G2 AF - Next steps

Eric Haglund said:

Thanks for answering my unscientific poll. The results didn't
really surprise me, suffice to say many people are unhappy with the
AF to the point of frustration. I'm not a photo expert and I'm
really shooting from the hip here so any and all suggestions would
be greatly appreciated. I'm thinking that we can submit some of our
pics and have some of our more experienced photogs help critique
them to determine the cause(s) of the soft photos. To that end, I
created a Pbase account. It's called, G2AF and the user and
password are the same: G2AF. I suggest creating a gallery and
posting some of your soft pics there. That way we can keep all the
photos and exif data in one place should we wish to have Canon take
a look (which would likely be the next step). How about the
following guidelines:

1- Post WITH COMPLETE EXIF data.
2- DON'T submit 10000 photos and sit back with your arms folded.
Post only those photos where you know you weren't moving, the
subject wasn't moving, the shutter speed wasn't too slow, etc. Post
only pics where the lack of focus has you stumped. If you're not
sure, post it.

I'm really hoping this will be a huge learning experience. Does
anyone have any ideas on how to gather, analyze and share feedback?
I'm a single dad with two little boys so my time is limited but I'm
willing to do whatever I can so we can solve these issues or at
least come to some kind of resolution. Help from experienced
photogs in analyzing pics would be very greatly appreciated.

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Click to expand...

Eric Haglund said:

Thanks for answering my unscientific poll. The results didn't
really surprise me, suffice to say many people are unhappy with the
AF to the point of frustration. I'm not a photo expert and I'm
really shooting from the hip here so any and all suggestions would
be greatly appreciated. I'm thinking that we can submit some of our
pics and have some of our more experienced photogs help critique
them to determine the cause(s) of the soft photos. To that end, I
created a Pbase account. It's called, G2AF and the user and
password are the same: G2AF. I suggest creating a gallery and
posting some of your soft pics there. That way we can keep all the
photos and exif data in one place should we wish to have Canon take
a look (which would likely be the next step). How about the
following guidelines:

1- Post WITH COMPLETE EXIF data.
2- DON'T submit 10000 photos and sit back with your arms folded.
Post only those photos where you know you weren't moving, the
subject wasn't moving, the shutter speed wasn't too slow, etc. Post
only pics where the lack of focus has you stumped. If you're not
sure, post it.

I'm really hoping this will be a huge learning experience. Does
anyone have any ideas on how to gather, analyze and share feedback?
I'm a single dad with two little boys so my time is limited but I'm
willing to do whatever I can so we can solve these issues or at
least come to some kind of resolution. Help from experienced
photogs in analyzing pics would be very greatly appreciated.

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Click to expand...

Eric Haglund said:

http://www.pbase.com/g2af/eric_h

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Eric Haglund said:

Thanks for answering my unscientific poll. The results didn't
really surprise me, suffice to say many people are unhappy with the
AF to the point of frustration. I'm not a photo expert and I'm
really shooting from the hip here so any and all suggestions would
be greatly appreciated. I'm thinking that we can submit some of our
pics and have some of our more experienced photogs help critique
them to determine the cause(s) of the soft photos. To that end, I
created a Pbase account. It's called, G2AF and the user and
password are the same: G2AF. I suggest creating a gallery and
posting some of your soft pics there. That way we can keep all the
photos and exif data in one place should we wish to have Canon take
a look (which would likely be the next step). How about the
following guidelines:

1- Post WITH COMPLETE EXIF data.
2- DON'T submit 10000 photos and sit back with your arms folded.
Post only those photos where you know you weren't moving, the
subject wasn't moving, the shutter speed wasn't too slow, etc. Post
only pics where the lack of focus has you stumped. If you're not
sure, post it.

I'm really hoping this will be a huge learning experience. Does
anyone have any ideas on how to gather, analyze and share feedback?
I'm a single dad with two little boys so my time is limited but I'm
willing to do whatever I can so we can solve these issues or at
least come to some kind of resolution. Help from experienced
photogs in analyzing pics would be very greatly appreciated.

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Eric Haglund said:

I have four pics in my gallery. They are all soft. 3 have 66m
subject distance measures which is completely wrong. Critique and
suggestions appreciated.

http://www.pbase.com/g2af/eric_h

Click to expand...

Bernie Ess said:

Basically I agree with gkl... I have the G1 (probably identical AF)

• focus is sometimes very slow, but I have rarely had soft or

blurred results except when exposure time was longer than 1/50...

However I have 100s of really very sharp photos, and so have
others. There are many G1/ G2 web galleries which show the amazing
sharpness of this camera.
Just go and see http://www.kleptography.com , one of the best there is...

SO try to develop your shooting style, I guess the problem is there...

Bernhard

Click to expand...

Kristian S. said:

Bernie... If haven't been following this issue as we G2 owners
have, do not interfere with your comments... If you had read the
the tests Eric has done you would not write here...

Click to expand...

Kristian Salo101843 said:

Kristian

ps. Eric, I have deleted all my 66m pictures I will post a few soon...

Bernie Ess said:

Basically I agree with gkl... I have the G1 (probably identical AF)

• focus is sometimes very slow, but I have rarely had soft or

blurred results except when exposure time was longer than 1/50...

However I have 100s of really very sharp photos, and so have
others. There are many G1/ G2 web galleries which show the amazing
sharpness of this camera.
Just go and see http://www.kleptography.com , one of the best there is...

SO try to develop your shooting style, I guess the problem is there...

Bernhard

Click to expand...

--
---
http://www.iki.fi/steelduck

Click to expand...

gkl said:

Eric Haglund said:

I have four pics in my gallery. They are all soft. 3 have 66m
subject distance measures which is completely wrong. Critique and
suggestions appreciated.

http://www.pbase.com/g2af/eric_h

Click to expand...

Eric, Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm afraid it looks like
the problem is pretty much behind the camera. I'll use the numbers
as a reference:

1775 (blond boy) 7mm wide angle, 66m focus, f 4.5
1791 (swimmers) 7mm wide angle, 66 m focus, f 4, shutter 1/100 no
flash
1799 (redhaired woman) 16.8 mm (85 mm equiv) 0.87 m focus, f 4
1865 (2 women + dog) 8mm (wide angle) 66m focus, f 6.3

First comment: depth of field for the wide angle shots. For f4, the
standard hyperfocal distance is 2 m, which means that everything
from 1 m to infinity is in focus if you focus at 2m. If the camera
is focused at infinity (66 m), then everything from 2m to infinity
is in focus. Contrast detection algorithms aren't sensitive enough
to determine range accurately with a wide angle setting - if
everything from 1 m to infinity shows equal contrast, what is the
algorithm supposed to do? But then it shouldn't matter - 1775, 1791
and 1865 have to be in focus if the subjects are more than 6 feet
away. Assuming there is no shutter blur, these shots could be
improved with USM and/or contrast/levels adjustment (I'll get back
to this). Hmmm. Are you familiar with good hand-holding
techniques? Watching the LCD while snapping away is not good.

That brings me to 1791, at 1/100 sec. The male swimmer is moving.
This is why he is more blurred than the girl. All of the people
are overexposed. Overexposed areas tend to look soft - detail is
being lost. The overexposure comment also applies to 1775 (the
blond boy's face). Assuming the highlights aren't blown, you should
be able to improve these with contrast and brightness adjustment.
My recommendation is to get it right in the camera! Check the
histogram, and compensate. Or use AEB.

The other thing I noticed is that the centre of every image
contains ONLY red or blue colours, no greens: the blond boy's
sweater, the ladies arms and blue water, the blue raft. The G2
contrast detection sees things very differently than we do - almost
in black and white. It is mainly sensitive to green, so for the G2
these blue and red areas appear much darker, and have lower
contrast. Think of blue next to red as black next to black. OTOH
green areas appear brighter, so green next to blue or red is like
white next to black. Hope this helps, GKL

Click to expand...

Eric Haglund said:

GKL- thanks very much for taking the time on my pics. At this
point, I'd be happier if the problem was behind the camera rather
than in it because I can change what I do a lot easier than I can
change what Canon does.

The swimming picture is not the best example because as you
mentioned the shutter speed, etc.

Click to expand...

Eric Haglund said:

easier for me to keep up so llet's talk about the picture of the
boy some more (#1775). To me he appears very soft and I thought the
culprit was a 66m focus. I also hit him with fill flash because his
hat was casting a shadow over his face. Do you think the photo is
simply over exposed and that is why it is soft? The other question
I have is that had I horsed around and perhaps locked on the leaves
next to him, I would have got a sharper picture so I'm not quite
sure I understand the DOF issue. Had he been wearing a vertical
stripped shirt, the focus would likely have been at 2m instead of
66m which I assume would have given me a sharper pic, yes?

Please explain what kind of contrast I need. I would have thought
that filling up the frame with him would give the AF ample
opportunity to focus on the edge of his sleeve or something
similar. Thanks again--

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

gkl said:

Eric Haglund said:

I have four pics in my gallery. They are all soft. 3 have 66m
subject distance measures which is completely wrong. Critique and
suggestions appreciated.

http://www.pbase.com/g2af/eric_h

Click to expand...

Eric, Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm afraid it looks like
the problem is pretty much behind the camera. I'll use the numbers
as a reference:

1775 (blond boy) 7mm wide angle, 66m focus, f 4.5
1791 (swimmers) 7mm wide angle, 66 m focus, f 4, shutter 1/100 no
flash
1799 (redhaired woman) 16.8 mm (85 mm equiv) 0.87 m focus, f 4
1865 (2 women + dog) 8mm (wide angle) 66m focus, f 6.3

First comment: depth of field for the wide angle shots. For f4, the
standard hyperfocal distance is 2 m, which means that everything
from 1 m to infinity is in focus if you focus at 2m. If the camera
is focused at infinity (66 m), then everything from 2m to infinity
is in focus. Contrast detection algorithms aren't sensitive enough
to determine range accurately with a wide angle setting - if
everything from 1 m to infinity shows equal contrast, what is the
algorithm supposed to do? But then it shouldn't matter - 1775, 1791
and 1865 have to be in focus if the subjects are more than 6 feet
away. Assuming there is no shutter blur, these shots could be
improved with USM and/or contrast/levels adjustment (I'll get back
to this). Hmmm. Are you familiar with good hand-holding
techniques? Watching the LCD while snapping away is not good.

That brings me to 1791, at 1/100 sec. The male swimmer is moving.
This is why he is more blurred than the girl. All of the people
are overexposed. Overexposed areas tend to look soft - detail is
being lost. The overexposure comment also applies to 1775 (the
blond boy's face). Assuming the highlights aren't blown, you should
be able to improve these with contrast and brightness adjustment.
My recommendation is to get it right in the camera! Check the
histogram, and compensate. Or use AEB.

The other thing I noticed is that the centre of every image
contains ONLY red or blue colours, no greens: the blond boy's
sweater, the ladies arms and blue water, the blue raft. The G2
contrast detection sees things very differently than we do - almost
in black and white. It is mainly sensitive to green, so for the G2
these blue and red areas appear much darker, and have lower
contrast. Think of blue next to red as black next to black. OTOH
green areas appear brighter, so green next to blue or red is like
white next to black. Hope this helps, GKL

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

lck0925 said:

Kristian S. said:

Bernie... If haven't been following this issue as we G2 owners
have, do not interfere with your comments... If you had read the
the tests Eric has done you would not write here...

Click to expand...

Feisty... I'll apologize for Bernie not being able to follow up on
those 80 and up posts by G2 users.

On another note.. I don't think Eric responded to gkl's response as
to why the pics he posted were out of focus (he asked for
professional comment didn't he?).. perhaps what gkl wrote really
made sense and if he admits to it then all of his hardwork into
gaining popularity within the pact will be ruined (ppl are going to
hate me for this).

= )

Happy Shooting.

T

lck0925 said:

Kristian

ps. Eric, I have deleted all my 66m pictures I will post a few soon...

Bernie Ess said:

Basically I agree with gkl... I have the G1 (probably identical AF)

• focus is sometimes very slow, but I have rarely had soft or

blurred results except when exposure time was longer than 1/50...

However I have 100s of really very sharp photos, and so have
others. There are many G1/ G2 web galleries which show the amazing
sharpness of this camera.
Just go and see http://www.kleptography.com , one of the best there is...

SO try to develop your shooting style, I guess the problem is there...

Bernhard

Click to expand...

--
---
http://www.iki.fi/steelduck

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

gkl said:

Eric Haglund said:

I have four pics in my gallery. They are all soft. 3 have 66m
subject distance measures which is completely wrong. Critique and
suggestions appreciated.

http://www.pbase.com/g2af/eric_h

Click to expand...

Eric, Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm afraid it looks like
the problem is pretty much behind the camera. I'll use the numbers
as a reference:

1775 (blond boy) 7mm wide angle, 66m focus, f 4.5
1791 (swimmers) 7mm wide angle, 66 m focus, f 4, shutter 1/100 no
flash
1799 (redhaired woman) 16.8 mm (85 mm equiv) 0.87 m focus, f 4
1865 (2 women + dog) 8mm (wide angle) 66m focus, f 6.3

First comment: depth of field for the wide angle shots. For f4, the
standard hyperfocal distance is 2 m, which means that everything
from 1 m to infinity is in focus if you focus at 2m. If the camera
is focused at infinity (66 m), then everything from 2m to infinity
is in focus. Contrast detection algorithms aren't sensitive enough
to determine range accurately with a wide angle setting - if
everything from 1 m to infinity shows equal contrast, what is the
algorithm supposed to do? But then it shouldn't matter - 1775, 1791
and 1865 have to be in focus if the subjects are more than 6 feet
away. Assuming there is no shutter blur, these shots could be
improved with USM and/or contrast/levels adjustment (I'll get back
to this). Hmmm. Are you familiar with good hand-holding
techniques? Watching the LCD while snapping away is not good.

That brings me to 1791, at 1/100 sec. The male swimmer is moving.
This is why he is more blurred than the girl. All of the people
are overexposed. Overexposed areas tend to look soft - detail is
being lost. The overexposure comment also applies to 1775 (the
blond boy's face). Assuming the highlights aren't blown, you should
be able to improve these with contrast and brightness adjustment.
My recommendation is to get it right in the camera! Check the
histogram, and compensate. Or use AEB.

The other thing I noticed is that the centre of every image
contains ONLY red or blue colours, no greens: the blond boy's
sweater, the ladies arms and blue water, the blue raft. The G2
contrast detection sees things very differently than we do - almost
in black and white. It is mainly sensitive to green, so for the G2
these blue and red areas appear much darker, and have lower
contrast. Think of blue next to red as black next to black. OTOH
green areas appear brighter, so green next to blue or red is like
white next to black. Hope this helps, GKL

Click to expand...

lck0925 said:

Eric Haglund said:

GKL- thanks very much for taking the time on my pics. At this
point, I'd be happier if the problem was behind the camera rather
than in it because I can change what I do a lot easier than I can
change what Canon does.

The swimming picture is not the best example because as you
mentioned the shutter speed, etc.

Click to expand...

"2- DON'T submit 10000 photos and sit back with your arms folded.
Post only those photos where you know you weren't moving, the
subject wasn't moving, the shutter speed wasn't too slow, etc. Post
only pics where the lack of focus has you stumped. If you're not
sure, post it."

U wrote this.

T

Looking at one pic at a time is

lck0925 said:

easier for me to keep up so llet's talk about the picture of the
boy some more (#1775). To me he appears very soft and I thought the
culprit was a 66m focus. I also hit him with fill flash because his
hat was casting a shadow over his face. Do you think the photo is
simply over exposed and that is why it is soft? The other question
I have is that had I horsed around and perhaps locked on the leaves
next to him, I would have got a sharper picture so I'm not quite
sure I understand the DOF issue. Had he been wearing a vertical
stripped shirt, the focus would likely have been at 2m instead of
66m which I assume would have given me a sharper pic, yes?

Please explain what kind of contrast I need. I would have thought
that filling up the frame with him would give the AF ample
opportunity to focus on the edge of his sleeve or something
similar. Thanks again--

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

gkl said:

Eric Haglund said:

I have four pics in my gallery. They are all soft. 3 have 66m
subject distance measures which is completely wrong. Critique and
suggestions appreciated.

http://www.pbase.com/g2af/eric_h

Click to expand...

Eric, Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm afraid it looks like
the problem is pretty much behind the camera. I'll use the numbers
as a reference:

1775 (blond boy) 7mm wide angle, 66m focus, f 4.5
1791 (swimmers) 7mm wide angle, 66 m focus, f 4, shutter 1/100 no
flash
1799 (redhaired woman) 16.8 mm (85 mm equiv) 0.87 m focus, f 4
1865 (2 women + dog) 8mm (wide angle) 66m focus, f 6.3

First comment: depth of field for the wide angle shots. For f4, the
standard hyperfocal distance is 2 m, which means that everything
from 1 m to infinity is in focus if you focus at 2m. If the camera
is focused at infinity (66 m), then everything from 2m to infinity
is in focus. Contrast detection algorithms aren't sensitive enough
to determine range accurately with a wide angle setting - if
everything from 1 m to infinity shows equal contrast, what is the
algorithm supposed to do? But then it shouldn't matter - 1775, 1791
and 1865 have to be in focus if the subjects are more than 6 feet
away. Assuming there is no shutter blur, these shots could be
improved with USM and/or contrast/levels adjustment (I'll get back
to this). Hmmm. Are you familiar with good hand-holding
techniques? Watching the LCD while snapping away is not good.

That brings me to 1791, at 1/100 sec. The male swimmer is moving.
This is why he is more blurred than the girl. All of the people
are overexposed. Overexposed areas tend to look soft - detail is
being lost. The overexposure comment also applies to 1775 (the
blond boy's face). Assuming the highlights aren't blown, you should
be able to improve these with contrast and brightness adjustment.
My recommendation is to get it right in the camera! Check the
histogram, and compensate. Or use AEB.

The other thing I noticed is that the centre of every image
contains ONLY red or blue colours, no greens: the blond boy's
sweater, the ladies arms and blue water, the blue raft. The G2
contrast detection sees things very differently than we do - almost
in black and white. It is mainly sensitive to green, so for the G2
these blue and red areas appear much darker, and have lower
contrast. Think of blue next to red as black next to black. OTOH
green areas appear brighter, so green next to blue or red is like
white next to black. Hope this helps, GKL

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Eric Haglund said:

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

lck0925 said:

Eric Haglund said:

GKL- thanks very much for taking the time on my pics. At this
point, I'd be happier if the problem was behind the camera rather
than in it because I can change what I do a lot easier than I can
change what Canon does.

The swimming picture is not the best example because as you
mentioned the shutter speed, etc.

Click to expand...

"2- DON'T submit 10000 photos and sit back with your arms folded.
Post only those photos where you know you weren't moving, the
subject wasn't moving, the shutter speed wasn't too slow, etc. Post
only pics where the lack of focus has you stumped. If you're not
sure, post it."

U wrote this.

T

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

lck0925 said:

What I'm trying say here is that some of the pics u've chosen to
display are not good examples of af misses. Like the first picture
with the boy and fill in flash.. if u're saying that the boy's face
needed a flash to be lit up then that probably means that the
camera saw the background as more contrasty than ur subject.

Anyhow.. I better shut my mouth since my comments probably wouldn't
mean much to you ppl since i'm NOT a g2 owner.

T

Eric Haglund said:

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

lck0925 said:

Eric Haglund said:

GKL- thanks very much for taking the time on my pics. At this
point, I'd be happier if the problem was behind the camera rather
than in it because I can change what I do a lot easier than I can
change what Canon does.

The swimming picture is not the best example because as you
mentioned the shutter speed, etc.

Click to expand...

"2- DON'T submit 10000 photos and sit back with your arms folded.
Post only those photos where you know you weren't moving, the
subject wasn't moving, the shutter speed wasn't too slow, etc. Post
only pics where the lack of focus has you stumped. If you're not
sure, post it."

U wrote this.

T

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Eric Haglund said:

For everyday use, I think the little boy pic is a PERFECT example
of an AF miss. I mean, really, what more can a regular guy do to
get a sharp picture of his kids? The boy was standing still, the
shutter speed was such that motion blur shouldn't be an issue. He's
standing 6 feet away, almost filling up the frame and the camera
says 66 meters and delivers, in my opinion, a soft pic.

The fill flash was very light, probably -2/3 just to light up his
face a little, which it did.

It doesn't matter to me if you have a G2 or not, if you have some
good tips or insights, I'm definitely interested in hearing them.

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

lck0925 said:

What I'm trying say here is that some of the pics u've chosen to
display are not good examples of af misses. Like the first picture
with the boy and fill in flash.. if u're saying that the boy's face
needed a flash to be lit up then that probably means that the
camera saw the background as more contrasty than ur subject.

Anyhow.. I better shut my mouth since my comments probably wouldn't
mean much to you ppl since i'm NOT a g2 owner.

T

Eric Haglund said:

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

lck0925 said:

Eric Haglund said:

GKL- thanks very much for taking the time on my pics. At this
point, I'd be happier if the problem was behind the camera rather
than in it because I can change what I do a lot easier than I can
change what Canon does.

The swimming picture is not the best example because as you
mentioned the shutter speed, etc.

Click to expand...

"2- DON'T submit 10000 photos and sit back with your arms folded.
Post only those photos where you know you weren't moving, the
subject wasn't moving, the shutter speed wasn't too slow, etc. Post
only pics where the lack of focus has you stumped. If you're not
sure, post it."

U wrote this.

T

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

lck0925 said:

it wasn't really u that got me going tho.. it
was the K (girl i assume) that went off on Bernie (isn't bernie a
character on sesame street? oh wait that was ernie haha).. I know
u're just an honest guy trying to figure out what's up with the
G2.. sorry i kinda dragged u in..

Click to expand...

Kristian S. said:

Kristian (male) Salo

lck0925 said:

it wasn't really u that got me going tho.. it
was the K (girl i assume) that went off on Bernie (isn't bernie a
character on sesame street? oh wait that was ernie haha).. I know
u're just an honest guy trying to figure out what's up with the
G2.. sorry i kinda dragged u in..

Click to expand...

---
http://www.iki.fi/steelduck

Click to expand...

lck0925 said:

je ne comprond pas... = P
tu ne pas du garcon?

T(male)

B nice Kristian

Kristian S. said:

Kristian (male) Salo

lck0925 said:

it wasn't really u that got me going tho.. it
was the K (girl i assume) that went off on Bernie (isn't bernie a
character on sesame street? oh wait that was ernie haha).. I know
u're just an honest guy trying to figure out what's up with the
G2.. sorry i kinda dragged u in..

Click to expand...

---
http://www.iki.fi/steelduck

Click to expand...

Click to expand...