A field analysis of 20D softness concerns

[Scottes]

Ever since I got the 20D I've thought it to produce soft images. We had some discussions here way back then, and it seemed that many people thought so. I've heard of similar conversations on other forums.

Initially I had shrugged, wondering why I was getting soft images. I had almost 10,000 shots with the 10D at the time I got the 20D so I was fairly experienced. Especially considering how many of them were birds. The softness didn't make sense, and I *know* that the 10D gave me more keepers.

Why?

I started thinking about it and began to realize that I had **3** new things at once - I had a 2-week old 400mm L that I was using, the 20D was brand new, and I had recently switched to using the * for autofocus. Kinda stupid to expect to change 3 things at once and still get the same results that I was used to.

So I attributed it to these things and worked on them.


A few months pass, and I've got 4000+ frames on the 20D. More than half with the 400mm, a good amount with the 100-400 L, and the rest with a variety of lenses and tripod shots and so on.

Many images were still looking soft.

I hooked up the 400mm to the 20D, sat it on a tripod, enabled mirror lock-up and got out the cable release. 20 shots later and I was convinced it was me. There was nothing wrong with the 20D.

But I still wasn't getting the keepers. What the hecK was I doing wrong? Should this camera go back to get calibrated or something?


Last week another member here PM'd me about the softness of the 20D. I agreed with him, and felt there was an issue, and planned on sending it in after my trip to Montreal this past weekend.

I decided to take a closer look into it during the trip.

The following is my reply to his recent PM asking about the softness again.



As to the softness I've been going over and over the shots from the weekend. Usually I make 3 passes and delete the bad or OoF, then the poor or not-so-focused, then finally the near-dupes picking the best of the "same" shot.

Not this time.

Given our last conversation I've been analyzing the shots loosely. Not so much with a fine-toothed comb, but more like a good field analysis.

I've looked at every shot of the 542 I took, most several times, some only took a glance. Every shot was with the 100-400 on the 20D. Most were shot from a stopped car, a few hand-held, with the rest from a monopod. IS was enabled for every shot. 95% of the shots were at f/5.6 - only a few prepared, stable, monopod shots were at f/8-f/11.


The worst shots were from the deer shoot, riding in the car and shooting through branches in low light. Never below ISO 400, usually ISO 800, and none faster than 160th. ISO 800 at 1/60 f/5.6 means there was no light. The 100-400 is notorious at shooting through the mess of branches. No keepers. Not one.

Many shots at Omega were from the car, mostly handheld with some resting on the window. Mix of ISO 100 thru 400. Just about every shot above 1/400 was fine to great. Almost every shot at 1/1000+ was very good to great. There were some occasional misses in all cases.

A group of black pigs against the snow running straight at me were a mess. AF speed on the 100-400 was probably to blame.

A few shots that I should have gotten I missed. Several were because I was shooting out the opposite window and my body was contorted. Some were just my screw-up somehow.

The handheld shots were in overcast, somewhat dark, but ISO 200 and 1/400 or faster. All were excellent.

The next day we went to the EcoMuseum. Bright sunlight usually, ISO 100 almost always, monopod 98% of the time. Almost all were superb. What few shots weren't very good were shooting in darkness in the otter enclosure (though Ian and Sheldon did superb). I shot some handheld shots of an eagle that was VERY close - the head fills the entire frame. Given the short distance the DoF was tiny, and several of these shots were not so good. Error with the camera? I doubt it. Shooting a moving target at 400mm from a distance of 7 feet at f/5.6 was undoubtedly to blame. If the bird moved 1/2 inch it would be OoF.


So in the end... Bright light with fast shutter and prepared shots from a monopod were absolutely perfect almost every time. Often enough to know that it wasn't the camera that was the problem. Branches obstructing the subject in very low light handheld were poor every time. Is that a surprise? Anything in the middle was a mix, but the ISO 100 or 200 at 1/400 or better were very good to excellent.


This really makes me wonder if the IS was working. And guess what? I just cheked the lens and IS was actually OFF the entire time! The ENTIRE freaking weekend! I was just looking at the Mode button to make sure it was on "1" but I never checked the freaking ON button. What a bonehead!

Argh!!

But this really makes perfect sense now. The shots where I needed IS didn't have it. The others were into the limits of my hand-hold-ability, which is pretty stable. I can pretty consistently shoot 1 to 2 stops slower than the Length * 1.6 rule says. Years of shooting rifles in matches I guess.


So... I don't think it's the 20D.

[scottbergerphoto]

It takes a special kind of person to admit that it's them and not the equipment that's at fault. For some reason the term masochistic comes to mind. :lol: :lol: All kidding aside, I think one of the things that digital has done is shown us how bad we all are at keeping a camera steady at relatively low shutter speeds. I also have noticed that my shots hand held with my 400 f/5.6 are crystal clear when I'm shooting in bright light with shutter speeds over 1/500, but not nearly as good when the speeds drop in poor light.
Regards,
Scott

[cmM]

Nice one Scottes... :-P

Well at least you know the 20D is good.

[PacAce]

I'm glad you brought this up, Scott, because I just did this a week or two ago. In my case, I caught myself while I was still out shooting when I noticed that the image through the lens didn't "jitter" when I half-pressed the shutter like it normally does. I checked the lens and that's when this funny thing happened. My brain literally went blank. I was looking at the IS on and off switch and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out if it was on or not! :confused:

I saw this marking that looked like this "|" and this "O". The switch was in the "O" position and my brain was going, "Now, is that "O" as in "Open" or "On"? Needless to say, at that altzheimer moment, my brain decided that it meant "On" so I kept it there and continued shooting and didn't think any more of it.

It wasn't until I was walking back to my car when it dawned on me that "|" meant "switch is closed" and "O" meant switch is open. :(

So who's the joker who came up with these symbols, anyway? :evil:

[Scottes]

So who's the joker who came up with these symbols, anyway? :evil:

I don't know, but the jerk needs a big slap. That has got to be one of the more irritating "universal symbols" around.

But I always remember them as 1 and 0 - 1 is enabled, on, true. 0 is disabled, off, false. Of course I'm a computer geek so...


Funny that you mention the jitter. I actually thought that I saw it once. Maybe. That shoulda tipped me off, but then again I kept checking, so I "knew" it was on...

Never again.
And never again will I leave the camera on ISO 3200.
And never again will I leave the camera in Full Auto.
And never again will I leave the White Balance in Tungsten.
And never again will I leave....

[HKFEVER]

In fact, "never again to buy another L":p

[Scottes]

In fact, "never again to buy another L":p

What a good point! If I had a Vivtar mirror lens I'd never have to worry about IS.
Or aperture.
Or quality.
:-)

[HKFEVER]

That's why Canon is making DO and EF-S now. To help us stop buying L.:p

[eric1]

I'm glad you brought this up, Scott, because I just did this a week or two ago. In my case, I caught myself while I was still out shooting when I noticed that the image through the lens didn't "jitter" when I half-pressed the shutter like it normally does. I checked the lens and that's when this funny thing happened. My brain literally went blank. I was looking at the IS on and off switch and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out if it was on or not! :confused:

I saw this marking that looked like this "|" and this "O". The switch was in the "O" position and my brain was going, "Now, is that "O" as in "Open" or "On"? Needless to say, at that altzheimer moment, my brain decided that it meant "On" so I kept it there and continued shooting and didn't think any more of it.

It wasn't until I was walking back to my car when it dawned on me that "|" meant "switch is closed" and "O" meant switch is open. :(

So who's the joker who came up with these symbols, anyway? :evil:

i had the same problem. I is on, i had to listen for the little clink when the gyros are spinning up. :o

[PacAce]

i had the same peoblem. I is on, i had to listen for the little clink when the gyros are spinning up.

No wonder al lot of people have problems with the symbols. I think "_" is on and "<" is off would make a better symbol than "|" and "O". Or even "-" is on and "=" is off. And the best idea of all, how about "On" for on and "Off" for off? :mrgreen:

[Scottes]

How about o and O
Or 0 and O
Or 1 and l

Or the infamous green checkmark and red X?

[who me?]

Scottes, great write up. I am going through the same issues. But for me all my equipment is new. New to digital, AF, IS, new camera, new lenses...
Your write up gave me much to think about as I try to figure out my user issues.

As far as the on and off, I always think of O as off but there are sometimes that if it actually spelled OFF, it would sure help.;-)

[Alexia]

I and O comes from electricity. I is a straight line, a closed circuit. O meaning open circuit. Yeah, C for closed circuit would be better.

[SeanH]

Same ol story.......one that I have had myself countless times. Handheld.......100mm @ 100th, 60mm @ 60th, 400mm @ 400th......all O.K. right...........ahh but then there's the X1.6 factor.....oops.

I think this get's all of us old time photo guys that are recent digital converts.....LOL.......myself I just X's it by 2.0, it's faster in my head and my shots are always sharp.

I wouldn't even try handheld with that 400 under 1000th, otherwise your photo's will always be soft.

[Scottes]

I wouldn't even try handheld with that 400 under 1000th, otherwise your photo's will always be soft.

Actually I've got very good technique, mostly from years of rifle shooting. I've gotten 400mm shots handheld with IS at 1/30th - rare, but I've gotten many shots at this shutter. But I can consistently do 1/400th at 400mm without IS, more often than not I can do 1/300th.

Technique helps a lot.

[tommykjensen]

Excellent analysis Scottes.

[Pekka]

It is very common to use too slow shutter speeds. There are two reasons for this: ISO noise fear and misundertood 1/focal rule.

Modern cameras are so good you can use ISO 1600 without any problems in quality. If you have any doubts you can hold steadily or stop movement, crank up the ISO. There should not be a "default ISO". Use what is needed. In prints the noise differences go away almost totally - but it is much easier to note sharpness problems by movement blur.

1/focal rule (1/(focal*crop factor) in digital cameras) was made for very small prints and for "acceptable" sharpness for consumer view. If you view your shots in 100% on A3 size 72dpi monitor then the old rule can be thrown to wolves (I'd love to see Scottes take a picture of that event :) ). Always use as fast shutter speed as you possibly can. There are two "levels" of speed you need to be aware of. First is the speed required to overcome camera shake. IS can help here. The second is stopping movement, and that is totally a separate issue and IS does not help in it. The closer you are to the movement the faster a shutter speed has to be. A car running 200MpH 100m away is can be frozen with 1/500, but a hand moving accross the frame 50cm away could need 1/4000.

PS. One other advantage of faster shutter speeds (at least in theory) is less CMOS noise!

[Jon, The Elder]

Gentlemen - Thank you all for an interesting and quite informative thread. Been shooting and wondering about the 20D/lens sharpness question. Seems that my 20D really is BETTER than I am sometimes !!

[Scottes]

I have to admit that I have a hatred for noise - an over-rated hatred that I must force myself to stop worrying about. I can't help it - I love ISO 100, and I despise noise.

But the noise isn't that bad, especially when printed. And any decent noise-removal software can make noise at ISO 400 disappear without harming the image at all. And steps can be taken - like masking - to help noise removal software go even higher. Many of you have seen what I did to save a finch from ISO 1600. It's amazing. (See here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48929&highlight=finch+iso+1600) if you missed it.)

Pekka is right, though - crank the ISO.
I must remember that myself.

[RichardtheSane]

When I first started using my 20D I also had some softness concerns.

I was getting keepers, but they just didn't seem as sharp at 100% as my 10D shots.

But think, I go th the 20D in December, very little light about, even less in the UK so slow shutter speeds were pretty normal.

Secondly, viewing at 100%....you are actually viewing less of the frame on the 8mp image that you would be on the 6mp image, so imperfections down to camera shake are more visible... I think.

[Mark Kemp]

One thing all photographers eventually learn is just how easy it is to produce a bad picture, whatever equipment you have.

[RJSorensen]

This thread helped me a lot . . . thanks.

[Neens_wa]

I went through the same thing with my 10D and my first IS lenses the 28-135 and 75-300. The images were soft, and I thought "What a piece of junk"

Yep, I had my own little reality check when I went back and read my book for the lens, and realized the dang thing was off...

Regarding hand shake... again, digital has taught me well how steady I am NOT holding in low light these days. Speaking of, there's a really cool website I stumbled across the other day that has quite an interesting simulator for handshake, and compensation - (Also a nice site for help with Shutter speed/aperature, ISO)

http://www.photonhead.com/simcam/

neens

[Jon]

I have to say that all this grousing about | and O for On and Off being non-obvious strikes me as more than a little amusing. Anyone remember when it was A and L (Active and Locked IIRC)? If we could cope with that, a simple 1 and 0 is trivial.

[Chris1le]

I agree about the initial confusion regarding the on or off status of Canon IS lenses. What confuses me even more is the metering symbols that are used. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the empty square represent evaluative metering? After all the symbol represents the entire frame. Then I believe center weighted should be represented by the dot with circle around it. Then of course spot or partial should simply have a dot. Wouldn't this make more sense? I have to carry a little note to remind myself which is which. :o Also how did Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority become AV and TV? :confused:

[Jon]

I agree about the initial confusion regarding the on or off status of Canon IS lenses. What confuses me even more is the metering symbols that are used. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the empty square represent evaluative metering? After all the symbol represents the entire frame. Then I believe center weighted should be represented by the dot with circle around it. Then of course spot or partial should simply have a dot. Wouldn't this make more sense? I have to carry a little note to remind myself which is which. :o Also how did Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority become AV and TV? :confused:

You DARE tamper with tradition?! Apostate!

Tv is Time value; shutter speed's fixed. Av is Aperture value. Aperture's fixed.
Evaluative looks at different segments, which the spot and ring represent. CWA relies on the entire screen, and Partial's spot mimics the central ring you see in your finder. You want confusion? My trusty F-1 changes metering patterns when I change screens.

[dgup]

The problem with the softness is the autofocus. If you can you must pay very close attention to where the 9 red autofocus dots are resting. At least one needs to be on the subject to get sharp focus. This is very difficult in moving or action shots, especially if there are objects in front of the subject you are trying to shoot. The other part of soft or out of focus is camera shake. Turn on the IS feature on the lens if it has it and this will help considerably. The third part of softness is bad glass. Using an L lens is certainly NOT bad glass.

[jfred]

I'm pretty upset with the "softness" of the images I'm getting from the 20D. I've taken about 1400 pictures since getting the camera. It's not what I hoped for. At all. In fact, I'm almost at the point of trading it in/ebaying and cutting my losses.

I've been viewing on screen and also getting some images professionally printed out by Colab. Shots from my A80 just look much sharper and more vibrant. I know some of my blurry shots were 1.6 factor/shutter speed/user shake related... but others, I just can't explain.

I might see if I can hire a piece of L-series glassware to test. At the moment... I've tried pics tripod mounted (to isolate shake), using varying apertures on my lenses (especially the 50mm prime), all at ISO 100
wide open - mid (f8/f11) - stopped down as far as the lens will go

the f8/f11 shots seem sharpest, but still not as sharp as I'd like. If I go for post-processing in photoshop, things like grass in my photos start to look "artificial" with added sharpening.

At the moment, I am experimenting with photoshop elements 2 (supplied with the camera) and pixmantec rawshooter.

Am I missing anything obvious that I should be trying here?
Thanks in advance!

[I Simonius]

infamy does it of rme every time!

Infany, Infamy
They've got it in for me!

[reggie]

Well regarding the "I" and "0" switching I always consider it to be "I" for "IN" and "0" for "OUT". We're either "I"n with the option or "O"ut.

This probably makes it as clear as mud but I'm sure we all have our little foibles in life.

Keep shooting :-)

Greg

[Jon]

I'm pretty upset with the "softness" of the images I'm getting from the 20D. I've taken about 1400 pictures since getting the camera. It's not what I hoped for. At all. In fact, I'm almost at the point of trading it in/ebaying and cutting my losses.

I've been viewing on screen and also getting some images professionally printed out by Colab. Shots from my A80 just look much sharper and more vibrant. I know some of my blurry shots were 1.6 factor/shutter speed/user shake related... but others, I just can't explain.

I might see if I can hire a piece of L-series glassware to test. At the moment... I've tried pics tripod mounted (to isolate shake), using varying apertures on my lenses (especially the 50mm prime), all at ISO 100
wide open - mid (f8/f11) - stopped down as far as the lens will go

the f8/f11 shots seem sharpest, but still not as sharp as I'd like. If I go for post-processing in photoshop, things like grass in my photos start to look "artificial" with added sharpening.

At the moment, I am experimenting with photoshop elements 2 (supplied with the camera) and pixmantec rawshooter.

Am I missing anything obvious that I should be trying here?
Thanks in advance!

Canon uses more aggressive post-processing in the P&S cameras than they do in the DSLRs. The 18-55 and 75-300 in particular have a reputation for being soft. But what form of sharpening were you using in PSE, and could you post some examples (100% crop) of pictures you consider soft?

[I Simonius]

Well I went back in the shop today and..................20D with:
50mm 1.8 @125 5.6 overcast but not dark clouds, careful focussing , the detail's there but it is so soft. Sharpening once helps but twice is way too much
10-22 lens @10mm also soft, just no crispness even around where there were reflections of the direct low sun
So....still underwhelmed I'm afraid
The examples of the XT that I've seen look more promising

[ilcounican]

I am new to the Canon EOS 20D, having only received it yesterday and snapping a few images as a test. I didn't get to download those images, but I will tonight after another photo shoot. (Using a different camera for that shoot...for a client.) I guess I'll have to be on the lookout for this "softening" of images?

[robertwgross]

Also how did Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority become AV and TV?

Av is Aperture Value, and Tv is Time Value.

---Bob Gross---

[GMosher]

I picked up my 20D a week ago, and i must say I'm grossly disappointed, and still contemplating a refund. I picked up the first body last friday, and after shooting over the weekend noticed HUGE dust issues. Took the camera back as there should be any dist problems with the sensor after 100 shots or so. They gladly exchanged. Next night I stopped to get some sunset pictures, again...DUST EVERYWHERE. Not impressed. Called again, was informed there is a dust on the sensor problem with the 20D....try a cleaning kit, and if you're not satisfied we'll try another camera. I've cleaned the camera three times today, and I must say it's better, but not near 100%....when you spend 2700 bucks on a camera I guess you expect it to not have these types of issues the FIRST WEEK. I haven't had another DSLR to compare with owning in the past, but there don't seem to be all these sharpness issues I'm hearing about here....

[LadyMacro]

So if you had to make the choice again, would you choose a 20D?
I am about to get one.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I love mine.
I'd definitely get one again,.

[LadyMacro]

I love mine.
I'd definitely get one again,.
I'll be upgrading from 2 EOS 300ds. The DR350XT sounds like a dissappointing camera, size of body, size of sensor...So I'm looking to go for the 20D, but something I read a while back(which I don't quite remember) is bugging me about it..

[CyberDyneSystems]

Currently there are a number of posts on this forum from people expressing disappointment with the 20D. It seems to me that most of these posts are from those who have in the 20D there first DSLR..

We get this as a repeat theme on this forum from memebrs who are first time DSLR users,. no matter what the Model du jour happens to be.. now it's the 20D,. soon it will be the XT,. a few months back it was the 300D,. and before that the 10D..

It is simply a matter of adjusting to the DSLR,.. it is not specific to the 20D,. but to DSLRs in general.

[Simon Spiers]

I must say i was disapointed at first, but with a bit of camera tweaking and USM the results are great.

Don't knock this camera untill you give it a chance;)
I am hopeing that canon will update the firmware to give the option on a sharper image, while still being able to turn the sharpness down for those who prefere it that way.

[LadyMacro]

I wondered if that might be the reason behind many posts showing disappointments. I know people get used to non slr cameras and don't realise they have to have decent lenses and tripods with their change in camera type.

[jfred]

here's an example of a picture I considered "soft"

small (350*396) version (145kb) (http://www.john-fredrickson.com/eos20d/test_1115_small.jpg)
larger (981*576) version (540 kb) (http://www.john-fredrickson.com/eos20d/test_1115.jpg)

taken with the 18-55 "kit" lens, at 50mm
100 ASA, f8.0 at 1/320 second
100% crop from raw file, converted to jpg at the highest quality/minimum compression PSE would allow.

I have to say, that given a little bit of USM in Photoshop Elements.... the sharpness of the picture is :D

Are these results about what people would expect?

I'd still like a little bit more sharpness "unprocessed" and better performance at faster apertures. Would something like the 24-70 f2.8 or Tamron 28-75 f2.8 be nearer what I'm looking for?

Thanks in advance!