7D Mark II - Focus Discussions

Darn. I missed getting a wolf today. It was huge and magnificent. Stopped briefly front of the cottage about 30 ft from shore but by the time I go the cam out it was gone. First time I have ever seen that in 28 years.

digital paradise wrote in post #17808719
Darn. I missed getting a wolf today. It was huge and magnificent. Stopped briefly front of the cottage about 30 ft from shore but by the time I go the cam out it was gone. First time I have ever seen that in 28 years.

Here's hoping you'll see it again with camera ready!

Well I guess it's a case of familiarity breeds contempt. I got so used to this combo initially turning out great pics that I must have later lapsed on the basics of photography.

I took 5 shots of each of a set of pics at different lengths with and without converter and they were all the same. No hint of "intermttancy" All are SOOC with no PP just conversion to jpg

Why I buggered about with batteries or ruler in the past, when a round jar will give you an insight into the combos focusing is anyone's guess?

It's amazing what a tripod and remote can tell you. The shots all seem fine to me? The last one is at the minimum focusing range of about 1metre. and I realise that my earlier sharper "macros" were shot from further away which would indicate less tolerance of body/wind movement closer in due to narrower DOF hence the better images shot from further away

I guess my worries have been down to my lapsed technique and not the camera/lens. With a combo so good, I guess there could be a tendency to rely more on gear and less on technique or at least it seems that I have been doing just that.........back to school

I almost feel like I'm heading towards something akin to"Stockholm Syndrome" whereby I'm feeling a bit guilty 'cause my rig seems fine when others have such warranted concerns.

IMAGE LINK: http://s19.photobucket​.com …%201_zpskqgrgvs​j.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s19.photobucket​.com …%202_zpswxcbuk8​f.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s19.photobucket​.com …test_zpsdxmgfbx​w.jpg.html

O Kevin, You and I are a lot more alike than one would like to admit. Great Minds they say


Edit Your RIG IS FINE lol

stsva wrote in post #17808662
The -5 shot looks pretty comparable to the Live View, except it looks like it has a little less contrast. It will be interesting to see how your testing progresses - good luck!

I only ran the test out to -5. To my eye there is still a small difference in sharpness which results in apparent lower contrast. I set the camera to -6. Forecast for tomorrow doesn't look any better than today. Actually it looks worse. Still hoping though.

Rod

Pondrader wrote in post #17808686
well I know my 70-300L is super sharp so your's should be as well,

Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=178​08686&i=i160835185
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Don't mean to contaminate this thread with shots from other cameras but I think it is appropriate to show something as a baseline for what I use to compare good and bad too.

This is a 100% crop of a shot taken with the T3i, the 75-300 USM (Canon's cheapest midrange zoom I think), 220mm, F5.2, 1/2000 sec in the 'action' auto mode because I forgot how to change the camera to AI servo. SOOC jpeg of course. At time of shooting I had the camera for 6 days and I was one happy camper. Some of the issues with the lens are obvious in the shot.

At some point in the past 3 years I decided that a better camera and better glass equaled better pictures. Jury is still out on that one.

bidkev wrote in post #17808770
Well I guess it's a case of familiarity breeds contempt. I got so used to this combo initially turning out great pics that I must have later lapsed on the basics of photography.

I took 5 shots of each of a set of pics at different lengths with and without converter and they were all the same. No hint of "intermttancy" All are SOOC with no PP just conversion to jpg

Why I buggered about with batteries or ruler in the past, when a round jar will give you an insight into the combos focusing is anyone's guess?

It's amazing what a tripod and remote can tell you. The shots all seem fine to me? The last one is at the minimum focusing range of about 1metre. and I realise that my earlier sharper "macros" were shot from further away which would indicate less tolerance of body/wind movement closer in due to narrower DOF hence the better images shot from further away

I guess my worries have been down to my lapsed technique and not the camera/lens. With a combo so good, I guess there could be a tendency to rely more on gear and less on technique or at least it seems that I have been doing just that.........back to school

I almost feel like I'm heading towards something akin to"Stockholm Syndrome" whereby I'm feeling a bit guilty 'cause my rig seems fine when others have such warranted concerns.

IMAGE LINK: http://s19.photobucket​.com …%201_zpskqgrgvs​j.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s19.photobucket​.com …%202_zpswxcbuk8​f.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s19.photobucket​.com …test_zpsdxmgfbx​w.jpg.html

Phew. Looks good.

Pondrader wrote in post #17808777
O Kevin, You and I are a lot more alike than one would like to admit. Great Minds they say


Edit Your RIG IS FINE lol

LOL Jeff. The contents of that jar are now wrapped around some pork belly to go on the barbeque tonight

Archibald wrote in post #17808850
Phew. Looks good.

And despite the Canon and FoCal warnings, I forgot to turn off IS when I took them

Pondrader wrote in post #17808686
well I know my 70-300L is super sharp so your's should be as well,

Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=178​08686&i=i160835185
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Was this taken before or after your camera started acting up? In other words is using the 100-400 on this body the main issue for you?

stsva wrote in post #17808725
Here's hoping you'll see it again with camera ready!

Yeah I can't stop thinking about it. It was in the bag in another room. My wife said I should leave it out and I will. She was the one that spotted it. They have daily routines so we may see it again.

O no this was taken a while back, the 100-400LII is nothing but good, we were making reference to the 70-300L, I always talk in images, just seems to get my point across lol

That's my world, If I have it with me nothing to see or shoot the minute I put it down or don't have it with me its like a Disney movie around me.

RodS57 wrote in post #17808609
Just re-read your request and what I have below is not what you asked for at all. Consider this real world. Since it could take weeks to get a good day weather-wise to do what you are asking I will post again: 100% cropped/resized live view and 100% cropped/resized with MFA @ -5. Both at 20 feet and 600mm.

You will find two images below: one re-sized original and one at 100% and resized (pondrader style but not nearly as good). This is the worst of the three I kept. Not sure how many I took.
I understand the tamron is a little soft at 600mm but I am trying to make the best of it. If that is the problem then there is nothing I can do about it short of buying another lens. I have much worse pics but thought I'd use a nice one.

Shot info: tamron @ 552mm; manual, auto iso; AI servo; ISO 160 (rounded number); F7.1; 1/800 sec; SOOC jpeg; center point (expanded?); continuous slow at 5 fps; used a guardrail for support; range is probably 70 feet give or take; bird moving away

Possible 'not camera' issues:
micro blur due to FL vs shutter speed although the water drop looks pretty good
F-stop value
CA
MFA (disabled at time of shot); testing at near 50x FL I had MFA set at +5; recent close range test and it is now set at -6; haven't been able to really test this since I set it up due to weather
user error (can't forget that one) lol
lens is just soft

Hosted photo: posted by RodS57 in
./showthread.php?p=178​08609&i=i95308993
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by RodS57 in
./showthread.php?p=178​08609&i=i154167774
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Rob,
Just catching up from yesterday. Looking at your photo, your total dof was right around 1 foot. With the lower shooting angle, distance gets heavily compressed on a photo, but to me, it definitely looks front Focused. (even the water drops) assuming your were in Servo? the duck moving away is too slow a speed for the apparent front focusing that occurred with Servo. This validates your +5,,(at least that much, but even if your focus point was on the button, I would guess +14 would be even better. We can't be sure from this example until you analyze exactly where your focus point landed, and had confidence it didn't catch the water behind the duck (and if it did, distance would be too hard to judge, so another mfa would be needed.) additionally, when you show the 100%, it would be helpful to tell us the native pixels xXy for us tablet reading folks. EDIT: I just looked at the photo again, I believe the AF point caught the gender water immediately behind the more disturbed water that trails the duck. This would 'invalidate' this go round of the test.

Separately, my point about the live view I assume/comfirming you knew, was not about trying to do real world shooting, but rather to see the true sharpness potential (max) of the lens on the 7d II (again with the assumptions of technique and ss).

gschlact wrote in post #17809057
Rob,
Just catching up from yesterday. Looking at your photo, your total dof was right around 1 foot. With the lower shooting angle, distance gets heavily compressed on a photo, but to me, it definitely looks front Focused. (even the water drops) assuming your were in Servo? the duck moving away is too slow a speed for the apparent front focusing that occurred with Servo. This validates your +5,,(at least that much, but even if your focus point was on the button, I would guess +14 would be even better. We can't be sure from this example until you analyze exactly where your focus point landed, and had confidence it didn't catch the water behind the duck (and if it did, distance would be too hard to judge, so another mfa would be needed.) additionally, when you show the 100%, it would be helpful to tell us the native pixels xXy for us tablet reading folks. EDIT: I just looked at the photo again, I believe the AF point caught the gender water immediately behind the more disturbed water that trails the duck. This would 'invalidate' this go round of the test.

Separately, my point about the live view I assume/comfirming you knew, was not about trying to do real world shooting, but rather to see the true sharpness potential (max) of the lens on the 7d II (again with the assumptions of technique and ss).

Thanks for looking.

I've ran tests on the tamron from +15 to -15. The larger values blew things out completely. So your revised estimate that focus fell behind the bird is more likely. As you've taken the time to get involved I'll get a capture with focus points visible.

For your comment regarding live view I've come to realize that only recently but I don't remember it ever being described that way. Mostly I assumed it was just to test things on a different type of focus system, suggesting it was as good as it was going to get. I did not link it to defining the max sharpness of the lens. I don't understand why a lens that requires MFA doesn't require it when in live view.

On my end doing this kind of posting becomes overly complicated. I have a house full of computers. I have different computers set up to do different things. I follow / post to the forum using an iPad, my pictures are on a machine that runs Linux, the canon software is on a windows laptop. To get a screen shot showing the position of the focus points means sneaker net and a jump drive to move the shot to the windows computer, do the screen shot then move it back to the other machine to post here.

Both you and Jeff have mentioned that the tamron is not sharp on the long end. A fact I am aware of. It is in effect a poor man's big white. I bought the lens for wildlife, I bought the camera for wildlife. I am willing to put in the time to get them working together to the extent possible then I have to accept what it is and move on.

Back shortly. Gone to get my sneakers.

Rod