Am I crazy?

my nifty is very consistent after 3.2

Do you use the focus-recompose method? If so, given how close you were to the subject with the shallow depth of field, I could understand the focus being out of whack.

Just buy a D80/D200/D300. WAY BETTER AF. And wireless flash and stuff. Sure you MIGHT get that from canon at a higher price in the next 3-6years. Your call. With Canon you need REALLY expensive f/2.8 lenses to have better (cross) accuracy. With Nikon you get that till you hit f/5.6

wildeep wrote in post #3783380
I selected a specific focus - I guess that would be considered partial? It wasn't centered - I set the focus on her face (eyes).

thanks!

"Partial" would be referring to the metering mode used.

So you "manually" set the AF point to the one that was over her eyes?

Or did you use the center AF point, focus on her eyes, recomposed, then shoot?

Here's two more. Not the best photo, but for an example... Again, no PP, just raw to jpeg conversion.

This one is better, but for being shot at f/6.3 I feel like it could be sharper.

Thanks again...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #3783436
Just buy a D80/D200/D300. WAY BETTER AF. And wireless flash and stuff. Sure you MIGHT get that from canon at a higher price in the next 3-6years. Your call. With Canon you need REALLY expensive f/2.8 lenses to have better (cross) accuracy. With Nikon you get that till you hit f/5.6

Huh? Like the "expensive" 50mm 1.4 or the 85 1.8?

I "manually" set the AF point over her eyes. Thanks!

nicksan wrote in post #3783445
"Partial" would be referring to the metering mode used.

So you "manually" set the AF point to the one that was over her eyes?

Or did you use the center AF point, focus on her eyes, recomposed, then shoot?

Looks OK I think...100% crop looks reasonably sharp for the Nifty, no?
You should actually apply some sharpening during conversion.

I thought you had issues with the 24-105L. Let's see some pics using that lens.

wildeep wrote in post #3783448
Here's two more. Not the best photo, but for an example... Again, no PP, just raw to jpeg conversion.

This one is better, but for being shot at f/6.3 I feel like it could be sharper.

Thanks again...

wildeep wrote in post #3783461
I "manually" set the AF point over her eyes. Thanks!

You didn't recompose/change the framing after that correct?
(Ooop...in your original post, you mentioned you did NOT recompose!)

Okay, so this might answer one of my questions.... as I'm thinking about this, I did start noticing more OOF pictures about the time I started shooting raw. Is this because of the sharpening that my camera was doing for me before when I shot JPEG?

Is it normal for RAW to look slightly OOF until sharpened?

I still think I have other issues, but this might help a little...

nicksan wrote in post #3783480
Looks OK I think...100% crop looks reasonably sharp for the Nifty, no?
You should actually apply some sharpening during conversion.

I thought you had issues with the 24-105L. Let's see some pics using that lens.

Here's another example (again, not best composition or anything, but that's not what we're critiquing, right?), shot with the 50 - its pretty good, but not tack sharp, and to have been shot at f/9? I see other parts of the image that look more in focus than his face, but I am very good at setting my focus point over the eyes (I may have slightly recomposed this one, but i always manually choose the focus point closest to the eyes so recomposition is minimal).

EXIF:
Camera Model Name
Canon EOS 20D
Shooting Date/Time
7/6/2007 08:13:27
Tv(Shutter Speed)
1/800Sec.
Av(Aperture Value)
F9.0
Metering Modes
Centerweighted average metering
Exposure Compensation
+2/3
ISO Speed
200
Lens
50mm
Focal Length
50.0 mm
Image size
3504 x 2336
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
Off
White Balance
Auto
AF mode
One-Shot AF
Picture Style
-

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I wonder why I can't see the AF points in File Viewer.

Were you focusing manually?

-js

See:
http://photo.net/learn​/focustest/

You may need to have the 20D serviced.

I "manually" set my AF point, so basically, I pick the "little red square" that is closest to (to minimize recompisition) or directly on top of my subject's eyes. But the I am using AF, meaning I'm not using the focus ring. Does that make sense?

number six wrote in post #3783685
I wonder why I can't see the AF points in File Viewer.

Were you focusing manually?

-js

I'll check that out and maybe do a test - thanks!

hortonsl62 wrote in post #3783751
See:
http://photo.net/learn​/focustest/

You may need to have the 20D serviced.