It's not OUR fault that MA is needed these days when it was not needed earlier. We only use it to improve AF from not so great to what it should be. I'm pretty sure that it is needed as a cover for inadequate tolerances in the modern AF system.
Our perception of poor AF is also somewhat heightened with modern high-pixel-density cameras. It doesn't take much focus error to look poor when the pixels are so small and also packed so close together.
mdbassman wrote:
Yours is dead on!!! Here is my p.o.s!
I can't see anything in sharp in your photo, which makes me wonder if it is not a diffraction problem at f/16, rather than a front or back focus problem. Have you tried at larger apertures and got better results ?
digitalbug30d wrote:
WELL I have a stupid question...why is Micro Adjustment needed so much on Pro bodies when the 8 different lenses Ive used on my 30D that doesnt have MA
seem to work fine,AI servo works as well as it should with this particular body with the a 100-400 Ive used at an Airshow...
i've need to use MFA with practically every lens and body
it can really, really help
oddly, with every body i've owned/tested/hand my hands on (50D, 3 7D's and a 5D2) that had MFA and all but two lenses, it has always been "+" settings required and never "-" and when "-" was needed it was just a tad and never a huge amount. I forget, but I'm not sure if 0 was ever the best for me (sometimes it was a small +1 or +2 though).
I think mine appears to be Ok now, providing I stear well clear of the ROF setting.
Pierre, did you see the story on Channel Online about the Guernsey birder coming as a runner up in that bird guide competition? Checked out his site and he's got some seriously nice bird shots!
ragebot wrote:
Well I went out to St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge today after some test shooting at local parks. Some of the sea gulls I shot at the parks were OOF, but most were dead on.
Got lots of keepers at St. Marks, including a couple of additions to my life time list. Used my 500/f4 and my Sigmonster. As it got later in the day and the setting sun and clouds forced me to go to 6400 I was very pleased with the results. My 1d4 came with 1.06 and I have no complaints. Got a pix of a Yellowbelly Sapsucker in the fading dusk that was a real crowd pleaser with the birders
Are you presenting this gull image as an "oof" shot or a "keeper"? If the latter, then you have some serious problems with your 1D4 and/or lenses and with your post-processing.
Count me as a very happy camper. My m4 was delivered with 1.0.6 and I've shot over 2000 images with it, all at Daytona (24 Hours race) in varying conditions from pre-dawn to mid-day to dark, with oncoming cars, panning cars, etc. Initial focus ack and AI servo were both great. Best camera I've ever used.
DonM2 wrote:
One would think, with all this history of the infamous A/F in the 1D3, that Canon would finally see the merit of having a competent shooter grab a Mk4 as it was being packed to ship and come back with a report after a day and night's shooting everything in sight. The latter to be done once or twice a week at least for the first several months of production and at least randomly thereafter.
They don't need Rob Galbraith for this and he wouldn't do this again anyway for the way Canon essentially 'dissed' him for all his effort with the 1D3.
Testing and verifying the performance of hi-value technical devices such as these cameras needs to be done right at the factory for all the obvious reasons. Not least of these is the language and cultural relationship between a tester and the design and production teams that would remove a lot of communication snafus.
So, yeah, this might also require the tester to be multi-cultural along with photographic competence.
Finally this proximity might even make some corner-office types more aware of and likely to keep their products in line with advertised hype......and PRICE!
OK, and if Canon claims to be doing the above already, the ball is still being dropped somewhere!!
The problem with this approach is that works only if a large number of cameras are defective (e.g. 1D3). If it's only a few isolated cases then you need a large number of testers to identify and diagnose the problem. But it's exactly what Canon is doing with the early adopters
Colin Key wrote:
Are you presenting this gull image as an "oof" shot or a "keeper"? If the latter, then you have some serious problems with your 1D4 and/or lenses and with your post-processing.
Guys, just as an update I have my mk4 working super with 1.06 now. I chatted the issue through with CPS who advised the resetting of the camera and clearing of all CFn's.
Once I had done this and then reapplied them the camera seems to be fine from the limited tests I've been able to do. There is certainly no hunting of the AF as I experienced previously.
Apparently the CPS chap recommended the re setting on the camera whenever a firmware update is performed.
I'm not sure what went on when I originally updated to 1.06, but it has now cleared.
ppopsy wrote:
Guys, just as an update I have my mk4 working super with 1.06 now. I chatted the issue through with CPS who advised the resetting of the camera and clearing of all CFn's.
Once I had done this and then reapplied them the camera seems to be fine from the limited tests I've been able to do. There is certainly no hunting of the AF as I experienced previously.
Apparently the CPS chap recommended the re setting on the camera whenever a firmware update is performed.
I'm not sure what went on when I originally updated to 1.06, but it has now cleared.
Cheers
Garry
Garry, how did you reset the cam?
or only clean the CFn's?
thnx
