7D Mark II - Focus Discussions

I know there is such a thing as moral fiber, but of Canon can sell cameras like this, why can't we? Tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Triplexbee wrote in post #17789802
My own assessment of that example image re-lit the ol' 'this camera needs light argument.

I rolled back to 1.04 last night and had a session out and about today. Light was awful when this fight broke out and did not get much better all day but signs are encouraging that 1.04 is working better for me. This is ISO10000.

Hosted photo: posted by Triplexbee in
./showthread.php?p=177​89802&i=i204799636
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

That's lookin' good, Triplebee.

Frodge wrote in post #17789813
I know there is such a thing as moral fiber, but of Canon can sell cameras like this, why can't we? Tongue firmly planted in cheek.

I bought a used Canon 15-85mm lens and after a few shots with it, determined it was soft at the edges and corners, and no sharper in the center than my kit 18-55 STM. That differed so much from assessments in the reviews, I decided it must be defective. So morally I couldn't sell it (and couldn't return it either because of time and travel).

But when I had more time, I did more checking, and concluded that there was nothing wrong with the lens. It was just that there was some hype in the reviews. (IMO.)

So I sold it. Never heard back from the buyer, so he must be happy.

There are a couple of morals at least in this story, and one of them is that IQ can be in the eyes of the beholder. And we could speak of the morality of selling something that you think is not up to par when you might not be qualified to determine that.

I think there is something much different going on than image quality in the "eye of the beholder". We are talking about people that were amazed with the camera at first and then after either a firmware update, an adjustment by canon, after a year of use, a combination of some or all, have found that the camera is worse than it once was. Its in my opinion, a problem that is perceivable, especially if you look at some of the before and after images in this thread. I'd be quote pissed if it were me. There is also a tendency for people that don't have the specific problem to naysay it away, until you fof course it happens to them too. There is in my opinion a definitive problem, just like there is a definitive bounce flash problem with the 70d. I started a thread on that and bassat not only confirmed it, but sort of chased the rest of the naysayers away.

People, I'm somewhat new posting here, but reading this thread since the beginning.

I have a side question, but still important. We're discussing focus and detail, however the vast majority of the images posted here are small as letter stamps, compared with the 100% views we must see. There are 100% crops here and there, but the other adds very little to the subject discussed here.

Just my 2 cents

Frodge wrote in post #17789906
I think there is something much different going on than image quality in the "eye of the beholder". We are talking about people that were amazed with the camera at first and then after either a firmware update, an adjustment by canon, after a year of use, a combination of some or all, have found that the camera is worse than it once was. Its in my opinion, a problem that is perceivable, especially if you look at some of the before and after images in this thread. I'd be quote pissed if it were me. There is also a tendency for people that don't have the specific problem to naysay it away, until you fof course it happens to them too. There is in my opinion a definitive problem, just like there is a definitive bounce flash problem with the 70d. I started a thread on that and bassat not only confirmed it, but sort of chased the rest of the naysayers away.

I'm not attempting to make a judgement one way or another on this issue of poor detail with the 7D2. At least two have reported similar symptoms. That suggests there is a real issue.

On the other hand, I have not seen comparisons in which only one variable was changed and keeping everything else the same, to isolate what might be causing the issue. And there has been confusion about 1.0.4 apparently solving the problem, but then finding that it had not really solved the problem or did so only partially.

This could clarify in time, but for now the situation is not clear.

What should people do? Defer purchase of a 7D2? Roll back to 1.0.4? Or to 1.0.2?? It is not clear.

Wait a minute Frodge, I think you meant Amazed and Astounded the World !!!! lol

Archibald wrote in post #17789931
I'm not attempting to make a judgement one way or another on this issue of poor detail with the 7D2. At least two have reported similar symptoms. That suggests there is a real issue.

On the other hand, I have not seen comparisons in which only one variable was changed and keeping everything else the same, to isolate what might be causing the issue. And there has been confusion about 1.0.4 apparently solving the problem, but then finding that it had not really solved the problem or did so only partially.

This could clarify in time, but for now the situation is not clear.

What should people do? Defer purchase of a 7D2? Roll back to 1.0.4? Or to 1.0.2?? It is not clear.

I don't disagree.... the situation isn't clear. Other than the fact that my camera doesn't work like it once did, there are a few things I don't know. One of them is: when you roll back from 1.0.5 to 1.0.4, is 1.0.5 completely eradicated or are fragments left behind? Does a roll back completely remove the previous "more advanced" firmware? In most cases, I'm guessing the new firmware is an addition process but it might completely erase the former firmware and install the new one.

All I know is, I rolled back to 1.0.4 and things immediately got better.... all except for distant photographs. Those remained soft. Why? I have no idea. I would have thought if I was truly running on 1.0.4, that would restore things exactly like they were previously. But that isn't the case.. again... why? I have no idea.

Kim firmware in any device is a complete package. I believe memory is wiped and new firmware written and verified.

There's no reason in the world to go around this circle again, We all thought there was issues with 1.0.2 and my move to 1.0.4 was nothing but good. when I installed 1.0.5 I had no issue's that I noticed for a couple days, I shipped my camera to canon they reinstalled 1.0.5 THEN I had issue's thats all there is to it.
My move backward to 1.0.4 has been all good. but its not exactly the same, its never gona be. electronic's are like living thing's in a way, you can give them a virus, you can change there personality, and obviously you can make them near sighted.

Is it the way the software is written ?? will I try 1.0.6 when it comes out .....Mmmmm Yup ...... I'm I gona live ....Mmmmm Yup

People will say How does he get that wicked blur on all his stuff ...lol ...No seriously I'm finding the only big difference right now is the 1.4III extender maybe I should go get the correction data and give that a try.!! but remember canon tweaked on it Sooooo

Pondrader, I really think that your case is much different than that of Kim. Yours was great until they adjusted whatever they shouldn't have because it was there for the jog wheel. Kim started to have problems with focus on his own. Sadly, unless canon keeps precise records of your before and after adhustmebt , yours will probably never be the same. For instance, what firmware did they make the adjustment on? What is their protocol? Its possible that they make mechanical adjustments with their own in house firmware and then install whatever is the latest at any given time. Hard to say. So many variables. Kim on the other hand, seems to me, to have a hardware issue, or something that is slightly out of spec than what it once was. Again, so many variables. I worked in IT for quite some time, and it really changes everything depending on what order things are installed and uninstalled etc. I would hope canon has a hard and fast workflow when they do these repairs. But as it is in the it field, there are always techs that take shortcuts or don't do things 100%.

I used the 15-85 for about 3 years on a 60D. I recently bought an 18-55 STM for use on my 70D. Nothing is wrong with your eyes, or the 15-85. The 18-55 is sharper than the 15-85, anywhere on the frame, and throughout common focal lengths. Just about the best $70 I ever spent on gear.

Archibald wrote in post #17789851
I bought a used Canon 15-85mm lens and after a few shots with it, determined it was soft at the edges and corners, and no sharper in the center than my kit 18-55 STM. That differed so much from assessments in the reviews, I decided it must be defective. So morally I couldn't sell it (and couldn't return it either because of time and travel).

But when I had more time, I did more checking, and concluded that there was nothing wrong with the lens. It was just that there was some hype in the reviews. (IMO.)

So I sold it. Never heard back from the buyer, so he must be happy.

There are a couple of morals at least in this story, and one of them is that IQ can be in the eyes of the beholder. And we could speak of the morality of selling something that you think is not up to par when you might not be qualified to determine that.

Absolutely agree. I see these threads here and elsewhere praising the sharpness of this lens or that lens and you wonder why their results differ so much from the reviews or your own experience, Of course, once you see their own images it usually all become clear. I remember a thread some months ago on a another very large and very Ugly forum where the owner of a new Tamron 16-300mm lens was extolling its virtues and sharpness at 300mm. Later in the thread he provided a few images to prove his point, and all I can say is they were all significantly softer than a babies backside. I too have the 15-85 mm and find it to be relatively sharp at most focus lengths and apertures but noticeably softer approaching 85mm.

This is off topic, bht I have always stayed away from those lenses with large differences in focal lengths like the 16-300 you mentionmention. Its a huge range and your asking a lot out of any optic to be sharp at both ends and in between. I will say one thing, I have the 70-300 vc, and its pretty sharp.

Thats exactly why I always post the image with the text, good or bad

Mmmm Yes and No, I don't believe they work within the firmware at all, that would not make any sense at all as you said one firmware update and everything is gone, in my case I would be glad of it but it is not. Honestly I have looked at this thread as an information.. good to know.. posting of the events of those that are having issues. there is no solution find gona happen. From what I've seen canon has no work flow, they cant even tell you what they did, will do , can do, I too have an IT back ground, built the first wireless network that spanned 100s of miles before the days of walking into the store and buying a router. I would love to take a look inside my camera through from the software side. Im not sure kim and I are so far apart, both problems occur will 1.0.5 both had canon tech's working on them ..probably unknowing of any issue with 1.0.5 on the camera, both improved with the install of 1.0.4, both could use 1.0.6 and a really good tech with a complete understanding of the 7DII, ya the impossible.