Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Jan 2012 (Tuesday) 18:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7D worth it for photography only?

 
stsva
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,360 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 285
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Feb 04, 2012 18:57 |  #76

KenjiS wrote in post #13824753 (external link)
Precisely, I just wish the design was better (I fully realize its working "the way its designed" i just hate that the way its designed means it chooses to focus on the edge of the leaf at the VERY bleeding edge of the AF point, using spot AF, as opposed to the bird i really want on focus, Or grabbing the VERY EDGE of my dog's ear instead of her eye, Whatever is MOSTLY in the focus point should be what the camera focuses on, and things near the very edge should not affect that the way in my experience it does..)

For instance the Nikon D300s and its 51-points cover roughly the same area (ok slightly more) as the 7D's 19, but the points themselves are much smaller.... I would rather have the D300s' array compared to the 7D's as i feel personally that its more selective...

The points themselves on the 7D are bloody -huge- imho, and while useful when tracking moving subjects are less discerning when working with precise applications...

I guess that's what the spot focus is for, but I agree, the "huge" focus sensors can really throw the focusing off sometimes. I think that, combined with the 7D's high resolution compared to predecessors, is probably a lot of what causes reports of 7D focus problems. For what it's worth, this is not confined to the 7D. The large focus sensors are a "feature" of Canon cameras in general - I first learned about how large they are from a Fred Miranda Forums re-post of an RDKirk summary of Canon's AF system from years before the 7D appeared on the scene.


Some Canon stuff and a little bit of Yongnuo.
http://www.pbase.com/s​tsva/profile (external link)
Member of the GIYF
Club and
HAMSTTR
٩ Breeders Club https://photography-on-the.net …=744235&highlig​ht=hamsttr Join today!
Image Editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,779 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 2110
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Asked to leave Paradise...
     
Feb 04, 2012 19:36 |  #77

For me it was soft focus beyond ~10 ft. Not ff or bf, but overall soft. A tech said it was something to do with the AF assembly.

And on a side note:

I've never understood is why Canon would engineer an 8fps camera, geared to action, and give it such a long shutter lag. :(


Apprentice sought (Las Vegas)
xgender.net (external link) Miss Julia Grey (she/her/Miss)
Bodies: Canon 5DII-x2, 5D, 20D-x2
Lenses: 12-24, 24/2, 24tse II, 28/2, 28-80, 28-85, 28-105 II, 28-210, 35 pc, sweet35, edge50, 50/1.8, 50/1.8, 50/2.8, 55 macro, 55/1.2, 60-300, 75-150/4, 85/1.8, 135/2.5, 200/4, 300/5.6, SP 2X TC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,193 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5941
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Feb 04, 2012 19:43 |  #78

AF assembly would have nothing to do with soft focus beyond some distance. Focus is a plane, so at a very minimum, you could manually focus and get a sharp image. AF would place that focus plane either in front of the 10'-20' subject, or behind it, or directly on it, but there would be something in good focus.

If objects far off are soft with no apparent focus, then it is lens resolution to the sensor, or a filter, or shake, or something optical.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,362 posts
Gallery: 550 photos
Likes: 2617
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Feb 04, 2012 19:49 |  #79

stsva wrote in post #13826372 (external link)
I guess that's what the spot focus is for, but I agree, the "huge" focus sensors can really throw the focusing off sometimes. I think that, combined with the 7D's high resolution compared to predecessors, is probably a lot of what causes reports of 7D focus problems. For what it's worth, this is not confined to the 7D. The large focus sensors are a "feature" of Canon cameras in general - I first learned about how large they are from a Fred Miranda Forums re-post of an RDKirk summary of Canon's AF system from years before the 7D appeared on the scene.

the spot focus is still bigger than the focus areas on an xxD, 5-series or 1-series to my knowledge...

The best AF I ever had was on my EOS-3....Of course, it should be, being the 45pt AF that was the backbone of the 1 series...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,362 posts
Gallery: 550 photos
Likes: 2617
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Feb 04, 2012 19:50 |  #80

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13826550 (external link)
AF assembly would have nothing to do with soft focus beyond some distance. Focus is a plane, so at a very minimum, you could manually focus and get a sharp image. AF would place that focus plane either in front of the subject 20' out, or behind it, or directly on it, but there would be something in good focus.

If objects far off are soft with no apparent focus, then it is lens resolution to the sensor, or a filter, or shake, or something optical.

Hm, could one of the submirrors or the AF sensor itself be misaligned so that it registered correct focus at closer distances but just couldnt cut it at a distance? I remember someone on here saying they had similar problems and sent it off and Canon realigned the AF sensor and it corrected the issue...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,193 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5941
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Feb 04, 2012 19:54 |  #81

KenjiS wrote in post #13826570 (external link)
Hm, could one of the submirrors or the AF sensor itself be misaligned so that it registered correct focus at closer distances but just couldnt cut it at a distance? I remember someone on here saying they had similar problems and sent it off and Canon realigned the AF sensor and it corrected the issue...

But again, if anybody has any issues at all, they should first try manual AF/live view to make sure that they can get something sharp. If they cannot, then it wouldn't be anything with the camera but the lens resolution, etc.

If they can get sharp images in MF/live view, but cannot with AF, then yes, there is an issue between lens and body. That is when you start doing static high contrast, well lit testing and set up some MFA, etc. If nothing helps, then Canon might have to offer up their spa treatment for your equipment. :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,362 posts
Gallery: 550 photos
Likes: 2617
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Feb 04, 2012 20:13 |  #82

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13826587 (external link)
But again, if anybody has any issues at all, they should first try manual AF/live view to make sure that they can get something sharp. If they cannot, then it wouldn't be anything with the camera but the lens resolution, etc.

If they can get sharp images in MF/live view, but cannot with AF, then yes, there is an issue between lens and body. That is when you start doing static high contrast, well lit testing and set up some MFA, etc. If nothing helps, then Canon might have to offer up their spa treatment for your equipment. :)

My only problem with the focus chart ETC ETC ETC testing is that sometimes it doesnt show problems that happen...well...errati​cly

IE if i bolt my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 up to a rig and do that, it tests out perfectly fine, But in real world conditions its not 100% peachy, it has issues when theres back or side light on a subject for instance and cant "find" focus, a problem i dont have with any other lens...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,193 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5941
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Feb 04, 2012 20:18 |  #83

KenjiS wrote in post #13826702 (external link)
My only problem with the focus chart ETC ETC ETC testing is that sometimes it doesnt show problems that happen...well...errati​cly

IE if i bolt my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 up to a rig and do that, it tests out perfectly fine, But in real world conditions its not 100% peachy, it has issues when theres back or side light on a subject for instance and cant "find" focus, a problem i dont have with any other lens...

That is different than what shadows was talking about, he made it sound like any objects 10' and out just have nothing that ever gets into focus. That is a different situation than erratic AF, that is a lens resolution issue of some sort, assuming MF was attempted and the same results were obtained.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,362 posts
Gallery: 550 photos
Likes: 2617
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Feb 04, 2012 20:37 |  #84

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13826729 (external link)
That is different than what shadows was talking about, he made it sound like any objects 10' and out just have nothing that ever gets into focus. That is a different situation than erratic AF, that is a lens resolution issue of some sort, assuming MF was attempted and the same results were obtained.

Eh sorry...I guess I went a bit off topic


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,779 posts
Gallery: 106 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 2110
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Asked to leave Paradise...
     
Feb 05, 2012 00:25 |  #85

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13826550 (external link)
AF assembly would have nothing to do with soft focus beyond some distance. Focus is a plane, so at a very minimum, you could manually focus and get a sharp image. AF would place that focus plane either in front of the 10'-20' subject, or behind it, or directly on it, but there would be something in good focus.

If objects far off are soft with no apparent focus, then it is lens resolution to the sensor, or a filter, or shake, or something optical.

The Mother Ship (Canon :) ) fixed the camera twice(electronic adjustment to the AF assembly, iirc), but both times it came back the same. The second time it came back there was a note that this repair was done as a "courtesy" since the lens was past its warranty by 2 months - BUT this was the second time and only about 3 months after it was sent in the first time under warranty. I was sick of fighting with Canon. As for my lenses, the 70-200 II was the worst offender and it too was sent to Canon twice even though it was perfect on my 5Dc (as were all of my lenses). Now the 70-200 is ok with my 5Dc and requires +12 on my 1DmkIII.

I don't remember all of the tests I performed, but I can tell you that I spent a *lot* of time testing the thing; more time than I have to devote to malfunctioning equipment.

There comes a time where you have to cut your losses and move on. Some have insisted (Rudi for one) that they would outlast Canon and keep sending the camera in. I say that is for people who have more time (and money) than I do.

Thankfully all of my lenses work well with both of my cameras again.


Apprentice sought (Las Vegas)
xgender.net (external link) Miss Julia Grey (she/her/Miss)
Bodies: Canon 5DII-x2, 5D, 20D-x2
Lenses: 12-24, 24/2, 24tse II, 28/2, 28-80, 28-85, 28-105 II, 28-210, 35 pc, sweet35, edge50, 50/1.8, 50/1.8, 50/2.8, 55 macro, 55/1.2, 60-300, 75-150/4, 85/1.8, 135/2.5, 200/4, 300/5.6, SP 2X TC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uneek78
Senior Member
Avatar
340 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: NC
     
Feb 06, 2012 12:36 |  #86

Sam6644 wrote in post #13762526 (external link)
Well, if we're keeping all of what makes the 7D good aside... then I'd say no, it's not worth it.

Any camera will take a picture. I think it's the "Ergonomics, Mega pixel, HD video, 8 frames/sec and Magnesium Alloy body" type stuff that sets any camera apart from any other camera.

A ferrari and a bike basically do the same thing, if you set aside the engine and features and stuff.

Love the comparison!


Gerard Payne | www.gerardpayne.com (external link)
Canon Rebel T1i | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 24-105L |Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uneek78
Senior Member
Avatar
340 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: NC
     
Feb 06, 2012 12:46 |  #87

pxchoi wrote in post #13764670 (external link)
I've had my 7D since its release and in the big picture it certainly gives you the most bang for your buck. Year after year it continues to fulfill my growing needs and it doesn't disappoint.

However, I think that you should get the best thing that you can afford without having to skimp on a lens. That was my mistake in the past. If you can live without some of the features, you could get a 60D +15-85 for around the same price as a 7D with a kit lens - Just to put things in perspective.

I went from a very happy T1i user to a disappointed 7D user... And it wasn't until I got a solid lens that I realized the 7D's potential.

I'm considering getting the 7D. Is the 24-105L a good enough lens for the 7D?


Gerard Payne | www.gerardpayne.com (external link)
Canon Rebel T1i | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 24-105L |Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,735 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 297
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
     
Feb 06, 2012 14:02 |  #88

gunjanx wrote in post #13762493 (external link)
Keeping Ergonomics, Mega pixel, HD video, 8 frames/sec and Magnesium Alloy body aside..

The 7D makes a good paperweight.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Staszek
Goldmember
Avatar
3,606 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Feb 06, 2012 14:26 |  #89

uneek78 wrote in post #13835243 (external link)
I'm considering getting the 7D. Is the 24-105L a good enough lens for the 7D?

Its a great lens for any body. Do you like the range on your current body? If so, then you'll like it on the 7D. Some people prefer a wider focal length, so I'll suggest the 17-55 or 15-85. Really, there is no right answer. Its whatever focal length works best for you and your photography.

I will most likely have a 7D for sale within the next month. If you're interested, shoot me a PM and we can keep in touch.


SOSKIphoto (external link) | Blog (external link) | Facebook (external link)| Instagram (external link)
Shooting with big noisy cameras and a bag of primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

9,922 views & 0 likes for this thread
7D worth it for photography only?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Overdoer
789 guests, 190 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.