7D Mark II - Focus Discussions

wisv1k wrote in post #17578567
Round trip? Or they have it for 10 days?

I'd consider that fast. I'm in Canada and from what I've read turn around time can exceed eight weeks. I would have sent mine in in March but couldn't take the chance due to a trip set for mid May. Right now, I figure if I send it in it will be gone for the better part of the summer. No way to win in this game.

Rod

Their website and the claim indicated 5-7 days from when they get it, sometimes especially down to 3. I was wondering if that was the case in the US. Seems pretty awesome if that's the case. More importantly, the end result.

Camera is sooooooo much better since the firmware upgrade.
Keeper rate is higher. And more importantly, overall IQ is superior.

Image hosted by forum (730490) © Markd102 THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

RodS57 wrote in post #17578584
I'd consider that fast. I'm in Canada and from what I've read turn around time can exceed eight weeks. I would have sent mine in in March but couldn't take the chance due to a trip set for mid May. Right now, I figure if I send it in it will be gone for the better part of the summer. No way to win in this game.

Rod

You got that right. 6 to 8 weeks for non CPS members if you are lucky. The worst part is what if they don't get it right the first time. I send mine to Canon USA and get it back in on average within 10 days, when in their possession. The previous time they received a lens on a Monday and it was at the American parcel service I use the following Monday. Canon USA does not ship to Canada so I have to go pick it up over just over the border. A bit if a pain but well worth it.

Only issue is that any UPS shipping slips they send are not valid in Canada so if it is on warranty, etc it has to go on my dime. It's usually a non emergency so I just ship by ground. I sent a lens Friday the 22nd, Monday was memorial day and they got in last Friday. I expect to get an email from them tomorrow and if all goes as usual it should be at the parcel service by Friday.

You can try to join Canada CPS if you qualify. Faster turn around but I was not happy with their service so I did not renew my membership. Maybe you will have better luck.

wisv1k wrote in post #17578567
Round trip? Or they have it for 10 days?

After they get it. I say 10 days just to add a buffer but usually after they receive it I get it back in about 7 days. So it depends on how long it takes to get there.

If you can splurge on the CPS Platinum, turnaround is a few days and they send a loaner in the meantime...also, shipping is free. When I went through my hassles of exchanging bodies, I must have gone to Purolator 5-6 times, saved a lot of cash that way. Your equipment is hand-delivered to the CPS rep for shipping, I was very impressed.

rejay14 wrote in post #17578979
If you can splurge on the CPS Platinum, turnaround is a few days and they send a loaner in the meantime...also, shipping is free. When I went through my hassles of exchanging bodies, I must have gone to Purolator 5-6 times, saved a lot of cash that way. Your equipment is hand-delivered to the CPS rep for shipping, I was very impressed.

I wish things had gone smoothly for me as I really wanted to work with Canada. Glad it is working for you. Perhaps the basic CPS is just not good enough for them to take that extra step to work with you.

A few years ago I dropped my 300L F4 IS and the IS went all wonky. I double checked everything, fresh battery and it would not slap or do the normal grind sound and was shaky. The women who answers the calls said they could not reproduce the problem. At one point she told me maybe it fixed itself during shipment. I kid you not. I begged to have their techs take another look to avoid re-shipping. It was like pulling teeth but she agreed. I called a week later and asked if they had a chance to look at it and she told me they replaced the IS assembly for the tune of $450 and it was on it's way back. No estimate or anything. It still was not great so I shipped it to NJ not telling them about what TO did and they told me the IS had to be replaced. TO had to refund me because Canadian law states any repair over $100 requires a written estimate. If it had worked correctly I would have let it go.

These things happen but I went through a few more frustrating events so I gave up. Maybe I should try again at a different level. I might have to change my name.

digital paradise wrote in post #17579086
I wish things had gone smoothly for me as I really wanted to work with Canada. Glad it is working for you. Perhaps the basic CPS is just not good enough for them to take that extra step to work with you.

A few years ago I dropped my 300L F4 IS and the IS went all wonky. I double checked everything, fresh battery and it would not slap or do the normal grind sound and was shaky. The women who answers the calls said they could not reproduce the problem. At one point she told me maybe it fixed itself during shipment. I kid you not. I begged to have their techs take another look to avoid re-shipping. It was like pulling teeth but she agreed. I called a week later and asked if they had a chance to look at it and she told me they replaced the IS assembly for the tune of $450 and it was on it's way back. No estimate or anything. It still was not great so I shipped it to NJ not telling them about what TO did and they told me the IS had to be replaced. TO had to refund me because Canadian law states any repair over $100 requires a written estimate. If it had worked correctly I would have let it go.

These things happen but I went through a few more frustrating events so I gave up. Maybe I should try again at a different level. I might have to change my name.

Groan. Yes, bizarre things happen there.

But it's not just in Canada. At Newport News, they replaced the lens mount and USM focus assembly of my 17-55mm lens even though they stated the flaky AF behavior that I was complaining about was normal for this lens. Later, the same lens visited Canon service at Toronto and they replaced the zoom assembly, despite the lens again meeting all specifications. The original problem with inconsistent AF was not solved.

I am now trying to get a refund for the repair charge that Newport News made me pay. The guy in Toronto has already told me that there won't be a refund because "an issue was identified and the lens was in fact repaired." However, they identified the wrong issue, and there was no change in the lens's behavior. I'm talking to Canon USA about it now.

wisv1k wrote in post #17578430
After way too much frustration and time testing, I have finally broke down and decided to send my body in to Canon. Have their advertised turn around times held true? Also, I am hoping everyone who went through this hassle has been pleased with the end result?

Mine came back better. Sent to NJ back in December right after Big Country got his back and he showed before and after photos. Canon confirmed what I found - front focusing.

digital paradise wrote in post #17579086
I wish things had gone smoothly for me as I really wanted to work with Canada. Glad it is working for you. Perhaps the basic CPS is just not good enough for them to take that extra step to work with you.

A few years ago I dropped my 300L F4 IS and the IS went all wonky. I double checked everything, fresh battery and it would not slap or do the normal grind sound and was shaky. The women who answers the calls said they could not reproduce the problem. At one point she told me maybe it fixed itself during shipment. I kid you not. I begged to have their techs take another look to avoid re-shipping. It was like pulling teeth but she agreed. I called a week later and asked if they had a chance to look at it and she told me they replaced the IS assembly for the tune of $450 and it was on it's way back. No estimate or anything. It still was not great so I shipped it to NJ not telling them about what TO did and they told me the IS had to be replaced. TO had to refund me because Canadian law states any repair over $100 requires a written estimate. If it had worked correctly I would have let it go.

These things happen but I went through a few more frustrating events so I gave up. Maybe I should try again at a different level. I might have to change my name.

I see the cost has risen quite a bit. I had the IS replaced on that same lens and I think it cost me maybe $200 back in '09. I would dug really deep in Canon's butt if that happened to me and they would never ever forget my name after I finished with them as I would've raise so much noise.

Hi guys, long time reader-first time poster here

I have not read the whole thread (jet) but I believe I have narrowed down the cause of my AF issue with my 7D2 and would like to share it with everyone just in case it was not been noticed before and maybe contribute in some meaningful way by helping other, much smarter members of this forum, figure it out.

I usually do landscape and didn't get to shoot BIF since I bought my 7D2 so far and didn't have any reason to suspect any issues until I took some pic of my little nephew sliding down the slide and swinging on a swing with 10 FPS to be able to capture THE perfect one.

-7D2 (firmware 102)
-50mm F1.8 II (AFMA @ -4)
-AI Servo AF (set to AI tracking the initial focus point of my choosing) *I know what you are thinking but it wasn't the cause.
-ISO 100
-Av mode @ f2.8
- First and second pi on focus priority
- was sunny so most pic were between 1/500 at the low end and 1/4000 at the upper with most being over 1/1000.
* I only shoot RAW and disable all the unnecessary AUTO things like ISO noise reduction and lens corrections etc. I like my camera to be a lean and mean shooting machine

I took over 500 pic that day and ones home I was disappointed at just how many of them were out of focus. Almost 80%
Now, while I'm not a pro photographer I had the 450D since 2008 and with tight budget I had to learn a great deal in order to make it (along side the kit lenses) work for everything from landscape to BIF. With all the improvising I had to do I consider my self somewhat of MacGyver of XSi
In other words, I am not a noob when it comes figuring out and working with the AF (and other aspects of a camera system) either. I LOVE learning all about a technical side of things as much as shooting.

Having done my homework of reading the 7D2 manual as well as watching/reading all I could find on the internet about 7D2 AF settings even before I bought it and setting it all up before the shoot I had hard time believing I was THAT bad of a shooter.

So I went trough the 500 pic and upon closer look I noticed a strange pattern: it seams that regardless of whether the subject was moving or standing motionless I would get one pic in focus followed by 2-3 pic out of focus -rinse and repeat...hmmmm
I got an idea based on a hunch after seeing how my 7D2 hunted in servo mode and even on tripod aimed at stationary object it refused to lock on most of the time (now I do acknowledge that some of it is do to the very nature of SERVO AF)
I then reset my camera settings and AFMA of my nifty-fifty (applying only few basic settings like RAW only etc.) and did few test bursts. (please keep in mind that I did not intend for this to be any scientifically accurate test by any means nor am I writing down all the info but merely giving a quick idea of it)


burst of around 10 pic each...repeated few times for redundancy.

burst 1: servo AF (case 1 in AF menu); High burst; center AF point; 50mm @ f1.8 and 1/1250; stationary target 6f away.
result : every in-focus-picture was followed by 2-3 out-of focus pictures regardless if handhold or tripod.

burst 2: one shot AF; everything else same as burst 1.
result : EVERY picture follows the initial first pic focus lock accuracy as expected. Any out of focus pic were do to user error (camera shake with some when handheld and in focus when on tripod)

burst 3: AI FOCUS; everything else same as burst 1.
result : On stationary target burst 3 was the same as burst 2 since camera didn't have any reason to switch to SERVO.

burst 4: repeat all of the above with low burst speed (I believe I had it set to 5 or 7)
result : no difference what-so-ever

At that point I suspected that my AF issue was not do to mechanical sensor/mirror shake/alignment but rather the way the AF was hunting for focus. It seams to me that even though it had a perfect focus it expected the focus to change for some reason and therefore started hunting in and out of focus like some lenses do on tripod when you don't turn IS off (just much worse) and because my lens is probably not quick enough to go in-and-out of focus in-between 10FPS (its nifty-fifty after all) the 7D2 manages to capture most of the pictures while the lens is in-between focus...but I needed more evidence.
How do I influence the "aggressiveness" of the AF in order to stop it from hunting for focus so aggressively in between shots?
As indicated above I had it set at the default menu setting "case 1" AF so it should be suited for everything including stationary object as indicated by Canon. So I decided to modify the AF menu setting "case 1" by reducing tracking sensitivity to -2.

burst 5: tracking sensitivity of the AF "case 1" reduced to -2; everything else same as burst 1
result : only about every 3rd or 4th picture is out of focus and by much less then before.

hmmm that's interesting. It seams to me that camera was much less likely to start hunting ones focused on stationary target and when it does it will not go as far out of focus one way before coming back in focus and going out of focus the other way thus picture which get captured during that hunt are less likely to be out of focus and if out of focus then by lesser degree.
However, while the AF tracking sensitivity adjustment worked as expected it was not a solution since the sensitivity adjustment was there for a reason. What if I ever NEED it more aggressive? Then there was no point of shooting 10FPS if all I'm going to get are 2-3 sharp pictures out of 10 pic burst. Per-picture AF accuracy is the whole point to 7D2 type DSLR compered to 15FPS point and shoot camera...right? So on I go.

Now I repeated the tests above with my canon 55-250 IS at both ends and with and without IS and it seams that because of the limited testing set up that had me shoot it at stationary target @ f4 - f5.6 I did not experience focus issue noticeable to me that were not do to user error (IS off @ 250mm is going to be hard). I suspect that if I had shot moving subject it could create pictures that were ever-so-slightly out-of-focus and not as easily perceptible as it is @ f1.8 on my 50mm.

I then updated to firmware 1.04 and did some quick test with it.

burst 6: firmware 104; everything else same as burst 1 on firmware 102
result : all but 1 out of around 10 pic was sharp ...

I then tried different tracking sensitivity in AF menu setting of "case 1" ranging from -2 (min) to +2 (max) and it looks like that firmware 104 at +2 is just as good as firmware 102 at -2 setting...which is huge.
Now, I don't claim this to be solution to MY or anyone else's AF issue just jet as I haven't properly test it in the field and I remain skeptical until I do.
For example; I can't explain how some of the pic didn't look like they miss the focus as much as they looked like there is no part of the image that is in tack sharp focus at all. That is another reason I have to wait for more in-the-field tests...to confirm if the camera can take tack sharp pic (50mm above f4 should be able to do at least as well as my XSi)

Also, if the firmware 104 fixed most of it then what was done in it? Did they essentially just tuned down the aggressiveness of SERVO AF hunt for focus across the board because it was too aggressive to begin with or because some of the cameras have faulty AF and cant keep up with the program and they are just detuning down the AF to slower speed to bandage the problem similarly to how Formula 1 drive can reduce performance of the engine if the engine develops a fault...it can get him trough the rest of race but with less then 100% performance. And if so will it effect the cameras ability in the field when tracking fast moving targets?

That would explain why some people experience "fix" with 104 while other had their mirror/sensor replaced. Since, at some point of AF/mirror degradation, the AF becomes too faulty for even reduced speed/intensity and requires replacement. Or maybe, depending on who works on camera when it is sent in, they may replace the parts to bring it up to 100% performance instead of just apply firmware bandage that will maybe reduce it to say 80% in order to make it work? With other words: we might suffer from the SAME hardware issue jet to different degree and weather 104 fixes yours depends how far gone is your AF-if that makes any sense.

Which would also explain why Canon wouldn't want to expose the issue openly since many people would not be happy to settle for say 80% of AF performance and so Canon would only do it for those bothered enough to send the camera in?
As you can see there are so many unanswered questions and possibilities. Perhaps someone could come up with a test that we can all do and get more data that way. idk

I sure hope this helps cause my fingers are burning and my keyboard is smocking...and I can swear my eyes are developing a focus issue of their own...and for love of Pete I cant find any mention inside the Good Book on how to AFMA them
Oh wait, there it is: "and on the 7th day God rested"....guess who is going to take a nap just about now

Archibald wrote in post #17579117
Groan. Yes, bizarre things happen there.

But it's not just in Canada. At Newport News, they replaced the lens mount and USM focus assembly of my 17-55mm lens even though they stated the flaky AF behavior that I was complaining about was normal for this lens. Later, the same lens visited Canon service at Toronto and they replaced the zoom assembly, despite the lens again meeting all specifications. The original problem with inconsistent AF was not solved.

I am now trying to get a refund for the repair charge that Newport News made me pay. The guy in Toronto has already told me that there won't be a refund because "an issue was identified and the lens was in fact repaired." However, they identified the wrong issue, and there was no change in the lens's behavior. I'm talking to Canon USA about it now.

It can happen anywhere. I just found that it is much easier to talk to Canon USA. The woman that answered the phone was rude and very short. Like if question elevated past a no or yes answer it messed her whole day up.

I also think that the US population vs Canada, 3 facilities to share info with and the volume they see give them more experience. I had another lens go to TO on warranty and I'm not sure they even looked at it. NJ could not find a problem which was a first for and Newport solved the problem. No place is perfect but I just don't trust TO at this point. Not with critical stuff like focus calibration.

I'm still surprised about you lens.

Funny you mention this. I was just telling a friend the other day how on my 1D4 my tracking sensitivity was at -1 and I had to set my 7D2 to +1 to match it.

I've only done any serious shooting with 1.04 so I can't comment on the before and after. As a little background to my statement above.....

I shoot karts and one of the shots I take is karts head on in a turn or right before turning. I generally just hold AF-ON and click off on the shutter when the karts are framed the way I want. The camera is nearly stationary. So it was during this scenario in which -1 on the 1D4 was sufficient for snapping the focus to the next kart; which could be 1-3 kart lengths behind the one leaving the frame.

I mistaking assumed that -1 on the 7D2 would be equal. Boy was I wrong. I watched out of focus karts enter and leave the frame. I didn't have much of a problem if I stopped and restarted focus but I'd rather avoid the finger cha-cha so I ended up at +1 on the 7D2 before it equaled the 1D4.

tonyxcom wrote in post #17579429
Funny you mention this. I was just telling a friend the other day how on my 1D4 my tracking sensitivity was at -1 and I had to set my 7D2 to +1 to match it.

I've only done any serious shooting with 1.04 so I can't comment on the before and after. As a little background to my statement above.....

I shoot karts and one of the shots I take is karts head on in a turn or right before turning. I generally just hold AF-ON and click off on the shutter when the karts are framed the way I want. The camera is nearly stationary. So it was during this scenario in which -1 on the 1D4 was sufficient for snapping the focus to the next kart; which could be 1-3 kart lengths behind the one leaving the frame.

I mistaking assumed that -1 on the 7D2 would be equal. Boy was I wrong. I watched out of focus karts enter and leave the frame. I didn't have much of a problem if I stopped and restarted focus but I'd rather avoid the finger cha-cha so I ended up at +1 on the 7D2 before it equaled the 1D4.

Try Case 3 - it may work for you - it starts at +1

I have done quite a bit of experimenting with the different cases recently and they really do react very differently from each other.

If you do a simple test, such as:
- putting on a long lens
- use expanded 4 or expanded 8
- focus on a target such as a bright flower with your expanded 4 or 8 using BBF (AF-ON)
- enable AF Function with the DoF button (switch to 65 AF points) - holding this button down
- you will now see the camera tracking the 'flower'
- now move the camera left right up down to see how the camera tracks the flower
- it was very interesting to me to see how differently the 6 Cases do during this exercise


The other thing I have concluded is that the 3 factors (Tracking, Accelerating, Switching) can start fighting each other very quickly if you increase any of the 3 by +1 within any of the cases - in fact, sometimes adding a +1 makes 'things' slower overall or basically ruins the case entirely as you can almost feel the computer getting confused.

I could be wrong, but doing the above test, I thought by increasing Switching it should make the 65 AF points change faster as I moved the camera around trying to see how the computer tracked the flower, but it didn't work as I hoped and revealed after some experimentation that increasing Tracking instead and not Switching resulted in a far better outcome.

Finally, once you do all this experimenting, you quickly conclude that if you are using AI Servo, you better know what you are doing because you have unleashed the computer and the Case you choose, your camera technique, the number of AF points available for tracking, etc, etc, etc, all dramatically effects what is going on. If you don't want this, or it isn't working for you, One-Shot and keeping AF connected to the Shutter Button is likely a better idea.

Michael132 wrote in post #17579199
Hi guys, long time reader-first time poster here
...

Now, I don't claim this to be solution to MY or anyone else's AF issue just jet as I haven't properly test it in the field and I remain skeptical until I do. For example; I can't explain how some of the pic didn't look like they miss the focus as much as they looked like there is no part of the image that is in tack sharp focus at all. That is another reason I have to wait for more in-the-field tests...to confirm if the camera can take tack sharp pic (50mm above f4 should be able to do at least as well as my XSi) Also
ow
...

Great post.
Specific yo the part I quote above.
Something moving in the system between and including the sensor and subject explains an image that is soft all over even though some point is sharper than others. Often causes by technique/shake, shutter speed, lack of IS settling (fighting mode 1). Other causes could include actively zooming or focusing the lens upon shutter release. I have suspected from the beginning that just as Canon let's the image get taken when IS isn't settled, that they also were letting the shutter release prior to the lens completing the focus command and still moving. Both exhaling the lack of sharpness.

Your post somewhat supports this theory, and 1.0.4 might have had a firmware tweak to halt focus movement at the time of shutter release. Close to completing move, eat will be much sharper than taking while focus is in movement. This approach would also let it maintain the different behavior of - 2 to +2 of the Sensitivity setting. Faster focusing lens would. OT have been impacted as much in the original firmware as you discovered.

I look forward to your future contributions.