Upgraded from a 20D to a 40D - VERY Dissapointed.

crobs808 wrote in post #4248567
p.s. - i feel somewhat like i was treated like noob in this thread...not a lot, but somewhat...like "break it to him nicely" or after i TOLD you i have used a 24-70 for two years and a 20D, some people talked about handheld camera shake...i mean come on, we shoot two weedings a weekend, corporate gigs, portrait studios shoots, and been doing that for 5 years in addition to 20+ years as hobby (i mean, i used to develop in darkrooms), so...not bragging, but my point is maybe next time skip the usual noob idiot suggestions like handheld shake, etc..
-----------
Also, about the forum...it is great, im not offended at all. ZERO hard feelings here, just wanted to make that clear. some of the respnses I half expected since people do not know me yet, so no harm done. When I first posted on here about 2 weeks ago, I thought it was assumed that everyone on here were pros, i.e. did this for a job, not just hobbyists, so when i got those common sense responses about handheld camera shake, i was just surprised someone would suggest that, like who doesn't think about those common sense things before they post a serious IQ issue thread? but like i said, no worries now.

no mate not thought you a noob, just it is genuinely hard to troubleshoot unl;ess you eliminate the variables. No matter how experienced any of us are, when something decidely odd happens we have to eliminate the variables

Also not everyone here is pro by a long chalk,tere are loads of noobs, (just check out the forums) so there;s no way of knowing soeone's experience unless theyelaborate

I too have been shooting for years bit if I have a problem with my kit the first thing I do is stick it on a tripehound and use MLU.

Also it has been my experience that no matter how experience dI think I am I do still occasionally make technical mistakes, which is why I still examine every shot at 100% for sharpness before passing it, I never take it for grunted that my technique is 100%, expecially not with new equipmenmt.

So don't take it as a personal slight, the thought wasnt that you were a noob, just that you needed to do what any of us would do under the circumstances, othr iwise any advice given can be no more than pure guesswork, so sorry if you felt put down, the assumption was all along, yes there probably is a problem with the equip[ment, but theese tests need to be done no matter what, just to be sure.

Good luck with the repairs, I doubt they will use refurb bits ona new camera

crobs808 wrote in post #4248567
nah, its no use...i redid these tests using Standard, as well as custom where i set the sharpness gradually at 3, 4, and 7....still have blur.

I contacted Canon, they said they have had a lot of the 40Ds sent in, as well as newly released 16-35 II's AND the new 24-70s (different than old 24-70s somewhat) so im sending it in. they said lots of 40D are having issues with the new AF system in that body line. i talked to them on the phone, and he said he had 17 40D's just came in that week.

so, still blurry on sharp tests with MLU and 10second timer, tried in cam sharpness at 3, 4, and 5, so thanks for the help...i'll post a new test when i get it back.

::: connor

p.s. - i feel somewhat like i was treated like noob in this thread...not a lot, but somewhat...like "break it to him nicely" or after i TOLD you i have used a 24-70 for two years and a 20D, some people talked about handheld camera shake...i mean come on, we shoot two weedings a weekend, corporate gigs, portrait studios shoots, and been doing that for 5 years in addition to 20+ years as hobby (i mean, i used to develop in darkrooms), so...not bragging, but my point is maybe next time skip the usual noob idiot suggestions like handheld shake, etc...is OBVIOUSLY not that when im getting blur at 1/8000, even with sharpness on, lol. thanks again.

crobs808, with all due respect to your company and your 20 years long experience, but you didn’t know how to enable MLU, you didn’t know how not to enable timer, you didn’t know what you were doing with Parameters.
Even worse, after 6 pages of discussion, you are still unable to pinpoint the problem; you still do not know whether the problem is with your lens, or with your camera.

I am sorry, I don’t know about other members, but that is noob enough for me.

Sounds like someone is confusing a little forum with a corporate help desk and is complaining about the quality and cost.......

I Simonius wrote in post #4248818
Good job you're not a moderotor then!:p

haha... well I didn't mean you had to be a jerk about it.... just to get straight to the point.

for example, if I post a picture with exif in tact, and ask, "why is my photo so dark?"

The proper response should not be, "well maybe <insert wishy washy let me baby you and protect your feelings response here>"

But at the same time and way on the other side of the spectrum, the wrong response is "look dumbass... your exif data shows this...."

By my standards, the response that would do the OP the most good is, "Looking at your exif data, I'm seeing your FEC is set to -1... set it to 0 and see if it doesn't fix the problem"

Just like I responded to the OP in this thread. I wasn't a jerk and wasn't insulting to the OP... I just got straight to the point.

Why the heck six pages later hasn't the OP followed my original advice about running the focus tests with his other lens as well (Sigma 30 1.4 I believe)?

So far it seems fairly clear there's a) an issue with front focus with 24-70 and b) some general lack of sharpness. Still not clear to me if the general lack is simply related to suboptimal focus.

Hermeto wrote in post #4249143
crobs808, with all due respect to your company and your 20 years long experience, but you didn’t know how to enable MLU, you didn’t know how not to enable timer, you didn’t know what you were doing with Parameters.
Even worse, after 6 pages of discussion, you are still unable to pinpoint the problem; you still do not know whether the problem is with your lens, or with your camera.

I am sorry, I don’t know about other members, but that is noob enough for me.

+1. I'm glad you aren't offended, but perhaps it's time to RTFM?

forkball wrote in post #4249277
haha... well I didn't mean you had to be a jerk about it.... just to get straight to the point.

for example, if I post a picture with exif in tact, and ask, "why is my photo so dark?"

The proper response should not be, "well maybe <insert wishy washy let me baby you and protect your feelings response here>"

But at the same time and way on the other side of the spectrum, the wrong response is "look dumbass... your exif data shows this...."

By my standards, the response that would do the OP the most good is, "Looking at your exif data, I'm seeing your FEC is set to -1... set it to 0 and see if it doesn't fix the problem"

Just like I responded to the OP in this thread. I wasn't a jerk and wasn't insulting to the OP... I just got straight to the point.

excellent examples

crobs808 wrote in post #4248567
nah, its no use...i redid these tests using Standard, as well as custom where i set the sharpness gradually at 3, 4, and 7....still have blur.

Post the pics?

forkball wrote in post #4248162
lol... I have found political correctness in this forum to be counter-productive. I think it should be a POTN mandate to just tell it like it is, damn someone's feelings or ego. They'll get resolution much quicker that way.

I like the way you think

where are we at on this, anything learned?

The camera/lens seem to be front focusing a little bit.. plus you're shooting wide open. Maybe try f4 instead, plus your JPGs need a bit of sharpening. They look to have a low sharpening setting on them.

crobs808 wrote in post #4248577
hoya pro1 uv 72mm on my canon 24-70
hoya pro1 v 62mm on my sigma 30mm

why? filters shouldnt negatively affect IQ. i dont know any pro photographer that doesnt have a uv filter on, if just for lens protection alone.
::: connor

Filter flare. You're more likely to get filter flare on your pictures than to have a UV filter actually be involved any an incident protecting your lens. UV filters just aren't needed.

RedHot wrote in post #4250089
Filter flare. You're more likely to get filter flare on your pictures than to have a UV filter actually be involved any an incident protecting your lens. UV filters just aren't needed.

Hoya Pro1 are good filters.

I doubt any half-respectable filter would produce that amount of flare with the kind of lighting the pictures from post #1 were shot in.

crobs808 wrote in post #4248771
sorry, forgot to enable it when i originally registered...enabled now.

and when you say it is front focusing by "quite a bit" do you mean more so than normal? as in...will canon be able to fix it?

ALSO - For anyone to answer....I read Canon's website about the limited warranty, and it says when you send in equipment it can be replaced by refurbished parts?!!! I just bought this 40D and 24-70L lens like 2 weeks ago! I do not want some refurb back in exchange...how can I be sure I will get back my original equipment? They just need to calibrate it right? How do I know for sure they wont ship me refurb stuff back? I know I can record the serial number and all, but if they ship back different serial number stuff, then i'm SOL right?

::: connor

IMNEO (in my non-expert opinion) Yes, it is front focusing too much. In the other focus tests I've run, backfocusing is more the norm, only my a mm or two. Here you're front focusing by almost 10mm. When you're shooting wide open, missing by 10mm will get you OOF every time.

As others have suggested, try the same test with a different lens and analyze the results so you can narrow it down to the camera or the lens.

Anytime you send something back for warranty repair, they're allowed to use refurb parts. But all the times I've seen camera and lens repairs for my stuff, they were just adjustments, no parts needed.

Good luck!

crobs808 wrote in post #4248577
hoya pro1 uv 72mm on my canon 24-70
hoya pro1 v 62mm on my sigma 30mm

why? filters shouldnt negatively affect IQ. i dont know any pro photographer that doesnt have a uv filter on, if just for lens protection alone.
::: connor

Well then, you're not testing just the lens, are you?

Shrug. If you don't see my point, forget it.



-js