Better 10D focus test for Pearl Rider

[DavidP #28649]

And you claim that your 10D doesn't have an AF issue? ROFL

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[Pearl Rider]

... where Phil took several more 10Ds that WEREN'T sent to him by Canon and tested them. He STILL didn't find any focus problems with them. He DID find that he had one lens out of calibration though.
Next time, YOU bring the doughnuts and make 'em Krispy Krremes. ;-)

 

[Pearl Rider]

And you claim that your 10D doesn't have an AF issue? ROFL

That's right... it doesn't. If you can't see the camera movement in the AF shot, then YOU have the problem inspecting images.

 

[DavidP #28649]

So you admit you couldn't manually focus any better than the AF did, then? (rim shot) That was too easy. LOL.

Or will you now claim that your MF was better than the AF?

Which argument do you wish to lose? LOL

BTW, that shot (small aperture and large subject distance) is hardly the same as the shot that Bill showed. You know, the one where I asked if somebody could consistently manually focus better than the auto-focus?

And you claim that your 10D doesn't have an AF issue? ROFL

That's right... it doesn't. If you can't see the camera movement in
the AF shot, then YOU have the problem inspecting images.

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[Pearl Rider]

So you admit you couldn't manually focus any better than the AF
did, then? (rim shot) That was too easy. LOL.

Or will you now claim that your MF was better than the AF?

Which argument do you wish to lose? LOL

BTW, that shot (small aperture and large subject distance) is
hardly the same as the shot that Bill showed. You know, the one
where I asked if somebody could consistently manually focus better
than the auto-focus?

Just like Jack said you'd do... change the argument. What WAS the aperture I used, David? I would think that my subject, being less contrasty and smaller in the viewfinder would be even MORE difficult to focus on that Bill's "test". It doesn't matter what I or anyone else posts in response to your ridiculous claims and challenges, you're NEVER going to stop finding ways to bash the cameras.

 

[DavidP #28649]

Well, since you said you used the 28-135 IS, the aperture was clearly smaller than the f/1.8 Bill used in his shot.

Changed the argument? Nah, I just let you set yourself up, that's all. Just a slight tilt of the table from me was all it took. LOL.

And I'll bet you thought you had me.

Just like Jack said you'd do... change the argument. What WAS the
aperture I used, David? I would think that my subject, being less
contrasty and smaller in the viewfinder would be even MORE
difficult to focus on that Bill's "test". It doesn't matter what I
or anyone else posts in response to your ridiculous claims and
challenges, you're NEVER going to stop finding ways to bash the
cameras.

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[rlindabury]

I can consistantly hand-hold and manually focus f22 shots at 1/1000 shutter speed.

Well, since you said you used the 28-135 IS, the aperture was
clearly smaller than the f/1.8 Bill used in his shot.

--
Bob Lindabury

 

[DavidP #28649]

Amazing.

You do realize you'd have to be at ISO 1600 under the "sunny and f/16" rule, right?

Is that at 24mm, too?

Hyperfocal focus, yahoooooo!

I can consistantly hand-hold and manually focus f22 shots at 1/1000
shutter speed.

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[rlindabury]

LOL

Figured this thread needed a little levity. [grin]

You do realize you'd have to be at ISO 1600 under the "sunny and
f/16" rule, right?

Is that at 24mm, too?

Hyperfocal focus, yahoooooo!

I can consistantly hand-hold and manually focus f22 shots at 1/1000
shutter speed.

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with
years of training and experience in such things.

--
Bob Lindabury

 

[Mark Gillett]

They are different focussing systems aren't they?

M

PS So what you are saying is that your camera managed to focus on something that was not on or inside any part of the focussing square?

Guess what? It can focus when the contrast is outside of the corner.

Amazing, huh?

Funny how few 10D owners have apparently wanted to test this. LOL.

The problem here is that if David actually HAD a 10D, he could
actually try that himself. He doesn't and he can't. He can only
assume.

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with
years of training and experience in such things.

 

[Pearl Rider]

Well, since you said you used the 28-135 IS, the aperture was
clearly smaller than the f/1.8 Bill used in his shot.

But it was the widest one the lens had and the images were focused. I keep reading how that's not possible or too difficult with the 10D yet I find that it's not that difficult. Of course, it would be easier with focusing aids but that's common sense. I did the test I did because, to me, that's the harder situation to focus on. What Bill did would be much easier for me. Focusing on the close up stuff where I'm right at the lens minimum focus distance and there's no room for error is the easiest situation.

Changed the argument? Nah, I just let you set yourself up, that's
all. Just a slight tilt of the table from me was all it took.
LOL.

Nah, you just make assumptions and work from there.

And I'll bet you thought you had me.

No, I'd never delude myself to thinking that. I just figure you'll snake your way out of admitting anything. LOL

 

[Pearl Rider]

I guess you might've missed the title of this thread and the first post. David's got a new playmate. ;-)

 

[Louis4]

This test is for you Pearl Rider...

You can't focus your camera, you've illustrated that with pictures before.

What about stopping the silly test shots and actually learning how to take pictures now?

 

[DavidP #28649]

Yup.

PS So what you are saying is that your camera managed to focus on
something that was not on or inside any part of the focussing
square?

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[DavidP #28649]

What you shot has a rather large DOF, making it easier to get in focus manually.

In Bill's shot, the image taped to the window wasn't THAT far out of the focus plane. Close enough that through the viewfinder it would've been hard to distinguish between it being in focus and the image 2" in front of it.

But it was the widest one the lens had and the images were focused.
I keep reading how that's not possible or too difficult with the
10D yet I find that it's not that difficult. Of course, it would be
easier with focusing aids but that's common sense. I did the test I
did because, to me, that's the harder situation to focus on. What
Bill did would be much easier for me. Focusing on the close up
stuff where I'm right at the lens minimum focus distance and
there's no room for error is the easiest situation.

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[DavidP #28649]

Don't you mean to say that the 10D's AF doesn't work? LOL.

You can't focus your camera, you've illustrated that with pictures
before.
What about stopping the silly test shots and actually learning how
to take pictures now?

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[BryanS]

I will no longer post here until the problem has been resolved or i
am sure this is pleasant news for many

Best news I've heard in a week.

--
BryanS

 

[Pearl Rider]

What you shot has a rather large DOF, making it easier to get in
focus manually.

In Bill's shot, the image taped to the window wasn't THAT far out
of the focus plane. Close enough that through the viewfinder it
would've been hard to distinguish between it being in focus and the
image 2" in front of it.

But the premise was that manual focus on the 10D was next to practically useless and I showed that's not the case. Now you change the meaning to keep your argument intact and now demand that manual focus be done differently so that, in your opinion, you have a greater chance of failing. Now if I did it using the same set up as Bill (which he didn't try to manually focus on anyway), you'd have another angle which keeps your argument intact. Like Jack said, you can't win. You're going to bash the 10D (and 300D) anyway you can. Period. Maybe people are starting to realize that you're just here for the sport.

 

[Pearl Rider]

Don't you mean to say that the 10D's AF doesn't work? LOL.

Perhaps BILL'S 10D won't autofocus properly. Louis said what he said. I think must people can read without your subtitles. ;-)

 

[Louis4]

Don't you mean to say that the 10D's AF doesn't work? LOL.

No, because I can't see that on the test picture, you know...

--
"Pictures Speak The Truth!!" (Bill Jones)