7D Mark II - Focus Discussions

Thanks huntersdad.. I see that you have a 1DX... any similar problems/issues? That's kind of a holy grail kind of body. I assumed that the 5D3 would be close, but I'm not pretentious enough to assume that it's the camera and not me.

ruhikant wrote in post #17458984
At this point, my 7D2 is producing good focused images only when I used single center AF point. The following image was made by using single AF point, none of the other images made with 4 assist points were close to this sharpness.
BTW, 5d3 and 1DX were set with 4 assist points by default, never needed to change to single AF point. I am starting to believe that there is AF sensor design flaw in this camera.
AISERVO, case1.

It is a great shot and I am really please your are starting to get good results with the 7DII.

However, with the 7DI I would never have used a multipoint mode in a situation like this, one just can't be sure what it Is focussing on. What would surprise me would be getting sharp eye focus in multipoint, in this situation I would think there is a lot of chance of getting pulled off by the surrounding clutter.

My preferred mode for this case would be spot AF, I would only use some limited expansion when doing BIF. I am sure I would keep the same strategy with the 7DII.

My experience using telephoto lenses on the 6D and 7DI is the full frame is much much more forgiving in terms of precise focus. So I am just saying I would not read too much into what works on the 5DIII and 1DX.

Pondrader wrote in post #17459540
I have never shot my 7DmarkII in one shot, AIServo since I picked it up.

Shot this morning,, Im using half the sharpening with the 100-400L II than I did with the 70-300L ,..Lens matters a ton

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qvTu​PZ IMG_8661 by Jeff Manser, on Flickr

That's a nice shot. I've been doing most of my testing on my 70-200 2.8 IS II. On my 5D3, I can grab eyelashes from a band member onstage. The 7DII can't. The pixels are there, because the 7DC could do it. More testing today.

rejay14 wrote in post #17459583
Thanks huntersdad.. I see that you have a 1DX... any similar problems/issues? That's kind of a holy grail kind of body. I assumed that the 5D3 would be close, but I'm not pretentious enough to assume that it's the camera and not me.

I have had no problems with my 1Dx. In fact, in a situation where I can shoot either my bare 600II on the 7d2 or the 600II with 1.4x on the 1Dx, I'll always take the later due to IQ and trusted performance. Unfortunately, that's almost never the case.

That said, and I have said this before on this thread and others, the 2 AF systems are not as similar as people make them out to be. The 1Dx, both AF-wise and in total, is a more responsive and "sure" camera - you can tell it feels confident. The 7d2 seems to need just a little more encouragement. The AF systems are different, as evidenced by my having to run 2 different cases to get the same result. I use Case 2 on the 1Dx, which I tried unsuccessfully on the 7d2, but use Case 6 on the 7d2. With those cases set combined with my other camera and AF settings, I can confidently shoot anything I want to with either camera, so it becomes a matter of distance to subject for me that defines which I choose to use.

Just for some clarification, when I say "the 2 AF systems are not as similar as people make them out to be", what I am seeing is both performance and reaction. As confirmed by Canon, the underlying algorithms in the cases are different, even though they have the same user adjustable settings. The 1Dx seems "simpler" (I use this term loosely) and more accurate, while the 7d2 seems to have so much going on, it appears a touch slower but no less accurate if you give it time to work.

Personally, both cameras are phenomenal. There's little things I'd change about the 1Dx (slightly higher resolution, easier way to adjust EC when in M mode and using Auto ISO) and slight things I'd change on the 7d2 (the EC complaint above, dual CF cards, slight tweaks to the AF system). But overall, both are winners and I am getting excellent images out of each.

I do think it's sad that I had to go through 4 copies to get one that AF correctly, so for those that are having problems, I do understand what you are going through. However, if you are having a focus problem, it will be obvious pretty quickly (all 3 of mine were obvious). You must be meticulous in your testing and AFMA if needed. You can't go out and handhold something at a slower shutter speed and the complain that the picture isn't sharp. Take the time, put it on a tripod, do your AFMA and then test. You also have to know your specific lenses and where their strengths are and where their faults. Shooting a soft lens on a high rez body almost automatically means failure and disappointment. If you're going to require absolute sharpness, then your glass should be no less than the best. Watch what happens when Canon high MP bodies start hitting the shelves - you're going to see this same issue again.

For anyone who is having an issue, post up pics with your EXIF data and let us take a look. I do believe the is a batch of units out there with issues, but those should be well filtered through now, meaning any current issues may not be the camera. Nobody's going to steer you wrong, but those of us who are getting strong shots can help pinpoint some things that might help you out.

huntersdad wrote in post #17460011
........I do believe the is a batch of units out there with issues, but those should be well filtered through now, meaning any current issues may not be the camera. Nobody's going to steer you wrong, but those of us who are getting strong shots can help pinpoint some things that might help you out.

Did forum members ever compile a list with regards to body #'s, they have been having trouble or success with ?

I for one am frustrated and discouraged. I'm on purchased body # 2. The original body I got for evaluation in early December started with # 010 and was really good, in fact Incredibly Good. I just took it for granted and figured that was the way they were. I was elated and sold ! A real pleasure to shoot. Admittedly, I was one of the posters who was convinced everyone's trouble was self inflicted.

My first purchased cammy started with # 0521210 and was really bad. Every new shot was different than the last no matter what I did. Two shooters, tripod, remote release, Lensalign and hundreds of shots confirmed it.

Replacement is # 032021 and is better, but no where near the quality of # 010. I come home from sessions with a lot of junk. It is taking the fun out of the whole game in the field.

After evaluating the 1 DX, I couldn't agree more with what you said regarding the sureness and confidence that seems to be built in to it and at least in my experience, lacking in 2 out of the 3, 7D II examples I have tried. # 010 had that sureness in spades.

Gun shy, I'm on the fence as to whether to jump on #3, but would love to know a range of body numbers to avoid if possible.

I don't have the invoices for my first three, but will post up my current number when I get home tonight. I would suggest buying local if you have doubts that way you can try it the way you set it up with your lenses and see what happens.

itw wrote in post #17460198
Did forum members ever compile a list with regards to body #'s, they have been having trouble or success with ?

I for one am frustrated and discouraged. I'm on purchased body # 2. The original body I got for evaluation in early December started with # 010 and was really good, in fact Incredibly Good. I just took it for granted and figured that was the way they were. I was elated and sold ! A real pleasure to shoot. Admittedly, I was one of the posters who was convinced everyone's trouble was self inflicted.

My first purchased cammy started with # 0521210 and was really bad. Every new shot was different than the last no matter what I did. Two shooters, tripod, remote release, Lensalign and hundreds of shots confirmed it.

Replacement is # 032021 and is better, but no where near the quality of # 010. I come home from sessions with a lot of junk. It is taking the fun out of the whole game in the field.

After evaluating the 1 DX, I couldn't agree more with what you said regarding the sureness and confidence that seems to be built in to it and at least in my experience, lacking in 2 out of the 3, 7D II examples I have tried. # 010 had that sureness in spades.

Gun shy, I'm on the fence as to whether to jump on #3, but would love to know a range of body numbers to avoid if possible.

IDK why you'd chance a 3rd roll of the dice. I'd count my lucky stars that I have ONE good copy and run like the wind. Perhaps RENT one, or two, from places like lensrentals, and if you are lucky enough to stumble across another copy like your #010 buy it from them.

There is NOTHING more discouraging than having a bad camera...then have it compounded by peeps saying its operator error, in an effort to protect the brand and perhaps their lucky purchase of a good copy.

itw wrote in post #17460198
Did forum members ever compile a list with regards to body #'s, they have been having trouble or success with ?

I for one am frustrated and discouraged. I'm on purchased body # 2. The original body I got for evaluation in early December started with # 010 and was really good, in fact Incredibly Good. I just took it for granted and figured that was the way they were. I was elated and sold ! A real pleasure to shoot. Admittedly, I was one of the posters who was convinced everyone's trouble was self inflicted.

My first purchased cammy started with # 0521210 and was really bad. Every new shot was different than the last no matter what I did. Two shooters, tripod, remote release, Lensalign and hundreds of shots confirmed it.

Replacement is # 032021 and is better, but no where near the quality of # 010. I come home from sessions with a lot of junk. It is taking the fun out of the whole game in the field.

After evaluating the 1 DX, I couldn't agree more with what you said regarding the sureness and confidence that seems to be built in to it and at least in my experience, lacking in 2 out of the 3, 7D II examples I have tried. # 010 had that sureness in spades.

Gun shy, I'm on the fence as to whether to jump on #3, but would love to know a range of body numbers to avoid if possible.

Amazing that, even with stories like this, some people still insist it's a skill issue.

Settings for the shots: M mode, F7.1, 1/1600 sec. This wasn't a formal focus / MFA test. A viable subject presented itself. The camera was supported by a post and the lens hood was sitting on the snow bank. The sharp shot was at 450mm.

Taking pictures of focus targets has grown old. I go out take pictures, review the shots and adjust MFA a little then repeat. I am well aware of the tamron being soft wide open as well as my limitations when hand holding the lens. As noted in my original post, shot after shot I see the same soft focus then one shot out of nowhere is sharp so the camera and lens can work together.

Shots yesterday with the 70-300L are very good but even those shots do not have that wow factor were things are very sharp. Focus seems to be very close with both lenses but it does not come close to the sharpness of the shots posted here on p.o.t.n.

Rod

RodS57 wrote in post #17460264
Settings for the shots: M mode, F7.1, 1/1600 sec. This wasn't a formal focus / MFA test. A viable subject presented itself. The camera was supported by a post and the lens hood was sitting on the snow bank. The sharp shot was at 450mm.

Taking pictures of focus targets has grown old. I go out take pictures, review the shots and adjust MFA a little then repeat. I am well aware of the tamron being soft wide open as well as my limitations when hand holding the lens. As noted in my original post, shot after shot I see the same soft focus then one shot out of nowhere is sharp so the camera and lens can work together.

Shots yesterday with the 70-300L are very good but even those shots do not have that wow factor were things are very sharp. Focus seems to be very close with both lenses but it does not come close to the sharpness of the shots posted here on p.o.t.n.

Rod

Rod, if you are changing the AFMA each time you go out based on viewing of images on a computer screen, then you have no consistency session to session. You need to do a formal AFMA setup and get the lens dialed in at both ends and see what the camera does in the middle section. If you've already done that (which you you'll need to do again since you have changed the values), then time to move to the next step.

BTW, if I am reading your post right (hood fully supported by snow bank, body fully supported on a post, you were not touching the camera), did you turn the VC off?

Post up a couple samples.

itw wrote in post #17460198
Did forum members ever compile a list with regards to body #'s, they have been having trouble or success with ?

I for one am frustrated and discouraged. I'm on purchased body # 2. The original body I got for evaluation in early December started with # 010 and was really good, in fact Incredibly Good. I just took it for granted and figured that was the way they were. I was elated and sold ! A real pleasure to shoot. Admittedly, I was one of the posters who was convinced everyone's trouble was self inflicted.

My first purchased cammy started with # 0521210 and was really bad. Every new shot was different than the last no matter what I did. Two shooters, tripod, remote release, Lensalign and hundreds of shots confirmed it.

Replacement is # 032021 and is better, but no where near the quality of # 010. I come home from sessions with a lot of junk. It is taking the fun out of the whole game in the field.

After evaluating the 1 DX, I couldn't agree more with what you said regarding the sureness and confidence that seems to be built in to it and at least in my experience, lacking in 2 out of the 3, 7D II examples I have tried. # 010 had that sureness in spades.

Gun shy, I'm on the fence as to whether to jump on #3, but would love to know a range of body numbers to avoid if possible.

The first six numbers are pretty much meaningless, I think the last few are actually the identifiers.

My first body:..........0221210​00179 ~ focus issues
1st loaner body:.....052121000044 ~ focus issues
2nd loaner body:....052121000048 ~ focus is great

Interesting that the good and poor loaner bodies appear to be only 4 units apart in the production line. Almost disproves the theory of a bad batch. Unless they are given the serial # sticker late in the process and not in sequential fashion.

**I've shot a bunch today, apparently my blurry end-table rock from last evening's post was user error. My current loaner is extremely sharp, even with no MFA

AAAHHHHHH, but tell us what you did wrong.

rejay14 wrote in post #17460346
Interesting that the good and poor loaner bodies appear to be only 4 units apart in the production line. Almost disproves the theory of a bad batch. Unless they are given the serial # sticker late in the process and not in sequential fashion.

It could be a manual process that some people on the factory floor weren't adequately trained for, or a machine that's miscalibrated or has a bit of "play" and sometimes is aligned, sometimes isn't. The process of taking a prototype sample assembled by engineers (which I'm sure worked perfectly) and setting it up for serial production on an assembly line is actually very tricky, more so than most people realize.

huntersdad wrote in post #17460416
AAAHHHHHH, but tell us what you did wrong.

I think I scared the rock lol.

Seriously, I have no idea, but the focus is bang-on today, so it must have been me. I do miss the occasional shot, contrary to what my ego lets me believe

I really appreciate your interest in my problem. To answer your questions:
Were my AFMA set ups done meticulously - no
The basic principles were followed: IS off, max aperture, low ISO, max available shutter speed, camera on tripod.
I did the best I could with the space available which means tests were done indoors then when weather permitted, outdoors. I used a printed copy of a focus chart indoors, the front of cardboard boxes attached to a wooden back outdoors. Both of these items set at an angle to show front / back focus. The definitive cereal box test outdoors at near 50x focal length.

as someone else here said, this isn't rocket science. For a given focal length, If the lens is close at a value of 5 then it should be better or worse at 3 or 4. I got the camera close using the targets then shifted to on the fly real world adjustments. Most pictures get deleted after review. I just note MFA settings and results.

I've been quite clear in the past that I didn't know if I had a focus problem. Right now, the one sharp shot in the middle of a three or four shot burst is the problem. Already posted settings but forgot to mention IS was off and camera was in one shot focus with center point only. Weather permitting this weekend I'll put the tamron on the T3i and shoot some of the objects I still have pictures of. This will help determine if it is the lens or camera.

Rod