2 examples of what I feel are unacceptable 100% crops.

00silvergt wrote in post #5570964
So, Adam I take it your 1D3 wasn't plagued by that AF "phenomenon" as Canon calls it, huh? Those look tack sharp!

No sir. Never had a problem out of it *knocks on wood*.

AdamLewis wrote in post #5570975
No sir. Never had a problem out of it *knocks on wood*.

Cool! Is yours within the serial numbers that was suppose to have been affected?

00silvergt wrote in post #5570993
Cool! Is yours within the serial numbers that was suppose to have been affected?

Yeah. 535XXX. Theres way more out there without problems than there are with. Its just the simple fact that people that do have problems make more noise than people that dont

AdamLewis wrote in post #5571035
Yeah. 535XXX. Theres way more out there without problems than there are with. Its just the simple fact that people that do have problems make more noise than people that dont

LOL, and to think I didn't buy this last year because I didn't want to get a defective one...did you have the sub mirror replaced? Thanks for the info, looks like I may have decided on my next body...maybe I'll still wait for the 5D successor's announcement, though.

00silvergt wrote in post #5571050
LOL, and to think I didn't buy this last year because I didn't want to get a defective one...did you have the sub mirror replaced? Thanks for the info, looks like I may have decided on my next body...maybe I'll still wait for the 5D successor's announcement, though.

No. Ive never had the sub-mirror fix done because Ive never had a problem. Im thinking of sending it in just for the extended warranty though.

JeffreyG wrote in post #5570425
You are using DOF calculations and 100% crops - this is an error.

The underlying and very subjective detail in DOF is the circle of confusion. This is basically how OOF a shot can get before it is noticeable in a given print size viewed at a given distance.

If you are staring at 100% crops on a 30 inch monitor, the standard CoC values will not be adequate because you will be scrutinizing the image at a much greater enlargement and closer distance than the DOF calculator expects.

Don't forget, there is only one plane of infinitismal thickness that is at maximum sharpness. The DOF calculator is just giving you a ballpark as to how far you can get from that plane before the softness becomes detectable.

I've actually set up my own calculator to give me the size of the blur disk at a range of distances from the focus point after I punch in aperture, focal length and focus distance. This is handy because then I can judge the DOF based on my own requirement for CoC at a given shot. Also I can see how fast I get to large disks (very blurred backgrounds) reltive to the background distance.

I understand all that, but I think it's pretty clear these photos are not as sharp as they should be. This is evident by looking at the full size image where you can clearly see that the faces are not sharp. The 100% crops I posted were just to show and emphasize how "OOF" they actually are. I view on a 15" screen and 1400X1050.

I also understand that there will only be one exact plane in focus and that the DOF calculator is only a general and ballpark estimator, however, the face of the subject is only 3"-6" off the plane of focus (the chest). Using the numbers from the DOF calculator I should have had ~27" in front of the subject alone in the second shot. 3"-6" off that plane IMO should not result in the faces this OOF.

I was just trying to get to the root of why these are not as sharp as they should be. I am starting think as George said the subject was just too small in the frame and it is not bright enough. I did find this one unusable photo due to obvious reasons.. but it appears tack sharp to me. The subject isn't much bigger but the lighting is considerably better.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

carpenter wrote in post #5571055
I understand all that, but I think it's pretty clear these photos are not as sharp as they should be. This is evident by looking at the full size image where you can clearly see that the faces are not sharp. The 100% crops I posted were just to show and emphasize how "OOF" they actually are. I view on a 15" screen and 1400X1050.

I also understand that there will only be one exact plane in focus and that the DOF calculator is only a general and ballpark estimator, however, the face of the subject is only 3"-6" off the plane of focus (the chest). Using the numbers from the DOF calculator I should have had ~27" in front of the subject alone in the second shot. 3"-6" off that plane IMO should not result in the faces this OOF.

I was just trying to get to the root of why these are not as sharp as they should be. I am starting think as George said the subject was just too small in the frame and it is not bright enough. I did find this one unusable photo due to obvious reasons.. but it appears tack sharp to me. The subject isn't much bigger but the lighting is considerably better.

This last one is pretty interesting for a couple reasons:

1. The subject is pretty much the same size in the frame (or even smaller)
2. The 100% is noticeably sharper.

From this you can reach some quick conclusions:
1. The lens is capable of very sharp results when the subject is focussed correctly
2. You are getting a lot of images that are not focussed correctly. This includes the earlier images.

So why are you missing focus? Lens calibration, camera calibration or user error.

You need some kind of test to find out. Maybe start on some static subjects and work from there.

One word of advice.....you need to shoot people at 50 to 100 feet. Don't try to check focus by shooting a piece of paper at 8 feet. Set up some targets at normal ranges and see what is what.

Based on the last image, there, I'd say the first two, are user error. That's just me, though.

inthedeck wrote in post #5571097
Based on the last image, there, I'd say the first two, are user error. That's just me, though.

Which is very possible, but in what manner would it be user error? What would you say I did wrong in the first two? (keep in mind the first 2 represent about 300 of the 305 pictures taken at this tournament and the last one represents the other 5)

First off, the light is coming from behind the subject. Second, not sure what type of metering you were using, but at 350mm, w/ 1/800, at 5.6, you'd need a fair amount of light coming from the proper direction, as in the last picture.

I have a 400L, and use it for birding. At 400, 5.6, and 1/800, I need LOTS of light...and birds are harder to capture than people.

If it was camera/lens error, I don't know, because you haven't taken a 'static' picture of something that far away, mounted on a tripod, with manual focus. Try that, and report back...

hello all--
question: "plane of focus"--is this literally supposed to be flat plane? seems to me the plane should be warped spherically...??? don't know, maybe someone can comment.

Nonetheless--Carpenter--its pretty easy to see where your plane of focus is when you look at the grass near the players' feet. Do the 100% crop on the grass where its sharp, and let us see it.

--alex

Your lens is fine.

It just has a learning curve, especially when shooting sports. My guess is you just haven't spent enough time tracking focus with it to get the best results.

The most recent post was of someone moving slowly, which confirms my suspicions.

Start working with appropriate focus points, use AF on your * button and keep practising ... you'll get better results.

Oh, and stop pixel-peeping

sally_tomato wrote in post #5571194
hello all--
question: "plane of focus"--is this literally supposed to be flat plane? seems to me the plane should be warped spherically...??? don't know, maybe someone can comment.

Nonetheless--Carpenter--its pretty easy to see where your plane of focus is when you look at the grass near the players' feet. Do the 100% crop on the grass where its sharp, and let us see it.

--alex

It's flat.

linarms wrote in post #5571196
Your lens is fine.

It just has a learning curve, especially when shooting sports. My guess is you just haven't spent enough time tracking focus with it to get the best results.

The most recent post was of someone moving slowly, which confirms my suspicions.

Start working with appropriate focus points, use AF on your * button and keep practising ... you'll get better results.

Oh, and stop pixel-peeping

Very well could be just more practice needed. The second example I posted is of a player walking as well though and still OOF and plenty others like that. What would you say would be the culprit for what I was doing wrong regarding tracking though?

Usually I don't pixel peep but in these instances I could see the faces didn't look sharp without peeping.

I'm thinking you might have been using the wrong AF point, that your AF might have been struggling to lock focus on a high-contrast part of the image, that you didn't give the lens long enough to lock AF, that you let go of the AF button for a split second before releasing the shutter ... any of these things.