IanCale wrote:
Carefully look over the image at 100% if you see areas that seem sharper or more in focus you problaby have a focus issue as I do,if the whole image is soft that could be a bunch of different things.
An image from a properly focusing body and a sharp lens should produce images which basically need no sharpening at all or slight selective sharpening in key areas for print
did you try MFA again though?
since it seems like all of your shots are back-focused.
PhotogDave wrote:
Its Canons new MO. Everything they produce from the 1D3 forward sucks. All over the place with inconsistent focus. Its rediculous how much you have to send Canon junk in for service. I really hope these issues on the 7D are just bad copies and they straighten this mess out quickly. If not, the 1D3 gets sold and I leave to Nikon. I think Canon has changed its Quality Inspection process and maybe some development engineers or something, cause they have been chasing the 1DII dinasour for a while and cant seem to catch it.
My Canon D60 (sold long ago) and my 20D were both great prosumer cameras in their day, and I've been buying mostly L-series glass since then. I've got a 7D on order, but in the meantime I recently sold my 20D and am using a legacy 1Ds Mk1 (circa 2002). I'm completely impressed with the build quality of this 1-series body.
Now back to the QA front. I recently purchased the new 100mm F2.8L IS macro. The more that I evaluate this lens, the more it impresses me. I just compared it against my sharp 85mm F1.8 prime, and it blows it away at all comparable apertures. It is completely sharp edge-to-edge, even shot wide-open. I wish I had my old 100mm F2.8 macro to compare it against. I initially thought the IQ was similar (and it still probably is), but now I think this lens may even be a tad sharper (or maybe I got lucky and received a very good copy). Add the incredible AF/IS performance that I (and others) have experienced already with this lens, and this may soon become my favorite piece of glass for a variety of shooting. FWIW, this lens focuses PERFECTLY with my legacy 1Ds Mk1.
I hope this same lens will also focus perfectly when my 7D arrives in a couple of weeks.
Just got my 7D last night and did some fast focus check around the house with One Point and Spot AF. No focus issue for me with EF 24-105L f/4 IS or EF 100 f/2.8 Macro. You do need high shutter speed or tripod to avoid soft images with the high pixel density-sensor.
BTW: Thought I had a hefty focus issue first when I tried my EF 50 f/1.4 because auto focus didn't work at all, but apparently the focus motor on the lens is just dead.
When we discuss laws of averages I'd expect some people with high post rates to report issues, to have any significant meaning. As long as (very) low mileage posters report problems I'm sceptical in terms of their reliability, not Canon's.
It is relatively easy to play (dirty) games on the internet...or at best inflate minor problems into big ones.
I don't understand what all the fuzz is about. It is a known fact that not all Canon gear leaves the factory calibrated with tight margins. Just take care of it yourself by micro adjustment or sent it to Canon Service for a proper calibration. If that doesn't help... keep sending it in until they get it right or give you another camera. Or if you can, just swap it for another one at the store (and hope that one turns out OK). Seriously...
corndog wrote:
Ian, I think that little car shot looks pretty much spot on...
+1
I don't understand what's going on here. What's inside the rectangle, is perfectly in focus. What else do people expect? That the DoF is 100% symmetrical around the focus point? You know that the DoF at a correctly focuses image extends 1/3 in front of and 2/3 behind the optimal focus point, right?
dehowie wrote:
Im intrigued as to why on facial portrait you are focusing on the kids nose and not his eye?
AF sensors have limits and picking the least most contrasty object is asking for trouble on any camera. Im not surprised its misfocusing if you putting the af point over a piece of flat skin...
+1
I haven't read this thread but focusing on skin is one of the reasons Canon notes in the user manual for AF failure. The nose is glary and has low contrast, so I'm not surprised focus wasn't spot on.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Doesn't look that good to me. If this were a macro shot say, it would be trashed quick smart.
Because the optimal focus point is not the wing, where he focussed at?
The tyres with the dust and stuff on, have much more contrast than the yellow text on red. That makes it appear sharper.
Looking at the yellow text only, it is in focus 1/3 in front of the wing and 2/3 behind the wing. Maybe off by absolutely no more than +/- 1/3 DoF, which is the traditional tolerance spec of AF accuracy.
I haven't read this thread but focusing on skin is one of the reasons Canon notes in the user manual for AF failure. The nose is glary and has low contrast, so I'm not surprised focus wasn't spot on.
The focus sensors are larger than the focus point indicators in the viewfinders. Probably a lot like these from the 5D, only, of course, all cross points like the center one and there are more of them:
That means that they will seek or lock on to a high contrast boundary that isn't necessarily right inside the square in the viewfinder but also within a small area surrounding that square.
Selecting "spot AF", according to the manual, utilizes a smaller AF point that fits the boundaries of the AF indicator square. I think it might be helpful in the OP's situations, though it does look like he has a backfocus issue.
On the toy car image, it appears that the AF locked on pretty good, though. But, that's with a -14 microadjustment selected.
Skibum5....you are clueless. It doesnt matter if you have a 40D or a 7D, camera shake will show the same. Camera shake isnt limited to just one are. If its camera shake, nothing will appear sharp......jeez. And you peope actually attempt to say its user error when you cant even decern camera shake from focus miscue.
Python2000 - Gottcha. No I wouldnt say you are a fanboy...yet. Though it sounds like there are quite a few in here. This is the whole problem. If ever anyone says they have a proble, its automaticlly "User Error" and then all the fanboys chime is with "Mine works fine" and theirs no convincing that there is an issue until others like me chime in a defend the poor guy like Ian. The guy has plenty of experience, yet everyone wanted to blame him.....like Canon hasnt ever fudged an AF system in a new hyped Camera. Thats all
And for the MB comments. Yes, a company can almost produce perfect quality. Canon used to send out about a 98% perfection rate. The whole reason I bought into Canon years ago after researching who had the best equipment. It was overwhelming Canon. Pros all chose Canon, all reports were excellent quality and the best AF/Noise control in the business. So I bought in, and towards the end of my $18,000 investment, its not what it used to be. I dont get near the consistency I used to get with Canon years ago. Sorry, but it is what it is.
As for MB and JD Power. I worked directly with JD Power and yes, they found tons of issues. But lets not talk about JD Power. The idiots they sent to evaluate these vehicle new nothing about automobiles and complained about shit that normal. Example: Every morning they complained about the tire pressure being at 30psi when they were at 36psi the day before when they got back....duh! And they wrote complaints just like that everyday. Old ladies that had no idea how anything was supposed work. They use contracted testers from other companies for evaluation. Cant go by JD Power....its all BS. And No. MB does NOT build a perfect vehicle by any stretch. Wasnt my point.
dhowie I think Photogdave you clearly have biased issues against Canon rather than looking at things from neutral ground.
No way. The 1D3 system isnt that hard. It only has a few tracking priorities and switching sensitivity. D3 has some of this too. But still remains, no matte rhow its setup, it doesnt perform as good as it should. I have looked at it on neutral ground. Did so for quite some time. But now, its time for accountability. Thats the only reason I chime in when everyone wants to jump on the OP and say it shim. BS! Wheres the accountability Canon. Its time to hold them accountable...thats all. Its like a bunch of politicians in here. Keeps screwing up and no one will hold them accountable. Any 18K is a lot to invest. Most people struggle with buying a 1700 body, I wrapped 18K up in Canon and now it feels like it was a bad investment.
Tom, I just dont post that much. But I dont have an ax to grind, just want some accountability. Dont understand why everyone is making so many excusing for Canon.
I dont understand why people would even think anyone in a Canon forum other than a 10yr old trying to get a rise out of you would intentionally inflate the issues with canon gear. I assure you...everyone that owns a new 7D wants it to be perfect. No on wants it to fail. People just get tired of spending money on gear that fails so often. And if Canon users werent so faithful, then a 10yr old wouldnt be able to rile you with just a comment anyway. But all it takes is one comment and the other bee's start stinging too.
The motorcycle shot should be much sharper. You just havent used a real camera yet with a real AF system. Yes, the 1DII would be much noisier, but grain aside, you would clearly see a razor sharp ima ethere, not that mush. But again, many users dont know the difference and most have never used a camera like the 1DIIn to know what a good AF system is.
Good luck Ian. Try to set aside some time to swap that thing out. I hope this turns out to be a small batch of issues.....I really dont want to have to switch. I really like the idea of the new 7D AF and especially the new meterig system.
I like everything about my 1D3 other than inconsistent focus. I tried to support you Ian, but there comes a time when its childish to keep arguing with people that just dont know any better. You and I know what the image should look like. Take care.
The 7D likes nice glass. Why are you using the 28-135mm? What do you expect? I have got nothing but stellar results with my 85L, 16-35 or 70-200. Have you tested with better lenses? You claimed to have/used?
Liquidpics wrote:
The 7D likes nice glass. Why are you using the 28-135mm? What do you expect? I have got nothing but stellar results with my 85L, 16-35 or 70-200. Have you tested with better lenses? You claimed to have/used?
Totally agree my 100-400 is the best it's ever been using the 7D as is my 70-200 2.8 but I think I need to do a slight MA on it
I too am experiencing minor mis-focusing on wider lenses like my 24L. With a 135L and 85mm f/1.8 mounted, images are tack-sharp and seem to be focusing fine on the 7D. It most likely is the lens (it also exhibited the same behaviour on my 5D)
Assuming we eventually get any potential 7D AF issues sorted out, when are we going to start to see current L-series glass resolutions usurped by ever larger and larger sensor pixel densities?
When does the megapixel race force new lens designs?
PhotogDave wrote:
Skibum5....you are clueless. It doesnt matter if you have a 40D or a 7D, camera shake will show the same. Camera shake isnt limited to just one are. If its camera shake, nothing will appear sharp......jeez. And you peope actually attempt to say its user error when you cant even decern camera shake from focus miscue.
No, a given amount of camera shake will NOT look the same when you view, at 100%, images from cameras having different sensor densities.
Just think about it, the lens project what it projects and if your shaking is bouncing the image across areas (exaggerated) 1mm^2 and one camera has 1 photosite per 1mm^2 and another has 100 per 1mm^2 isn't it obvious that the higher density image will look blurry when viewed at 100% view and the lower density one will look pretty sharp (assuming focus is correct and lens is not junk)?
Yes, yes, if it is camera shake then you get everything blurred. But adding something else to the mix doesn't help any.
Anyway I did say that it looks like he needs to try MFA again since it seemed like everything was a bit backfocused.
cameron12x wrote: When does the megapixel race force new lens designs?
The fact that Canon's been quietly replacing some of their high-end glass (24/1.4, 85/1.2, 24 TSE, & 16-35/2.8), I would say that the megapixel race is already having an effect on lens design.
skibum5 wrote:
No, a given amount of camera shake will NOT look the same when you view, at 100%, images from cameras having different sensor densities.
Just think about it, the lens project what it projects and if your shaking is bouncing the image across areas (exaggerated) 1mm^2 and one camera has 1 photosite per 1mm^2 and another has 100 per 1mm^2 isn't it obvious that the higher density image will look blurry when viewed at 100% view and the lower density one will look pretty sharp (assuming focus is correct and lens is not junk)?
Yes, yes, if it is camera shake then you get everything blurred. But adding something else to the mix doesn't help any. ...Show more →
FWIW, there's actually another recent thread nearly completely devoted to image shake/blur:
Tom_W wrote:
The fact that Canon's been quietly replacing some of their high-end glass (24/1.4, 85/1.2, 24 TSE, & 16-35/2.8), I would say that the megapixel race is already having an effect on lens design.
Plus the intro of AF micro adjustment. I think there will be more attempts to squeeze some performance out of EF lenses. I hope they add more control for AF MA. A backward compatible EF Mark II standard which was much more accurate in terms of AF and adjustment wouldn't surprise me.
garyvot wrote:
This would be great in a perfect world, but we don't live in one. AF issues have existed since AF was introduced, but in the film era we had no ability to pixel peep and by the time we saw the results we forgot what we did. Higher density sensor also resolve even slight variance in focus, requiring more accuracy throughout the system. MA was developed as a way to help users fine tune this, and Canon is not alone: Nikon has it too....
