Would calibration help sharpen my photos?

As obnoxious as that post sounds........I'm almost starting to believe it.

I'm struggling to get good shots with this lens big time.... It really does seem like the 18-55 kit lens with more reach.
--
My Gallery:
http://flickr.com/photos/27982239@N02/

If you ever explain your unsatisfactory images as being "soft" or "blurry"... the chances are that you might be doing something wrong. There are several things that could contribute to such shots:

1. AF problems
2. Optical problems
3. User errors (also includes focus shifting related "blur")

So how do we find out which one it is?

AF problems: shoot a focusing chart that shows the point of focus. Verify with LiveView (since you got a 450D)

Optical problems: Is the sharpness of the frame symmetrical? It'd be harder to detect a problem with optics if the entire frame is equally OOF.

User errors: Hardest to check Google and other search facilities are good for this

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

Another sample, though I am not sure about the cause of this one - this does just look out of focus but not sure why.

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109248236

Again 1/60 of a second, and f4.5 although at the longer length of 105. Again, fill flash. Now I can't really see anything in focus. Surely the IS should remove any camera shake - I certainly used to be able to handhold 105 wide open on my old film EOS 100?

I'll try to find another one which is more obviously suspect though.

There is this one - again at around 1/60 of a second.

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109248427

I'll dig out some more tonight from another wedding I did , and maybe a few model shoots - but it does seem to happen when I am quickly focussing and then recomposing and shooting? Either the recompose is wrong(?) or the IS is still adjusting, or the whole thing needs cailbrating.

Or I am just a rubbish photographer! But then I do have some nice images too. And I have been using SLRs since 1985, so I do know a bit about shutter speeds and apertures.

I guess you must be a bit cynical having your two most expensive lenses most off,
though I can understand canons approach if they try to adjust the lens until
it is on or front of focus rather than risking a backfocus since a backfokus

would lead to a greater risk of the central part of the image being completely soft.

I had my 85 1.8 calibrated and I think it is better but don't have the nerves
to do a proper test right now...

Ben_Egbert said:

I have had the following equipment calibrated and always had front
focus afterward.

10D
20D
5D
17-40 (+1)
35L (+12)
24-105 (+9)
70-200f2.8IS (+8)
400f5.6 (+1)
500f4 (+12)

The numbers in parenthesis is the number of clicks of micro adjust to
get the lens properly adjusted. And this is after the lenses were
calibrated at Canon Irvine service.

--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus/root

Ben

Click to expand...

pacc said:

I guess you must be a bit cynical having your two most expensive
lenses most off,
though I can understand canons approach if they try to adjust the
lens until
it is on or front of focus rather than risking a backfocus since a
backfokus
would lead to a greater risk of the central part of the image being
completely soft.

Click to expand...

That has occurred to me that Canon bias to front focus since that all I have ever seen. Maybe for most types of photography this is better, but not me.

In landscapes, I want sharpness to infinity. I want to see the rocks and trees on the mountain with some detail. For birds, I want the eye sharp not the front wing, or worse yet, the water rippling in front of it.

pacc said:

I had my 85 1.8 calibrated and I think it is better but don't have
the nerves
to do a proper test right now...

pacc said:

I have had the following equipment calibrated and always had front
focus afterward.

10D
20D
5D
17-40 (+1)
35L (+12)
24-105 (+9)
70-200f2.8IS (+8)
400f5.6 (+1)
500f4 (+12)

The numbers in parenthesis is the number of clicks of micro adjust to
get the lens properly adjusted. And this is after the lenses were
calibrated at Canon Irvine service.

--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus/root

Ben

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus/root

Ben

geoantmcc said:

Another sample, though I am not sure about the cause of this one -
this does just look out of focus but not sure why.

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109248236

Again 1/60 of a second, and f4.5 although at the longer length of
105. Again, fill flash. Now I can't really see anything in focus.
Surely the IS should remove any camera shake - I certainly used to be
able to handhold 105 wide open on my old film EOS 100?

Click to expand...

Perhaps the boy was moving the head.

The shirt (at least right arm sleave,and the right leg corduroy pants look sort of sharp).

Regarding the DOF. (www.dofmaster.com) CoC is an arbitrary number. As I said, for a FF it's usually 0.03mm. That is a 30um circle, which translates as any point spread over 3.5 pixels is still considered sharp.

In dofmaster you can choose your own CoC. So, let's say, we take 0.008 for the 5D, and now 105, f4.5 and 3 meters distance, that gives you a 6cm DOF for a pixel level (of your camera) sharpness.

If you accept the normal CoC of 0.03mm as sharp, then your Dof will be 21cm.

This is perhaps not the problem that we are looking at in your pics.

The problem seems to be wrong focal plane (1. pic), and motion blur 2. and definitvely 3. picture.

geoantmcc said:

I'll try to find another one which is more obviously suspect though.

There is this one - again at around 1/60 of a second.

Click to expand...

This is obvious motion blur on the head.
The button on the shirt neck is sharp, most likely because it was in the dark,
and only illuminated by the short flash.
1/60 is just too slow here.

geoantmcc said:

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109248427

I'll dig out some more tonight from another wedding I did , and maybe
a few model shoots - but it does seem to happen when I am quickly
focussing and then recomposing and shooting? Either the recompose is
wrong(?) or the IS is still adjusting,

Click to expand...

definitively moving around quickly will cause problems, IS not settled, movement.

geoantmcc said:

or the whole thing needs
cailbrating.

Or I am just a rubbish photographer! But then I do have some nice
images too. And I have been using SLRs since 1985, so I do know a
bit about shutter speeds and apertures.

Click to expand...

I've been taking pictures since 1978, I still occasionally blur a picture when shooting under reasonable bright conditions (moving the camera too fast). Perhaps I'm not as patient anymore as I used to be - partially because I can delete a bad shot instantly, while with film I made sure the shot is right (also manual focus then), and no pixel peeping.

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

It's anyone's guess until you run the lens through a test or two.

I wouldn't rule the lens out... definitely possible it's front/back focused, but based on your samples I wouldn't rule out user error either. If you want the eyes sharp, why not focus on an eye? In your second sample you focused on the middle-left side of his shirt. You also used 1/60 shutter speed with a focal length of 105.

Test the lens.

Thanks for your comments!

Though I am glad I am thick skinned! Undoubtedly some are due to user error - no question. Most of my focussing is done with the centre point, on the face (eye can be a bit difficult when working quickly) and then reframe.

By the way - I wasn't implying that because I have been using slrs since '85 I was brilliant, or couldn't take out of focus pictures, just that I am not a newbie so I do have some understanding of the effects of aperture and shutter speed. I am sure you are far more knowledgeable than I on such matters!

Thing is - am I expecting too much from IS? I know 1/60 is a bit slow without it, but I thought the point of IS was to give 2 to 3 stops more of handholding? In the old days I would have hand held 105 at 1/125 and prefereably 1/250 but I would have thought that IS would have given me at least 1/60??

No, do Candid photographers use IS? Or photo-journalist style wedding photographers? Maybe this is another reason why the 24-70 is so popular with them? Because it does not have IS?

My gut feeling is that this lens is not quite as sharp as I think it should be - though I do accept there is a lot of room for user error in the photos I have shown you so far. I will do some tests in the next few days, both with and without IS, and using a tripod, and maybe compare to my old 28-105 - then send it off for recalibration and see if anything changes!

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109282245&exif=Y
(taken throught a hotel window too!)

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109282430&exif=Y

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109282720&exif=Y

All seem pretty fine.

This is one from my sister-in-law's wedding (not asking for C&C on the shot thank you!) but although it is sharp, it does not seem THAT sharp? Or again - am I expecting too much?? And it has a fair bit of USM applied too.

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109282772&exif=Y

Thanks people! I do appreciate the time taken to look, analyse and reply!

George

And the lens seems perfect.

AI-Focus......Centre-Focus point.....F8 ...Beautiful.



I think it just needs a bit of getting used to, and its fine.

(This had noise reduction applied, as it was taken in low light at ISO800....then brightened further in post).
--
My Gallery:
http://flickr.com/photos/27982239@N02/

Nice shot!

I did a quick test this afternoon - not entirely meaingful but was pleasantly surprised that the 28-105 mk1 USM did better than I thought - but should the "L" be better?

Not sure it tells us much to be honest but I will post them anyway - 100% crops

24-105 IS on
http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109289105

24-105 IS off
http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109289108

28-105 USM Mk1 (approx 1993 vintage)
http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109289111

Admittedly this is just in the road and not the primary point of focus!

geoantmcc said:

Thanks for your comments!

Though I am glad I am thick skinned! Undoubtedly some are due to user
error - no question. Most of my focussing is done with the centre
point, on the face (eye can be a bit difficult when working quickly)
and then reframe.

By the way - I wasn't implying that because I have been using slrs
since '85 I was brilliant, or couldn't take out of focus pictures,
just that I am not a newbie so I do have some understanding of the
effects of aperture and shutter speed. I am sure you are far more
knowledgeable than I on such matters!

Thing is - am I expecting too much from IS? I know 1/60 is a bit
slow without it, but I thought the point of IS was to give 2 to 3
stops more of handholding? In the old days I would have hand held 105
at 1/125 and prefereably 1/250 but I would have thought that IS would
have given me at least 1/60??

No, do Candid photographers use IS? Or photo-journalist style
wedding photographers? Maybe this is another reason why the 24-70 is
so popular with them? Because it does not have IS?

My gut feeling is that this lens is not quite as sharp as I think it
should be - though I do accept there is a lot of room for user error
in the photos I have shown you so far. I will do some tests in the
next few days, both with and without IS, and using a tripod, and
maybe compare to my old 28-105 - then send it off for recalibration
and see if anything changes!

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109282245&exif=Y
(taken throught a hotel window too!)

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109282430&exif=Y

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109282720&exif=Y

All seem pretty fine.

Click to expand...

yes, look fine and sharp, lens seems ok.

geoantmcc said:

This is one from my sister-in-law's wedding (not asking for C&C on
the shot thank you!) but although it is sharp, it does not seem THAT
sharp? Or again - am I expecting too much?? And it has a fair bit of
USM applied too.

http://www.pbase.com/georgemccann/image/109282772&exif=Y

Click to expand...

sharp, but focus on statue in back, that's all, hence faces start to get soft and flowers at front OoF

geoantmcc said:

Thanks people! I do appreciate the time taken to look, analyse and
reply!

George

Click to expand...

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

I've learned not to shoot kids or people who are not focused on being posed at slower than 1/125th. Your image in front of the statue is at 1/200th, and the result looks like a DOF issue because the focus on the statue is fine. Image Stabilization helps with some things, but in my experience mostly takes care of camera shake not subject movement. I've had some tack sharp 16x20" prints from my 24-105mm f/4 L and 5D combination, and when they're not, it's always me, not the camera or the lens.
--
'The humble improve' -Wynton Marsalis

Ach Well. Maybe it is me after all - possibly expecting miracles.

I do have a niggling feeling about the focus being out so I will send them for calibration. If I am still not happy after that I have to accept that I am not as good as I thought!

Thanks to all who commented.

G