + 1.4TC on a D3.
Original:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/bluereptile/turfheat/pages/1.html
100% crop:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/bluereptile/turfheat/pages/2.html |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|