Python says: Ian's 7D is bad (needs calibration), most are not.
It's way too early to blame Canon for QC issues.
No one here is saying that Canon is free of QC problems, PhotogDave. You seem to read way too much into people's words. I suppose I have an "MO" now based on this post.
I have read through this complete post, and while I don't doubt that the OP is having problems, I am finding it hard to believe that it is something that is a big issue. I saw a few references during this thread that it was happening a lot and that there are many posts out on the web saying this. I did a search using Google, and Bing for posts on focus issues on the 7D and all I could find, other than this one, was posts saying that they were hearing about problems. Now I may not have searched deep enough, but I do know that within a month or so of the 1DmkIII release and the focus problems with it that doing a search would turn up hundreds of different threads with problems. I don't see a correlation here....YET. OP, I wish you luck with yours, and if were me I would return it to the shop I purchased it at and get a different one and see if you have the same issues. I pick mine up tomorrow and hope that I don't have any issues myself.
I'm having MAJOR 7D focus issues; in fact, I can't even see through the viewfinder yet!
I'm one of the risk-takers who bet the farm that Best Buy will start shipping the 7D in some numbers as promised on 10/12.
But I'll be away on business all of next week and the following weekend so, even then, I won't be able to look through my 7D viewfinder until the 19th.
How could you have a "Mode of Operation" after this post. Doesnt make sense.
My statement about Canon was, their MO(Mode of Operation) is to ship items that arent correct or not up to a certain quality standard. I AM right, because if I were wrong, we'd have far less return issues than Canon does.
Its not too early. Canon is crazy for shipping 7D's that are anything but almost perfect after the 1D3. They should be working overtime on these making sure they are right.
They new people would be picking these things apart, and look, Ian gets one thats not calibrated too a tight enough standard. Its backfocusing. And he's not the only one. From reading these posts, I bet their are tons out there in the hands of people that just dont know theirs isnt right. Their just so damn excited to be holding a new 7D, they havent gotten over the honeymoon yet to see its focusing wrong.
Yes we will get these from time to time if the right lenses mate with the right body, but jeez, it seems that its always a "perfect storm" these days. Like the bodies and lenses are registered on Match Maker just to find the one they werent supposed to find.
Aweful funny, you hardly ever heard these issues with the older AF Systems on the 1DIIn. Why is it these perfect storms almost never happened then, but its a coin toss these days that you will get even an "L" series lens thats out of spec. The crim da la crim. L's are supposed to be luxury. Built to a higher standard.
Every L lens I ever bought was out just enough to get oof shots at widest aperture. Just enough to need Canon to screw with it. SCREW with it before it comes of the line! Not after I drop $2k on it.
When my 1D3 was in last, I had just bought a new lens align pro to insure I wasnt mistaking my focus errors. While it was at Canon, I went down to my local pro shop and used it with a friend just to see how often we could find errors with Nikons stuff compared to Canons. We found 2 lenses out of around 25 that were a touch out.
Canon, we found 4-85 f1.2's, 3 50 1.4's, both the 24-70 and 24-105 were way off. Out of 3 70-200 f2.8L IS's, we found 1 that was perfect.
This is the thing, it would seem more like winnig the lottery of getting one good for yoyr body, than the other way around of getting a bad one. Why else does so many peope try out 2 and 3 24-70 f2.8L's before buying one. They know its a coin toss.
How many of those new Nikon 24-70 f2.8s do you hear about needing tweaked. Zealch
PhotogDave wrote:
How could you have a "Mode of Operation" after this post. Doesnt make sense.
My statement about Canon was, their MO(Mode of Operation) is to ship items that arent correct or not up to a certain quality standard. I AM right, because if I were wrong, we'd have far less return issues than Canon does.
Its not too early. Canon is crazy for shipping 7D's that are anything but almost perfect after the 1D3. They should be working overtime on these making sure they are right.
They new people would be picking these things apart, and look, Ian gets one thats not calibrated too a tight enough standard. Its backfocusing. And he's not the only one. From reading these posts, I bet their are tons out there in the hands of people that just dont know theirs isnt right. Their just so damn excited to be holding a new 7D, they havent gotten over the honeymoon yet to see its focusing wrong.
Yes we will get these from time to time if the right lenses mate with the right body, but jeez, it seems that its always a "perfect storm" these days. Like the bodies and lenses are registered on Match Maker just to find the one they werent supposed to find.
Aweful funny, you hardly ever heard these issues with the older AF Systems on the 1DIIn. Why is it these perfect storms almost never happened then, but its a coin toss these days that you will get even an "L" series lens thats out of spec. The crim da la crim. L's are supposed to be luxury. Built to a higher standard.
Every L lens I ever bought was out just enough to get oof shots at widest aperture. Just enough to need Canon to screw with it. SCREW with it before it comes of the line! Not after I drop $2k on it.
When my 1D3 was in last, I had just bought a new lens align pro to insure I wasnt mistaking my focus errors. While it was at Canon, I went down to my local pro shop and used it with a friend just to see how often we could find errors with Nikons stuff compared to Canons. We found 2 lenses out of around 25 that were a touch out.
Canon, we found 4-85 f1.2's, 3 50 1.4's, both the 24-70 and 24-105 were way off. Out of 3 70-200 f2.8L IS's, we found 1 that was perfect.
This is the thing, it would seem more like winnig the lottery of getting one good for yoyr body, than the other way around of getting a bad one. Why else does so many peope try out 2 and 3 24-70 f2.8L's before buying one. They know its a coin toss.
How many of those new Nikon 24-70 f2.8s do you hear about needing tweaked. Zealch...Show more →
You've made some great points Dave. As has Ian. It is unfortunate that so many people get married to the bodies they purchase and are blind to issues, but I guess many people who own DSLR's just don't know how to spot issues or just don't want to see them. The 1DMkIII was the body that made me leave Canon. After multiple trips to Canon it worked "better", but for 4500$ bought the day it came out, It shouldn't have required all of that effort to go from unusable to "better". I think Canon totally missed the boat on the 7D. There was absolutely no reason to pack more pixels into an already overcrowded sensor (The 50D already had too many pixels for that sensor).
They should have focused on completely fixing the new technologies they brought forth with the 1DMkIII and ensured the camera was an absolute top performer. They also should have focused on maximizing IQ on the sensor they had, even if that meant staying at 15MP or even dropping to 12-14 or some such. When you scrunch individual pixels that close together, inevitably you get noisy pixels for starters, and a whole host of other potential problems can crop up as well. I just don't get why Canon chose this path. I guess "marketing", because the masses think megapixels = image quality. So let's develop product for the idiots.
I think i'll just stick to Nikon for now, even though changing systems cost me the ability to have a 500mm f/4 due to the cost of changing systems, I must say overall the quality of the camera bodies is certainly worth it for me.
Thanks PhotogDave. I'm not trying to run the 7D, I want to work. And like you said why could I make the 50D work and not my 7D. I had no problems with my 30, 40 or 50D. I just did a series of tests and the focus is staying on OK. I think it is just soft. I am very serious about my images being sharp especially birding.
So I am in a real bind. I sold my 50D - big mistake. A good friend wanted it and he just sold his 40D. I just realized that I can't return my 7D - only exchange it or store credit. They never told me about this over the phone when I ordered it. I'll see if I bring up legal action and see what happens. I'm never going to buy another camera outside a 25 mile area.
If I can't get my money back I don't really want to get a 50D because then I will have to spend more money there. I can't afford to go to the iD series. I really love my Canon lenses but if I have ti exchange it a Nikon may be coming my way. It will hurt but as I sell off my lenses I will get Nikons. I never thought I would even contemplate that.
I hope we are wrong and the 7D is OK and it's a simple firmware fix but I have a bad feeling.
I hope we are wrong and the 7D is OK and it's a simple firmware fix but I have a bad feeling.
The problem that people failed to realize with the MkIII, or were too scared to want to believe, is some problems can't be fixed with firmware, and in the MkIII's case, it couldn't even be fixed by Canon service centers the first time, and possibly not even the second time. Hopefully Canon wasn't ignorant enough to release another camera with a systemic hardware defect that needs service, or worse yet, can't be replaced/fixed.
So what body do you suggest I go with. A D300 or 700? I'm like a deer I headlights with Nikon bodies. 300 = 1.6 and 700 = FF? I don't have any desire for video unless it's there. I shoot everything but I like my birds, etc. I have a 5D but I prefer to shoot crop. I can change that however.
PhotogDave wrote:
While it was at Canon, I went down to my local pro shop and used it with a friend just to see how often we could find errors with Nikons stuff compared to Canons. We found 2 lenses out of around 25 that were a touch out.
I have tested some Nikon stuff and agree their QC is much tighter than Canon's. Not many of this "copies with back/front focus" issues.
However, when it comes to AF accuracy, they are really not better than Canon. A working Canon camera can be as good as, and sometimes even better than Nikon.
PhotogDave wrote:
How could you have a "Mode of Operation" after this post. Doesnt make sense.
MO = Modus Operandi
You have credited Canon with an MO of ... well, you know what said. I was wondering if you would credit me with having an MO of defending Canon, or being a fanboy, etc.
If you think any company can distribute "almost perfect" equipment and you say you work for MB than I am confused. In JD Power "2009 Initial Quality Study", there were found to be 101 "issues" for every 100 cars. Yes, AF is a bigger issue for a camera relatively speaking than most of the issues MB has, but still...perfect?
Aweful (sic)funny, you hardly ever heard these issues with the older AF Systems on the 1DIIn.
I'm sure Bob Atkins' page is biased but here are some results for QC. Granted, it's only lenses. I believe he has only had that page up for a couple years.
PhotogDave wrote:
Jesus. Havent you ever heard of focus and recompose. The red box is where the picture was snapped, not where the focus was locked.
Thanks but no need to call me Jesus....but thanks anyway...if this is a discussion on focus performance then if he used focus/recompose then he should of clearly stated what was focused on and what the point of putting up a screenie of a shot with the selected focus point on an entirely different part of the scene.
Well??
Also the OP clearly stated he was testing servo mode which obviously does not work in recompose scenario..
I think Photogdave you clearly have biased issues against Canon rather than looking at things from neutral ground.
And yes the Mk3's AF is far more complex than the D3 and far more customizable..far.
If anything Canon is to blame for making it far to complex and not enough education on how toconfigure it properley.
Oh btw 15-18k aint that big an investment in gear..
dehowie wrote:
Thanks but no need to call me Jesus....but thanks anyway...if this is a discussion on focus performance then if he used focus/recompose then he should of clearly stated what was focused on and what the point of putting up a screenie of a shot with the selected focus point on an entirely different part of the scene.
Well??
Also the OP clearly stated he was testing servo mode which obviously does nto work in recomose scenario..
Good point.
Canon puts 19 AF points, ALL crossed on the sensor. Why don't people use that? If not, why are people crying for more AF points?
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Instead of beating this to death, we do see you have a bad copy why not just send it back?
I agree - the OP has an obvious problem, but unfortunately, the thread has been hijacked by a troll (with around 20 posts total on FM) who, for some reason, hates Canon and yet still uses Canon products.
The body needs to be replaced or repaired - send it back.
Tom_W wrote:
I agree - the OP has an obvious problem, but unfortunately, the thread has been hijacked by a troll (with around 20 posts total on FM) who, for some reason, hates Canon and yet still uses Canon products.
The body needs to be replaced or repaired - send it back.
Good point they surface every time a new release appears
PhotogDave wrote:
OMFG!. Why is it anytime anyone has a focusing issue with Canon its always "User Error"
And the comment:
Are you kidding. WTF does pixel density have to do with shutter speed and focus plane being behind the target. If you are gonna make an assessment about the image flaws, at least be smart about it.
And the slow shutter speed would render nothing in sharp focus if it were the issue, yet you can clearly see the plain of focus in areas not intended. Cant even identify camera shake vs focus error. I'm convinced most peopel on web saying they have no issues, cant identify an issue if they had one. If he sells to Getty, he knows what he's doing.
DOF aside, why cant Canon make a camera that consistently focuses correctly at large apertures. Nikon does. My 1D3 has been a joke. Now it looks like several 7D bodies are starting to follow the same path.
hello, pixel density has everything to do with what shutter speed you need to get a perfectly crisp image when viewed at 100%! What if the sensor has 10 pixels? You could shake the camera a heck of a lot more and not notice it at 100% than if it had 20million! Smaller photosites means that any shake gets swept across more photosites.
now maybe some areas were a bit sharper, but slow shutter speeds is a rather unnecessary element to enter into the equation.
anyway, hopefully it is not another random focuser mess.
like most other canon it definitely has issues focusing on trees at wider apertures
So far the center-point seems similar to the one on my 5D2, although in some cases it does seem to be both less accurate and less precise. Indoors under fluorescent lighting with something like a 24 1.4 they both could have troubles at times. But it's too early to say yet. I haven't given AI Servo a test yet. It did nail some tiny little chipmunks that were far off and had distractions around them quite well.
