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

crobs808 wrote in post #4244687
no, not that i know of, at least there wasnt a button for it by the LCD...if it was deep in the menu i never saw it

::: connor

Hopefully you still have the 20D in order to do a side by side test of the two cameras using the same lens while set on a tripod, with all settings set to the default values ("Clear Settings" is in the menus which aren't all that deep).

If not, restore the 40D to its default settings (Clear Settings) or set it to the same settings that the 20D had. Use the same lens that gave the good results with the 20D with a tripod, and set the self-timer with mirror lockup.

Several have suggested that the head of the bolt is too small for the focus point size - they are correct - the camera looks for contrast.

It might be best to also take some shots by manually focusing on the target; this would help to pinpoint where the problem is.

PS EDIT:

Sorry, I posted this without reading all the subseqent posts to the one I answered. I think the camera should be sent back to be calibrated.

Can't remember if this has been suggested, but why not shoot the same subject twice: once letting the camera autofocus (center point only?), and a second time with Live View @ 10x magnification and MANUAL FOCUS to get the focus absolutely spot-on. Then, compare the two shots @ 100% on a monitor. If the second one (Live View) shot is sharp, at least it's not that the body cannot achieve sharp pictures at all, but is an autofocus issue. However, you then need to do the same with a different lens to determine whether it's the body or the lens that is not focusing correctly.

Good luck!

Surprise, surprise, a 24-70L is soft wide open...

The guy had a point, some people answered this thread like he was a moron. Clearly it wasn't because there was no sharpening applied. For that to be effective there would have to be some detail present. Take his files and sharpen them ... see what happens (nothing).

At the same time, it is wise to methodically eliminate variables ... use different lenses, use a tripod, use MLU, take off filters (low-grade UV filters WILL impact the IQ ... if you have to use them, at least use B+W or Heliopan multicoated ones), etc., like some people suggested.

lungdoc wrote in post #4249503
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)?

i did, same results, i just didnt post them for you all since they came out identical to the 24-70 ones, but both the lens and camera are already on their way to new jersy anyway on a fed ex truck somewhere. no worries.

::: connor

I've had both of these lenses. Upgraded to the 24-70 from the 28-135.

24-70 will bite you in the butt if your technique is not spot on. No IS to cover up for poor technique.

TheGreatDivorce wrote in post #4250768
B+W or Heliopan multicoated ones), etc., like some people suggested.

i was going to buy B+W, then saw IQ tests of Hoya Pro1 vs B+W on a the same 5D, same settings, and the Hoya Pro1 filter took the cake, so I know my filter isn't causing the issues.

THANKS, like i said...ill update when it comes back.

::: Connor

Knightshade wrote in post #4251592
I've had both of these lenses. Upgraded to the 24-70 from the 28-135.

24-70 will bite you in the butt if your technique is not spot on. No IS to cover up for poor technique.

the 24-70 is the lens ive used forever, and most familiar with. i've always used the 24-70 on my old 20D, never had blur or anything unless it was artistic/intentional. always shoot at f/5.6 and 125 or higher when event shooting. For stills/objects, I will take it down to 2.8, but always leave shutter 125 or higher, and my hands are steady as a rock when shooting. I'm 6'7", so the camera, with a battery back, 580 flash, AND heavy lens still feels light to me.

::: connor

crobs808 wrote in post #4251597
i was going to buy B+W, then saw IQ tests of Hoya Pro1 vs B+W on a the same 5D, same settings, and the Hoya Pro1 filter took the cake, so I know my filter isn't causing the issues.

THANKS, like i said...ill update when it comes back.

::: Connor

Just curious...do you happen to remember where you saw that test?

I'm most interested in what it showed. I have a number o B+W filters but if the Hoya Pro 1 filters really are noticeably better then I'll probably buy them whenever I have to buy new filters.

One other question: what's the frame made of? B+W frames are made of brass, which I like quite a lot. I'm not very fond of Aluminum for this application but that may be the result of bad experiences (difficulty with threading, mainly) with cheap filters...

kcbrown wrote in post #4251802
Just curious...do you happen to remember where you saw that test?

I'm most interested in what it showed. I have a number o B+W filters but if the Hoya Pro 1 filters really are noticeably better then I'll probably buy them whenever I have to buy new filters.

One other question: what's the frame made of? B+W frames are made of brass, which I like quite a lot. I'm not very fond of Aluminum for this application but that may be the result of bad experiences (difficulty with threading, mainly) with cheap filters...

FYI, not all B+W filters are brass.

crobs808 wrote in post #4251580
i did, same results, i just didnt post them for you all since they came out identical to the 24-70 ones, but both the lens and camera are already on their way to new jersy anyway on a fed ex truck somewhere. no worries.

::: connor

Well now we're getting somewhere - we can (assuming results are true and reproducible, no reason to think otherwise) clearly blame the body and not lens since error occurring with 2 lenses including one that performed well on your prior body (I assume). Not entirely sure why they'd then need your lens, and I'd want to make sure they knew this info so didn't adjust a good lens to correct for a bad body. Also renders the filter talk relatively irrelevant, since either not same filter on 30 1.4 or filter didn't affect the 20D so why would it affect the 40D.

kcbrown wrote in post #4251802
Just curious...do you happen to remember where you saw that test?I'm most interested in what it showed. I have a number o B+W filters but if the Hoya Pro 1 filters really are noticeably better then I'll probably buy them whenever I have to buy new filters.

One other question: what's the frame made of? B+W frames are made of brass, which I like quite a lot. I'm not very fond of Aluminum for this application but that may be the result of bad experiences (difficulty with threading, mainly) with cheap filters...

the test had nothing to do with threading, just IQ...my friend performed the test, i looked at the raw images he took when he was finished. he did landscape shots, just land, then landscape shots with lake in the background, all kinds of tests, and the expensive Hoya beat the expensive B+W...he also test 'Quantray'? those came the worst.

anyway, back to threading...once I put my UV filter on, it stays on for good...if I get a new lens with the same thread size, it is cheap to buy a new filter...I mean the good ones are only $70...how can you buy a $500+ lens, then say a $70 filter is too expensive? i've seen that compaint around these forums...people who just bought a 28-135 lens for $300 then thinking a $50 filter is too much??? i just don't understand that...if you can barely afford to buy a lens, so much so that a $50 filter is considered 'expensive', you shouldnt be buying one in the first place right?

::: connor

You are hardly going to find good quality 77mm UV filter for $50.
Here is one that I use on my 24-70:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …297_77mm_UV_Haz​e_010.html

Hoya Pro 1 is little bit cheaper, but it's still not $50:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …m_Ultraviolet_U​V_Pro.html

Hermeto wrote in post #4256133
You are hardly going to find good quality 77mm UV filter for $50.

thats exactly my POINT...people who buy expensive lenses then don't buy good filters...do people read entire posts around here? lol.

sidenote: i got the hoya pro-1 UV filter on ebay for $55 shipped. the same one is $75 from B&H, so it's all in where you look.

see, here's your precious $125 filter from B&H for under $90 on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com …iewItem&item=27​0177837248

::: connor

lungdoc wrote in post #4252489
Well now we're getting somewhere - we can (assuming results are true and reproducible, no reason to think otherwise) clearly blame the body and not lens since error occurring with 2 lenses including one that performed well on your prior body (I assume). Not entirely sure why they'd then need your lens, and I'd want to make sure they knew this info so didn't adjust a good lens to correct for a bad body. Also renders the filter talk relatively irrelevant, since either not same filter on 30 1.4 or filter didn't affect the 20D so why would it affect the 40D.

they don't adjust the lens according to the body you send in, they adjust it according to their specs, and how the lens should operate no matter what body it is on. they actually do not put it on a camera body at all when adjusting it. The guy on the phone said they use a big lab machine that has multiple mounts, including an EOS mount.

Anyway, they got everything in my notes...I said both my lenses performed poorly, canon and non-canon, but since I was sending in my body anyway (only still camera I have) they said I may as well send in my lens to check it out too, since I cannot use it anyway until I get back my 40D. Its all free anyway, so why not have both checked/calibrated if need be?

ok, like i said, i'll udpate when it comes back, no use talking about it while its not even here, and in transit, so i'll post again later. i guess you guys can keep speculating/talking if you want, but the results will be back shortly.

::: connor

Hopefully everything will come back in good shape and you'll get the quality you should expect from that combo.