I own a 1DsMk3 and I like to shoot with the 35L, 85L at wide open aperture. The whole frontfocus backfocus thing is wearing me down. Microadjustments and trips to the repair center are thus far getting me nowhere. Some owners of these bodies and lenses are totally satisfied so it seems like I got a dud body perhaps.
Do Nikon D3x owners have as many autofocus difficulties when shooting at wide open apertures? I am not talking about landscape shots at f/8. I'm shooting at f1.2 to a subject 7 feet away.
I am to the point where if I think a D3x is the solution I'll ebay all my Canon stuff as I have zero brand loyalty. I just want something does what I need it to do..
Umm so there are no f1.2 glass except for a manual focus lens in the 50mm range... And the Nikkor 35 f/1.4 is nice, but it's also manual focus. Sadly Nikon is lacking in fast wide primes with AF. Except for the 28 f/1.4, but that's really expensive... However, the zooms from 14-24, 24-70 keep getting rave reviews from Canon switchers, so perhaps that's the way to go? But if you really like fast wide primes, it's not great news on the Nikon side.
Actually why don't you ask this on the Nikon forum?
Avi B wrote:
Umm so there are no f1.2 glass except for a manual focus lens in the 50mm range... And the Nikkor 35 f/1.4 is nice, but it's also manual focus. Sadly Nikon is lacking in fast wide primes with AF. Except for the 28 f/1.4, but that's really expensive... However, the zooms from 14-24, 24-70 keep getting rave reviews from Canon switchers, so perhaps that's the way to go? But if you really like fast wide primes, it's not great news on the Nikon side.
Actually why don't you ask this on the Nikon forum?
I agree as far as glass selection goes. Canons 35L alone is one reason for me to stay. I have a Nikon 14-24 with adaptor for the Canon. No autofocus but nothing Canon make in that focal length range comes anywhere near it. My eyes require me to have autofocus for speed when doing some shoots.
With the 1ds3 I can shoot portraits at iso 1250 , crop and print them at 12x18 and they look smooth and clean. Nikons D3x is a "maybe" in higher iso.
The reason I don't post on the Canon or Nikon forums is that brand loyalty tends to be more prevalent there. I can talk nonsense to myself all day with no need to go to a forum
The 35/1.4 Nikkor is not so great at large apertures, unless you are into peripheral softness, and spherical and other aberrations. That 35/1.4 was a good lens for its day, but I do not miss it. Nikon is overdue for a replacement of several fast primes. Unfortunately when they were struggling with sensor suppliers and using APS-C only, there was a limited reason for progress in the fast/wide FX glass.
How have you gone about tweaking the Micro-adjust on your Canon? While I don't have the 35L, I do use the 24L, 85L, 135L and the 200mm1.8 with and without the 1.4 converter, all wide open at close range where the focus is exceedingly critical, and I'm constantly amazed at just how accurate it all is.
I spend about ten minutes per lens, tethered to a laptop shooting real world images at the approximate distances I plane to shoot at and dial in the Micro-adjust until it's as close to a manual Live View focus as I can get. I then shoot a bunch of test images around the studio of different random subject and varying distances and doublecheck those to see if there needs a tick one way or the other. As I said, this takes maybe ten minutes per lens, and gives me complete confidence in the focusing of my 1DsMKIII's. Of course, it's a different MA setting for each lens and body, and it doesn't seem to be a linear correlation between the two bodies.
How have you gone about tweaking the Micro-adjust on your Canon? While I don't have the 35L, I do use the 24L, 85L, 135L and the 200mm1.8 with and without the 1.4 converter, all wide open at close range where the focus is exceedingly critical, and I'm constantly amazed at just how accurate it all is.
I spend about ten minutes per lens, tethered to a laptop shooting real world images at the approximate distances I plane to shoot at and dial in the Micro-adjust until it's as close to a manual Live View focus as I can get. I then shoot a bunch of test images around the studio of different random subject and varying distances and doublecheck those to see if there needs a tick one way or the other. As I said, this takes maybe ten minutes per lens, and gives me complete confidence in the focusing of my 1DsMKIII's. Of course, it's a different MA setting for each lens and body, and it doesn't seem to be a linear correlation between the two bodies.
Sounds like my setup. I have spent hours on the tripod with a notebook computer connected to the camera and a contrast target on a meter stick on a second tripod. Here's the problem; It will microadjust dead on at say 8 feet distance. Fine. Problem is when the subject is 25 feet away the microadjustment is wrong. The 200 1.8 is one of the worst for me in having the microadjustment usefull at only one fixed distance. Unless I have the 1.4x extender on the it! It makes it an f2.5 lens but it gets the focus dead on at any distance with the microadjust at zero.. Strange. I sent the 35L 85L and 135L to Canon with the body and it came back different only in that the microadjust values changed. Of course I cant send in the 200 1.8 since they won't even look at those lenses anymore. Thats an odd thing in itself
I am wondering if the body is a lemon. I have seen some people say they never have troubles and some who sent their stuff in over and over and over then either someone really good fixed it or they were sent a different body back. I would love to get my hands on a different 1Ds3 body to see what happens with that.
The older Canon lenses are more problematic than the newer ones in that they are not as adjustable internally. That said, lenses like the 200 1.8 actually does have near and far adjustments for AF internally, and as long as your lens does not need parts, which it shouldn't, Canon can calibrate that, just as they did for mine. When I moved to the MKIII, I was finding all sorts of focus accuracy problems that I never saw in the MKII. Both my 24L and 200 1.8 had the same near/far AF problems but after calibration they are both excellent. The 70-200 f/4IS needed calibration, and apparently there are more and finer adjustments available internally on these newer lenses, but after calibration, it's simply amazing.
Some 1DsMKIII bodies did have some AF problems, especially in some of the peripheral points. I think my first body had to have each individual point calibrated and after that it's been great. It can take some time to pinpoint exactly where a problem lies, especially with zoom lenses. Actually it's more like nightmare, shooting AF tests with each AF point and a range of focal lengths.
You'll need to talk to someone at Canon, and it will help to be a CPS member, which it sounds like you should qualify for, but they should be able to calibrate your 200. I know they did mine in Irvine just over a year ago. They were a bit reluctant at first but Chris Canada treated me right. Just be respectfully insistent.
xrayvision wrote:
I agree as far as glass selection goes. Canons 35L alone is one reason for me to stay. I have a Nikon 14-24 with adaptor for the Canon. No autofocus but nothing Canon make in that focal length range comes anywhere near it. My eyes require me to have autofocus for speed when doing some shoots.
With the 1ds3 I can shoot portraits at iso 1250 , crop and print them at 12x18 and they look smooth and clean. Nikons D3x is a "maybe" in higher iso.
The reason I don't post on the Canon or Nikon forums is that brand loyalty tends to be more prevalent there. I can talk nonsense to myself all day with no need to go to a forum ...Show more →
Well the high ISO noise of the D3X doesn't seem bad at all based on various shots I've seen. And ISO1250 shouldn't be a problem. This is something that you can request on the Nikon board, examples of high ISO shots on the D3X.
As far as lens lust, yeah well, if you absolutely NEED the 35mm at a wide aperture then I guess Nikon is not so great for you. There is a AF 35 f/2 that's pretty good. But it's not 1.4 As for the 85L, the Nikon 85 f/1.4 also has nice bokeh, but it's not the same as the 85L. But at least the focus speed is much faster! And manual focus action is very smooth (tis real MF action not servo assisted or somesuch nonsense).
I tried to send them the 200 1.8 a couple years back when I got it. Just to calibrate it to the 1ds2 I had. They would not let me send it in. They suggested a 3rd party company - not any one in particular. I do not qualify for CPS. For starters you have to own at least two pro bodies. A couple of months back they misplaced the body at the warehouse when I sent it in for shutter failure and thought it was shipped when it wasn't. They finally got me with a guy who shipped it but it had the wrong street name on it. For all that trouble I was told I'd get *one* free CPS servicing of my stuff. As for the CPS service it came back requiring me to microadjust. That means it wasn't calibrated correctly. The body and three lenses went back this past Monday and I'm waiting to hear something. As for the 200 1.8? It doesn't focus right because Canon reps said they didn't want to touch it. A 200mm f1.8 needs to autofocus right or its virtually useless. I've got about $17,000 worth of Canon pro equipment and I can't get into CPS and they wont touch the 200 1.8 and the stuff is back for the fourth time (minus my favorite uncalibrated lens) and no word...
"As for the CPS service it came back requiring me to microadjust. That means it wasn't calibrated correctly. "
That's not necessarily so. There is a factory tolerance to every piece of gear Canon (or anyone) makes. Just because you've had the camera or lens calibrated does not need you won't need to make a MA fine tuning to get the most out of your lens and camera. According to the CPS people I've spoken with, the MA range covers the range of the factory tolerances and if you can get your lens to perform well anywhere within that range, you're within tolerance and don't need a calibration.
Unfortunately, your problem a non linear calibration characteristic - different calibration requirements at different distances. They can and will fix this. You're going to have to be insistant and keep after them 'til you get to the right person who will take care of you. Was your lens sent to Ca. or NJ? Is there any way to take it in in person?
The requirements for CPS have been completely revamped and you may now qualify. Check the website to see. You may have better luck if you are in fact a CPS member.
"The body and three lenses went back this past Monday and I'm waiting to hear something. As for the 200 1.8? It doesn't focus right because Canon reps said they didn't want to touch it. A 200mm f1.8 needs to autofocus right or its virtually useless."
Agreed that the 200 needs to be right on to work well, but the explanation above makes little sense to me. There should be third party repair shops that can do this. I'm told there is one very near Canon's Irvine repair facility. When Canon fixed my lens, it was a simple matter of desoldering a couple connections and re-soldering them to different contacts.
Peter,
Non-linear is the word I used in one of my conversations with a Canon rep. They treat me like an idiot and like the techs are mysterious wizards doing things I couldn't possibly comprehend. I'm never allowed to talk to a technician. I'll talk to God some day but I'll NEVER get to talk to a Canon tech >: )
I sent the stuff in four weeks ago as a CPS job (my one freebee) and it came back wrong.
NJ is where I've been sending it. A manager there got involved when the 1Ds3 body got misplaced at the service facility then misaddressed. Two days of FUN! not...
I think he regrets offering a one time CPS repair now. He does not repspond to emails.
Re-solder to different contacts? I can do this. I've been soldering for 40 years. Big stuff and near microscopic stuff. The problem is the technical end of this stuff is relegated to mystery. I would love to get my hands on service manuals. I'd tweak it in myself.
When I bought a new 1Ds2 in 2005 it arrived with the focal plane whacked. The two new L lenses I bought with it had the same in-focus on one side/out-of-focus on the other side issue. It took over three weeks to get the stuff back.
I'm to the point where I'm taking it personally.
I use the process (and their AutoFocuX system) and I am getting very good results with my 10 lenses and two MA bodies. If you do your micro adjustment at less than Canon's recommended 50x focal length, you may not get stable results (like you are seeing).
Canon has more fast glass than Nikon especially in WAs and WAs are very sensitive to focus. If you shoot wide open it makes sense that you will have more focus problems than Nikon because you can't set a F2.8 lens to F1.2 or F1.4.
And to compound that is the fact that those little red rectangles that tell you where the autofocus points are supposed to be, are not necessarily one hundred percent accurate. It really does take a fair amount of trial and error paying close attention to how your autofocus system responds in the real world to be able to use it effectively. I'm constantly surprising myself shooting at MFD, say with the 85L wide open, where you might have a depth of field measured in millimeters, and just the right part of the eyelashes are in sharpest focus. It does seem to be, that at least at first, I had more AF problem after moving from a 1DsMKII to the MKIII, but now I think there was also subtle learning curve to the newer cameras and when I look back now, I can see that the newer system is overall much better. It's also really hard to quantify exactly what I mean by learning curve. It could be in part, getting use to the fact that the toggle switch makes it almost automatically intuitive to pick the best positioned sensor for a given shot. Now, if they would only expand the area of the sensors to cover a bigger portion of the frame... How many times has the point of greatest interest been outside of the sensor array and you have to mentally figure out which sensor is in the same plane as the one you want to focus on.
I have been shooting with a 200 1.8 since 2006 so I am very familiar with the fine points of extreme low DOF. Heres what I did today -
I took the 50D I recently purchased as a back up and put the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and 200 1.8 on it and shot around the porch and front yard. I was shooting wide open at near and far subjects. I chose subjects that would demonstrate the DOF and center point. I also know that the further away the subject the more the focal plane extends behind the center focus point.
The shutter speed was 1/800 or faster with all shots so I just steadied my hold without a tripod. Now I know that with a crop sensor the depth of field increases. It was visibly so - and a no brainer. Heres what actually infuriates me; out of 47 frames only one missed the mark. The prosumer camera I just paid $1100 for totally destroyed the Canon flagship I paid nearly $8000 for. With the 1Ds3 I would have had maybe 7 dead on out of 47 and that would happen only if I struggled with microadjust nonsense. I had been second guessing myself with the 1Ds3. Canon sold me a lemon and then after having it back multiple times it is still junk. "Factory specs" mean nothing to me. I learned long ago to fully check Canon lenses immediately since they ship junk lenses sometimes that meet "factory spec". Often the only way to get them right is to trade them in on another. Now I am thinking some bodies are hopelessly defective and can only be corrected by a unit level replacement. I was hoping to get the body back from the service center by Tuesday next week. Now I never want to see it again. I can't even sell it on ebay with a clear conscience at this point. To say Canon have a major malfunction with quality control would be an understatement. They ship and pray.
I use the process (and their AutoFocuX system) and I am getting very good results with my 10 lenses and two MA bodies. If you do your micro adjustment at less than Canon's recommended 50x focal length, you may not get stable results (like you are seeing).
Thanks for your information. I have never seen anything where Canon say to use the 50x multiplier for micro adjust target distance. I'm not saying you're wrong, I believe it is another case of info some people discover but most people dont. They recently released an on line tutorial on how to set up their auto focus as far as tracking and all. It was not mentioned there. They mention using it during a shoot to aid in putting the focal plane on someones eyes when you are focusing on their chest for example. Yeah right.
On the other hand if the autofocus in the camera is linear what difference would it make if I dial in the 35L micro adjust at 5.7 feet as recommended or at 7 feet where I did it? As mentioned in my post a few minutes ago all these hours and angst I put into the microadjust etc. became a dead issue when I took an out of the box 50D and three lenses and found them all to be dead nuts on with near and far targets.. No sending them repeatedly to the service center no nuthin. They just work the way they're supposed to.
You might do a google search on Chuck Westfall and 50x focal length or similar terms. He was the Canon representative that initially explained this recommendation. Remember, Canon has it's own internal specs for initial lens calibration so it makes sense to listen to their guidance.
You will get your most accurate MA results at longer distances. It is easy to try ... just adjust your lenses at the recommended or longer distance and then check them at shorter distances. I have found this works great. If you don't believe it, just do a MA at the close in distances you have been using and then try to test accuracy at longer distances. After a few try's you will start to see the difference. Distance seems to require a higher level of precision in the adjustment than close distances.
UCSB wrote:
You might do a google search on Chuck Westfall and 50x focal length or similar terms. He was the Canon representative that initially explained this recommendation. Remember, Canon has it's own internal specs for initial lens calibration so it makes sense to listen to their guidance.
You will get your most accurate MA results at longer distances. It is easy to try ... just adjust your lenses at the recommended or longer distance and then check them at shorter distances. I have found this works great. If you don't believe it, just do a MA at the close in distances you have been using and then try to test accuracy at longer distances. After a few try's you will start to see the difference. Distance seems to require a higher level of precision in the adjustment than close distances. ...Show more →
That makes sense. Canon replaced the mirror box yesterday. Thats the top where the metering is down to the autofocus assy. I was told. I guess it will be back to me tomorrow. I really really hope this gets it.
The camera is back 9 days later. They replaced the mirror box. Great. Did they bother to calibrate the viewfinder focus? Naw.. WTF? So if I autofocus it looks slightly blurred in the viewfinder but the aquired image is in focus. If I manually focus using the viewfinder the aquired image is out of focus. They need to shim or adjust the focus screen when doing a mirror box replacement so this wont happen but they didn't. To get the viewfinder in focus to my eyes the pointer has to be at 7 o'clock now as opposed to 2 o'clock before but as described above the focus screen is not in the right place.
The camera will need to go back a FIFTH time. Is Nikon service incompetent too I wonder? This was supposed to be a CPS service job on my 1Ds3
As for the 85L, the Nikon 85 f/1.4 also has nice bokeh, but it's not the same as the 85L. But at least the focus speed is much faster! And manual focus action is very smooth (tis real MF action not servo assisted or somesuch nonsense).