EOS 10D close up focusing issues...please help

Louis4 said:

Also, Canon has released a firmware upgrade which did not address
any AF issues. This means there is no systematic AF issue. There
exists an official statement released by Canon Germany explaining
why one might (seemingly) encounter "AF problems".

Click to expand...

The only thing the firmware upgrade means is that the problems fixed were the software problems that Canon knew about at the time and had a fix for.

Louis4 said:

I invite you to present material which shows a different story or
at least links to sources with a minimum degree of credibility.

Click to expand...

I think that it is pretty clear from Canon's own statements that there is a systematic autofocus issue that affects the 10d, d60, and d30. Basically they used full frame technology for a smaller frame camera. In both cases, the autofocus system guarantees that the subject will be in focus at the same minimum resolution of around 30 lines per mm. But the small frame camera images need more magnification. So the subject in the image you see from the small frame camera may appear to be less in focus.

Why it has become a bigger problem for the 10d than it was in the past and why it affects certain users much more than others is less clear. It does seem clear that for most cameras, the autofocus system is still good enough to be satisfactory to most users. It also seems clear that the controversy surrounding the 10d has caused users to be quicker to find problems with the system.

I am pretty happy with my 10d. I was not too worried about the autofocus system to begin with since most of the pictures I like to are focused on infinity. In the cases, that require more precise focus, my camera seems to be working well.

But I do think that a significant problem in Canon's quality control has come to light and that it will take a while to see how they are able to deal with it.

--
David Jacobson

It would also be nice to see you doing more than hanging around "10D focus issue" threads and doing something constructive for a change.

Hmm, I would have thought my ignoring of everything you post that's remotely directed at me would have made it clear, but since subtlety apparently isn't your strong point, let me be explicit: you opinions about what and where I post, like you opinions about everything else, mean less than nothing to me. I post in threads that I find interesting or entertaining. Again, whether those criteria cause you concern matters not a jot to me. You are an insignificant but slightly annoying background whine to this fourm, like tinnitus. I've learned to live with your presence and mostly tune it out. The arrival of Louis4[4] has usurped your claim to "Canon's #1 Blindly Loyal Groupie", so you're even less interesting than before. Try to resist the temptation to engage me, because, as I've told you before, you're not worth my time. Thank you.

--
http://www.pbase.com/pcockerell
http://www.peter-cockerell.net:8080/

Pete Cockerell said:

Excellent. I poster who makes PearlNecklace look like a reasonable
human being. Just when you thought you'd seen the the limits of
fatuousness, there's always someone who comes along to prove you
wrong.

Click to expand...

PearlRider and I have had good threads in the past. I think all of us can rub each other the wrong way at times. But then you have guys like King Louie the 4th who really work at irritating people. I have no issues with PearlRider. But this other clown is a different story.. he just begs for arguments in almost every thread he visits. He is not content to accept that someone may have a different opinion than his.. he wants to change their opinions... to reinforce his own.

I don't know.. I'm just going to avoid posting anything in direct response to this guy.. he's obviously somewhat taken with his "knowledge" and wishes to make all of us aware of what idiots we are.

He just showed up recently. My guess is he's probably a re-incarnation of a previous persona nongrata.

Jim Radcliffe
--------------------------
http://www.image36.com
The ability to 'see' is more important than the gear.

1) Some few 10Ds do have focusing problems which need calibration by Canon - but quite a small percentage - French Canon site says 1/10 of 1% return for adjustment.

2) Many focusing problems are the result of a difficult to use, somewhat non-intuitive system, (caused by Canon's attempt to give maximum autofocus at a very low price).

3) If you need help POST LINKS TO IMAGES and give full exif data so we can SEE to help you.

4) Problems - IF AF NOT LOCKED TO CENTERPOINT:

a) If contrast is low the camera can choose any of the focusing points where contrast is higher.

b) The focus squares are smaller than the area the camera can search if contrast is low.

c) Even locked to center point if contrast is low the camera can choose a point outside the center square to focus upon. (by about the width of the square).

d) Before panicking - RTM and set the asterisk button to focus with. This locks focus EXCEPT when using the asterisk button. Does it now focus where expected (with normal contrast subjects)? If so practice and learn the system. If it DOESN'T focus tests may be indicated (search forum for examples).

e) This is a rather complex subject - we really need an info page on this but none exists as yet. Lots of info here and on Rob Galbraith but not collated yet.

Hang in there and best wishes...

Well, Pearl's reputation is founded on his pursuing 10D AF threads with the same irrational zealotry that Louis is doing now. That and his habit of inventing fictional conspiracies in which a "posse" of Enemies of Canon use coordinated attacks in order to bring The Company to its knees. But what really did it for me was when he accused me of lying on more than one occasion, as though any sane person would lie about buying and returning a camera just to further his "agenda" (another Pearlism). In reality, he's no better than Louis. Maybe he just changed his meds, which is why he's a little calmer nowadays.

Cheers,
Pete

Jim Radcliffe said:

Pete Cockerell said:

Excellent. I poster who makes PearlNecklace look like a reasonable
human being. Just when you thought you'd seen the the limits of
fatuousness, there's always someone who comes along to prove you
wrong.

Click to expand...

PearlRider and I have had good threads in the past. I think all of
us can rub each other the wrong way at times. But then you have
guys like King Louie the 4th who really work at irritating people.
I have no issues with PearlRider. But this other clown is a
different story.. he just begs for arguments in almost every thread
he visits. He is not content to accept that someone may have a
different opinion than his.. he wants to change their opinions...
to reinforce his own.

I don't know.. I'm just going to avoid posting anything in direct
response to this guy.. he's obviously somewhat taken with his
"knowledge" and wishes to make all of us aware of what idiots we
are.

He just showed up recently. My guess is he's probably a
re-incarnation of a previous persona nongrata.

Jim Radcliffe
--------------------------
http://www.image36.com
The ability to 'see' is more important than the gear.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/pcockerell
http://www.peter-cockerell.net:8080/

pcockerell said:

PS Calling someone "anal retentive" isn't actually an insult. In
fact, in your case, it's a masterpiece of understatement.

Click to expand...

Same for you: Talk photography or leave it. One more remark like that, and I'll report you.

...for taking the time and compiling the information available!

GBear said:

e) This is a rather complex subject

Click to expand...

It's actually not that "complex". Especially the Af of the 10D is based on the already prooven system of the EOS 30 film camera. There are some special issues due to the fact that the 10D is a digital camera, but otherwise, there isn't really anything new, "complex" or even "problematic" about the 10D's AF.

But a FAQ would be very helpful, definitly!

LOL, I notice you're pretty big on "reporting" people. You have graduated from grade school, I assume? Anyway, be my guest. My policy on these forums is to speak my mind using whatever language I see fit. If I get banned owing to complaints from overgrown kids like you, then I'll wear it as a badge of honor, and go on with my life.

Cheers,
Pete

Louis44 said:

Louis44 said:

PS Calling someone "anal retentive" isn't actually an insult. In
fact, in your case, it's a masterpiece of understatement.

Click to expand...

Same for you: Talk photography or leave it. One more remark like
that, and I'll report you.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/pcockerell
http://www.peter-cockerell.net:8080/

I meant "overgrown anonymous kids like you..." Sorry about that.

Cheers,
Pete

--
http://www.pbase.com/pcockerell
http://www.peter-cockerell.net:8080/

mushedroom said:

so
i'm noticing that i'm getting alot of soft images from shooting
subjects less than 6 feet in front of me...using center focus, i'm
noticing that some areas of the shot are soft while other areas
where i wasn't focusing on are sharp....
ugh
i've never experienced this kind of a prob with my EOS 3 so i'm a
little perplexed...i even did a side by side test with film and
noticed a considerable focusing issue with the digital shots

could it be the body?
luckily the store i bought from is willing to swap out the body,
happily...i wonder if it's because they've received some kind of
letter from canon stating that this issue is continuiously
happening to certain bodies...
any light on this subject...
i think i read that 1 out of 5 bodies had this issue
please help
thanks

--
live free, shoot well~~

Click to expand...

--
if it aint shot, go shoot it!

Pete Cockerell said:

Well, Pearl's reputation is founded on his pursuing 10D AF threads
with the same irrational zealotry that Louis is doing now. That and
his habit of inventing fictional conspiracies in which a "posse" of
Enemies of Canon use coordinated attacks in order to bring The
Company to its knees. But what really did it for me was when he
accused me of lying on more than one occasion, as though any sane
person would lie about buying and returning a camera just to
further his "agenda" (another Pearlism). In reality, he's no better
than Louis. Maybe he just changed his meds, which is why he's a
little calmer nowadays.

Cheers,
Pete

Click to expand...

Unlike you and a few others, I try to stay on the topic of discussion. But, like you've demonstrated in this thread as well as others, you've been the antagonzier and have brought my name into discussions where, up to that point, I've not been involved at all. You're really here just to cause conflict. As for my involvement in this forum, I've been participating in many other facets but your ONLY involvement has been dwelling SOLELY on the "10D focus issue" threads where the most CONFLICT appears.