Mark II out of focus LCD screen, PLEASE HELP!!!

[JenMurph]

This is my 2nd mark II. the first one I received the LCD screen looked like every photo i shot was *out of focus*. Called Canon, they said that was not normal, so I sent it back to where i had purchased it.

Just received my second one.. and my LCD is still not tack sharp. is this NORMAL? the images look like they are out of focus, when they aren't (after i upload).

I use this for my work (have a photography business), and im constantly looking down at my LCD screen. Did a shoot today w/the camera, i was being thrown off by the out of focus on the screen

HELP :?:

Thanks, jen

[JenMurph]

hmm. 18 people have viewed it, and not one comment.
All I'd like to know for those of you who *shoot* with the Mark II is your LCD screen tack sharp when you review your image on there after shooting. Mine isn't. And this is my 2nd one i had sent to me, the other i had returned because of this. Thanks, Jennie

[Tom W]

I was one of them, but I don't have the 1D II, so I can't answer with certainty.

I do know that _generally_, the LCD will not be nearly as sharp as looking at the image on the computer. That's not really its purpose. Its there more for a quick check than to look for detail. Still, it shouldn't be real bad.

Hopefully, someone with a 1D will provide better input.

[JenMurph]

Thanks Tom, appreciate your reply back...

Hopefully someone with a Mark II can help. I know my 10D and D60 LCD was sharp

Jen

[Tom W]

Thanks Tom, appreciate your reply back...

Hopefully someone with a Mark II can help. I know my 10D and D60 LCD was sharp

Jen

Well, if I remember correctly, the 1D Mk II has a higher resolution LCD - I believe about twice the pixels as the 10D so it should be sharper.

I just thought of something. Its a long shot, but its worth a try. Is it possible that the LCD has a thin layer of protective plastic on it that hasn't been removed? I say this because there are a lot of products that have this sheeting applied when shipped, but it should be easily peeled off.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have a 1D MkII ... never read this post before though

But I don't have an answer for you that will be of any help... :?

Here's Why;


As far as I am concerned .. NO digital I have ever used (about a dozen digicams, a 10D for over a year, a 1D, and i've handled a D1X, a D2H, and now my main camera is the MkII...

None of these cameras have I ever been able to tell much of anything from the screen about focus OR exposure...

To me.. the LCD screen though nice to have is a big let down on all cameras because I never "know" anything untill I see it on my PC :(

So.. the answer would be a sort of yes,.. because I certainly can not tell if an image is "tack sharp" from the LCD screen. But to me this is the nrm with all digital cameras' LCD screens.

I mean.. we are shrinking the image down to practically 1/100th its size.. I can't imagine the interpolation involved.. how could it possibly look good?

[JenMurph]

Hmmmm not sure if it has a plastic shield on the LCD screen... never thought of that,but the camera's at my studio- so I can't go look.

:x

with my 10D though, and my D60 the LCD screen was much clearer then what im seeing on my MARK II. Just not sure if this is normal or not <sigh>

Jen

[Tom W]

A silly question, but I'll throw it out anyway: Have you adjusted the LCD brightness in the menu?

[Mills]

Seems strange. I'm with CDS. It can not compare with what you see on the computer. My Mark II does look better than the 10D. Then again mine is set to info so I can see the histogram etc.

[sdommin]

Are these RAW files you're looking at? If so, they won't be sharp, because you're looking at a small JPG version of your shot.

[JenMurph]

Yes, I brightened the LCD ...

Now if your Mark II looks better (LCD) then your 10D LCD then something must be wrong with this 2nd one. Can that even be possible?

Nope not RAW files..

Anyone else experiencing this?
jen

[GenEOS]

The images in the LCD screen do not represent the actual sharpness or brightness of the image. I have found that images on the screen seem soft, but you can tell if they are focused or not. The resolution of the screen, though better than the 1D, is still not par with the actual image.

I trust the histogram for exposure, but you should be able to gauge sharpness, somewhat, using the screen. If not, I would say there is a problem.

[JenMurph]

thanks Daniel. I think i got another *bad* one which I can't believe! ugh ... my LCD screen is not sharp at all, so every image that it shows, looks way out of focus. Jen

[CyberDyneSystems]

p.s.

try zooming in on a fae or some area of detail... I find I can only tell anything about pic quaity if I zoom in...

[Tom W]

thanks Daniel. I think i got another *bad* one which I can't believe! ugh ... my LCD screen is not sharp at all, so every image that it shows, looks way out of focus. Jen

I'd write an e-mail to Canon tech support. They'll send the standard response, and then give you an opportunity to carry the question up a notch. Something is missing in the equation here - it doesn't seem reasonable that you should end up with two defective LCD screens unless they sent out a bad run of them. Are the serial numbers of the two cameras very close?

[JenMurph]

I zoomed in on the image earlier, and it was still out of focus looking.

I emailed Canon tech support, Ill have to call them on MOnday too.

They came from the same store.. but i dont know if the serial # of the first would be the same as the one i've got now.

I know *strange* that 2 are the same way.. :( jen

[Belmondo]

you will never achieve the same resolution on the LCD display that exists in the actual image. If it looks 'pretty good', then it's probably a great picture. If it looks really bad, then you might have a bad shot. There's no direct correlation.

[JenMurph]

they *all* are pretty bad (on LCD), and when i upload im getting nice images. Jen

[PacAce]

Hmmmm not sure if it has a plastic shield on the LCD screen... never thought of that,but the camera's at my studio- so I can't go look.

:x

with my 10D though, and my D60 the LCD screen was much clearer then what im seeing on my MARK II. Just not sure if this is normal or not <sigh>

Jen

Maybe it is the plastic shield that you might have forgotten to remove (not sure if it has one or not but I imagine it would to protect the LCD coming out of the factory).

[Belmondo]

Anyway you're not supposed to be looking at the LCD. We've even come up with a derisive term to describe that activity---'Chimping'.

Don’t be a ‘Chimper’.

[defordphoto]

My MKII display is fine for what it's supposed to be. It's nicer than the 10D, but I wouldn't call it tack-sharp. It is what it is; a 2.5 inch display of a 8.2mp file. You can only expect so much.

[Tom W]

My MKII display is fine for what it's supposed to be. It's nicer than the 10D, but I wouldn't call it tack-sharp. It is what it is; a 2.5 inch display of a 8.2mp file. You can only expect so much.

I think that her problem has been that the 1D-II's LCD had been considerably worse than that on her 10D. That is cause for further investigation.

[JenMurph]

Yes, Tom.. your right. This LCD is much worse then what i've seen yet- Not sure whats going on. Ill have to call Canon once again on Monday. When i spoke w/them last time, they told me the LCD should be exactly what I will see on my computer- and i know this is not true w/both camera's i've now purchased.

Thanks , Jen
www.babycakesphotography.net

[Tom W]

Yes, Tom.. your right. This LCD is much worse then what i've seen yet- Not sure whats going on. Ill have to call Canon once again on Monday. When i spoke w/them last time, they told me the LCD should be exactly what I will see on my computer- and i know this is not true w/both camera's i've now purchased.

Thanks , Jen
www.babycakesphotography.net

They told you it would be exactly what you'd see on the computer. I believe that they are mistaken on that issue - its not going to happen. But, it ought to be at least as good (and realistically, better) as the one on the 10D.

[JenMurph]

Thats what the guy at Canon told me. he said they shouldn't be out of focus. just hard to believe i have 2 that are both bad? :?

[defordphoto]

My MKII display is fine for what it's supposed to be. It's nicer than the 10D, but I wouldn't call it tack-sharp. It is what it is; a 2.5 inch display of a 8.2mp file. You can only expect so much.

I think that her problem has been that the 1D-II's LCD had been considerably worse than that on her 10D. That is cause for further investigation.

I understand that. I was explaining what my LCD looked like. Obviously there must be some problem somewhere.

[JenMurph]

So, then it sounds like something is deft. wrong with my LCD? jen

[defordphoto]

So, then it sounds like something is deft. wrong with my LCD? jen

I wish I knew and wish I could help, but I can't without seeing it. Can you shoot a photo of the MKII LCD with your 10D? That might help, but still might not be a good representation...

[KBMphotography.com]

I agree with all that has been said. My mk2 seems the same as my 10D - and I never know until it is on my 21" monitor anyway.

Good luck

[iwatkins]

Long shot (I don't have the MkII) but could it be that you are looking at an image that is still rendering ?

On the 10D, it is a two pass process, the image draws once, then it has a second pass and draws it a little sharper. Maybe on the MkII this second pass takes a bit longer (bigger images). ?

But there again, you say you have zoomed in as well.

As I said, long shot.... ;)

Cheers

Ian

[sdommin]

Try shooting at different resolutions and compare the shots on your LCD. Maybe something in your camera's software is not what it should be.

[Tom W]

Long shot (I don't have the MkII) but could it be that you are looking at an image that is still rendering ?

On the 10D, it is a two pass process, the image draws once, then it has a second pass and draws it a little sharper. Maybe on the MkII this second pass takes a bit longer (bigger images). ?

But there again, you say you have zoomed in as well.

As I said, long shot.... ;)

Cheers

Ian

Good point, Ian. Perhaps the review time needs to be extended a bit to allow full image development.

[JenMurph]

Thank you everyone~
So this is what im gathering.. that it should be if not better then the lcd on the 10D which i could tell by looking at the LCD screen on my 10D and D60 if I got a sharp image or not...

So, now what i need to go back & look at (wont be able to until Wed.) is..
if there is a plastic covering over the LCD screen (dont think there is, but ill look).... if the image is just taking a bit longer to be clear, which Im not sure is the case, since i have did image play back, and they still look unsharp... what else is there? I can take a photo of it, if you need me too, and post? I can do that too, so everyone can see what im referring to.

This is just SO frusturating, for the amount of $ I've spent, and being its the second one thats been shipped to me, due to the same issue.

Canon has goten in contact w/me via email, so Ill let you know what I hear from them

In the meantime, how can i share some images from the Mark II taken yesterday?

Jen

[Tom W]

Here's some helpful information on posting images. In particular, the first link in Pekka's post has some instructions from the FAQ.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22582

I think plenty of folks here would like to see images you've taken with your 1D-II.

As far as the camera issue, it appears that nobody else here has shared the problem (yet). Where did you purchase it (if you don't want to say, that's OK)? I'm just wondering if there was a bad batch that got out. If so, I'd hope that its isolated to a small group of cameras.

I'm still hoping for your sake and others that its something simple that is easily overlooked.

[Andy_T]

Jen,

what would even be better is if you shot an image of your 1DII AND 10D LCD's in one picture.

(You can take your D60 to get that picture :lol:)

Best regards,
Andy

[defordphoto]

Jen: One thing you cannot do in viewing the LCD is to determine whether you have The Perfect Picture or not. You will only know that when you get it to your computer.

I know with my 10D (haven't been using the MKII long enough yet) when I thought I had a good shot, by viewing the LCD, I'd then get home and sometimes find that the shot that looked great in the LCD was actually not a very good picture.

[JenMurph]

I just posted this same question on the Pro4um, and one of the photographers has this camera, and she said her LCD is tack sharp... so Im thinking that I did get another bad camera- Ugh! I just can't believe it. I may take it to a local camera dealer on Tues., see what they say. But who knows if they know enough about it, since it just came out?

I bought it from onecall.com
the thing is,not sure if its the same batch, cause it took them 2 wks to send me out another one, since they were out of stock.

On Tues or Wed., when im back in my studio, Ill get a snapshot of the LCD hope it comes Out okay, and ill post.

Ill figure out how to post other images too, so U can see i am getting the sharp ones, even though my LCD tells me dift.

jen

[JenMurph]

actually in the meantime go here, and you can see some of my work with it, thanks ;) jen


http://ilp.tlcwe.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=32531&s=370bf2f272592e77be 570188791067c1

[defordphoto]

Nice work Jen...

[Tom W]

I agree - those are some precious shots. Good job!

[JenMurph]

Thanks :) Ill be sure to share more, since im now a part of this forum ;) (if you dont mind that is)... :roll:

[defordphoto]

Thanks :) Ill be sure to share more, since im now a part of this forum ;) (if you dont mind that is)... :roll:

You are more than welcome here, and we will want to follow your LCD dilemma too.

[JenMurph]

Thanks Jim. Now im second guessing if I should of bought this camera? ahhhh :( Jen

[defordphoto]

Thanks Jim. Now im second guessing if I should of bought this camera? ahhhh :( Jen

Well, considering that you are (so far) the only person I have read of that this has happened to is a bright side.

[JenMurph]

Thanks :) You think it's worth the $? Now im reading on other forums that it takes soft images?

[Belmondo]

Thanks :) You think it's worth the $? Now im reading on other forums that it takes soft images?

Bull feathers! (.....Belmondo said indignantly.)

I concur that your LCD softness is very likely an anomaly, but to say the camera takes soft images is ludicrous. Stop going to the other forums; they are poisoning your mind!

Glad to have you with us!

[JenMurph]

Thanks!!! I know, Im starting to get worried now. Just read on Gary Fongs site about the Mark II being soft, actually for distant shot images(I think thats what they are referring to?) Glad to be here too

Jen
http://digitalphotographers.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=9196015511&f=6686007031&m=4401030731 1 (site with mark II post)

[Tom W]

Thanks!!! I know, Im starting to get worried now. Just read on Gary Fongs site about the Mark II being soft, actually for distant shot images(I think thats what they are referring to?) Glad to be here too

Jen
http://digitalphotographers.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=9196015511&f=6686007031&m=4401030731 1 (site with mark II post)

Accch - I don't think Fong has a problem with sharpness, but apparently, one of the posters wants it perfect right out of the camera. I don't think that's to be expected out of any DSLR. Post processing is a must, and that's a good thing since it gives you more control over your images. I routinely process photos from my 10D; probably to a greater extent than I do with my S-400 P&S.

[JenMurph]

K, so dont listen to that thread right? :shock:

[Tom W]

Listen to it, but be watchful of where it may go. There was darn-near an internet meltdown over focus issues with the 10D, when in reality, the initial problem was resolved early in its production and the occasional problem was present no more than any other camera fault. I hate to see an observation and opinion turned into an epidemic.

And watch KennyG, RFMSports, and CDS as they all shoot their 1D Mk II's professionally. If it isn't right, they'll know it.

[JenMurph]

Thanks Tom :) 8)

[mjordan]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people on other forums that do expect the image to come out of the 10D and other Canon cameras without needing post processing. They then blame the camera. I know of a few on another forum (Jennie knows which one I'm talking about) that have sold their 10D's and gone with Nikon. I tried to tell them it wasn't the camera, but they listened to the wrong people. In more than one case, someone got a nice 10D cheaper than if they had bought it new though. :lol:

But it does bother me when people are quick to blame something on the camera that isn't it's fault... especially on forums where the users are not as knowelegable about digital cameras as here and other Pro forums.

Jennie I'm glad you came over here and asked your questions. The only place that you will get better answers are the labs at Canon. :lol:

Mike

[Pekka]

Thanks!!! I know, Im starting to get worried now. Just read on Gary Fongs site about the Mark II being soft, actually for distant shot images(I think thats what they are referring to?) Glad to be here too

Jen
http://digitalphotographers.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=9196015511&f=6686007031&m=4401030731 1 (site with mark II post)

It surprises me that even pro like Fong does not seem to understand how sharpening works. Sharpening is always set to affect only certain areas of photo - and in Mark II it obviously set to pretty much ignore the finest detail - this will be seen as less effective sharpening on smaller detail and more effective sharpening on larger detail. He sees it as "crystal sharp images at close distances, but soft-focus looking images at infinity".

Even the closeup shot he has there is not sharp. And this is entirely up to file format and post processing. If you want the best out of Mark II then shoot RAW and convert with Capture One. I know I sound like a broken record here but that's how it is. Biggest single factor in getting good image quality and effective sharpening is Bayer interpolation, and C1's algorithm is much better than Canon's.

[defordphoto]

Again, and again, and again, and again we see this sharpness issue beaten to a freaking pulp. Amazing that some so-called pros can't even figure it out. Amazing that with the increased dynamic range of the MKII they can't figure out that perceived sharpness might appear be lower than that of the 10D or most any other digital camera on the planet.

But it isn't.

They begged and begged for a higher dynamic range and they don't know how to deal with it. With a higher DR you get more evenly dispersed contrast through the photograph and that's a very good thing. However, with the more "even" contrast it appears that a photo may be less sharp. It is not.

Our eyes perceive sharpness through different ranges of contrast. If the contrast in a photo is flat, then it appears unsharp. If the contrast is high, then it appears sharp. You can take two photos sharpened to the exact same sharpness and people will pick the high contrast shot as being sharper every time even though the relative sharpness through both photos is exactly the same.

Take a photo of a flower. Then spritz that flower with water and shoot again. The spritzed flower will appear sharper because of the sharp contrast points the drops of water offer.

Take a photo of a nice looking man or woman in a swimsuit. The spritz them with water. The same thing applies and the wet subject will appear sharper than the dry subject, again because of the sharp contrast points the water offers.

People can get themselves into trouble reading some of these forums and having someone spout off about a alleged problem with a camera and making a huge deal about it.

The proof is in the results. Jen has posted hers. Pekka has many photos posted. I posted my first last weekend with no post processing. CDS has many posted as do several other forum members on this board.

I don't see the problem here.

What it comes down to that some people are using the same workflow for the MKII as they used with the 10D.

It won't work.

That's like using the same developing techniques with Velvia as you'd use with plain-jane, department-store grade Kodak film.

It won't work.

We need to adapt to the camera. Not the other way around. That is what separates the pros from the amateurs. There are some out there that will never grasp the MKII and what it can do. Many out there have upgraded fromthe 10D when they really should not have and now they possess way too much camera and haven't a clue what to do with it.

Jen: You're doing fine and your pictures prove it.

[JenMurph]

Hey Mike.. Im glad to be here :)

Thanks everyone- You all are great & encouraging. Now i feel better about my Mark II :) I just need to figure out why i have a out of focus LCD , lol :lol:

GLAD TO BE HERE!
jen

[Pekka]

Hey Mike.. Im glad to be here :)

Thanks everyone- You all are great & encouraging. Now i feel better about my Mark II :) I just need to figure out why i have a out of focus LCD , lol :lol:

GLAD TO BE HERE!
jen

If you just could in some way to demonstrate what this out of focus actually means. The zoomed-in image you see there is always 'jagged' as it is a resized thumbnail JPEG (size is about 1400 pixels wide) which is in RAW mode build on the fly - it will never be an accurate representation of captured image. Perhaps you could find another Mark II owner in your area and compare the LCD's?

[JenMurph]

I dont know anyone here in CO. that owns a Mark II - I wish I could compare.

The images in the LCD look out of focused. every one of them. Im shooting in the highest jpeg mode

Quick question... there wasn't a plastic cover on the lCD was there (one of them protective covers)?

[Mike H]

We need to adapt to the camera. Not the other way around. That is what separates the pros from the amateurs.

Perhaps this is what separates those photographers that are skilled and knowledgeable from those that are not. Over the years I have seen many poorly skilled professionals and exceptionally skilled amateurs, and of course, the converse. :D

I definitely agree with adapting to the camera, though the camera is designed to allow some adaptation to our own working methods (with custom functions and personal functions).

People have to be patient and deligent with this camera. The Mark II is the most complex camera I've ever seen. I'm on my second reading of the manual now. If you work with it, I believe it is the most capable picture making machine ever made. William Henry Fox Talbot would be awed.


Mike H

[Canuck]

Here is even the 10D produces sof images...100% crop of each...

before...
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3181058&outx=760&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&no stamp=1

after...
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3180716&outx=760&oq=0&original=1&noresize=1&no stamp=1

[Jemmind]

jennie,
did you figure out your lcd problem yet? I have watched this thread, it was an interesting one and I hope you have straightened out the problem!
julie

[khkohl]

Jen,

My Mark II LCD is a little fuzzy too.......then I put on my reading Glasses and all is well!!!


Good Luck
:twisted:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Thanks :) You think it's worth the $? Now im reading on other forums that it takes soft images?

There ALLWAYS seems to be a group of nutjobs that think there DSLR is "soft"

We went through this so far with EVERY single Canon DSLR since the D30.. and I've seen it with Nikon's too...
There was a particularly large number of complaints towards the 10D (due mostly to the fact that the 10D simply SOLD more than any other)

My question is allways.. "as compared to what?"

The MkII Raw images are the best I have worked with.. period (haven't used a 1Ds) and the jpegs stright out of the camera with some tweeked "parameter" settings are also the best i have worked with.

[CyberDyneSystems]

This friggin post is BRILLIANT! 8) 8) 8)

//would not have posted my little insignificant rant if I read this response first...

Anyway.. Jen,. welcome,. and trust these guys.. they know what they are talking about :)

Again, and again, and again, and again we see this sharpness issue beaten to a freaking pulp. Amazing that some so-called pros can't even figure it out. Amazing that with the increased dynamic range of the MKII they can't figure out that perceived sharpness might appear be lower than that of the 10D or most any other digital camera on the planet.

But it isn't.

They begged and begged for a higher dynamic range and they don't know how to deal with it. With a higher DR you get more evenly dispersed contrast through the photograph and that's a very good thing. However, with the more "even" contrast it appears that a photo may be less sharp. It is not.

Our eyes perceive sharpness through different ranges of contrast. If the contrast in a photo is flat, then it appears unsharp. If the contrast is high, then it appears sharp. You can take two photos sharpened to the exact same sharpness and people will pick the high contrast shot as being sharper every time even though the relative sharpness through both photos is exactly the same.

Take a photo of a flower. Then spritz that flower with water and shoot again. The spritzed flower will appear sharper because of the sharp contrast points the drops of water offer.

Take a photo of a nice looking man or woman in a swimsuit. The spritz them with water. The same thing applies and the wet subject will appear sharper than the dry subject, again because of the sharp contrast points the water offers.

People can get themselves into trouble reading some of these forums and having someone spout off about a alleged problem with a camera and making a huge deal about it.

The proof is in the results. Jen has posted hers. Pekka has many photos posted. I posted my first last weekend with no post processing. CDS has many posted as do several other forum members on this board.

I don't see the problem here.

What it comes down to that some people are using the same workflow for the MKII as they used with the 10D.

It won't work.

That's like using the same developing techniques with Velvia as you'd use with plain-jane, department-store grade Kodak film.

It won't work.

We need to adapt to the camera. Not the other way around. That is what separates the pros from the amateurs. There are some out there that will never grasp the MKII and what it can do. Many out there have upgraded fromthe 10D when they really should not have and now they possess way too much camera and haven't a clue what to do with it.

Jen: You're doing fine and your pictures prove it.

[AJSJones]

Are the Menu items and Info screens also soft? If so, it has to be the LCD, and it should be replaced (either LCD or camera). If they're sharp and the images are way softer on the LCD than they should be based on seeing the image on the PC, then it's in the image processing and display chain somewhere. Does it matter whether you shoot raw or jpeg at various qualities? Could you put a known sharp image from another camera onto the card and see if that's displayed soft too?

Sounds ominously like it should also go back...

Andy