Reading mode: Light Dark

The outcome of the Official 10D AF test in Korea

Go to last post
Yep, I do that all the time in my job.

Of course, I also recommend additional testing so that I have more data about the new piece of fruit that I'm trying to analyze.

Nobody's given additional data yet about the testing that took place, other than what's been posted here in this thread.

My main assumption is that the testing was done in good light with a high-contrast target. Why do I make that assumption? Because I assume that Canon and LG had a vested interest in giving the cameras the highest marks they could for focusing correctly.
JamesM said:
So as an engineer you find it OK to extrapolate information about
apples from another piece of fruit? I have problems with that.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
There are quite a few who have done just that. And most of them get the issue resolved, it seems. Though it sometimes requires sending the camera and your lenses back, too (because it's not just a body issue).

I'm sure if you started a thread asking exactly that question, you'd get people who've sent it back to answer your question. Or you could try to sift through all the posts in the forum and see for yourself.

Or, you could trust me, and believe me when I say "yes, send the camera in". The first thing I'd do, though, is find out what the current wait time is at NJ. If it's still running several weeks, then I'd find out if Irvine can do it faster. It's a shame to wait more than a week to 10 days for the camera to be returned to you.
Robert Burkhalter said:
What I'm
basically asking is should I, once I notice autofocus front or back
focusing, send it in to canon or is that a hopeless deal. I don't
need them to render it perfect. I simply need them to make it
usable while I wait for the 1d upgrade.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
Why that's so hard to understand (along with the assumption of shooting in good conditions for AF) is beyond me.

It's not like if we asked a direct question we'd get an answer. Surely the people who were there could tell from the posts so far that we have these questions.

Until they are answered, assumptions have to be made.
Stefan Schott said:
I for one never said the test was a success or a failure. I just
stated that 6.8% error margin would not be acceptable to me
personally (see my initial "nt" post above). And let me specify
this now, what I mean is 6.8% is not acceptable to me under any but
the most atrocious shooting conditions.
And furthermore, if it's really true what some posts indicate, that
some of the samples were photographed with other than wide open
apertures and with the aid of a flash (including its AF illuminator
I presume), well, then the 6.8% is even more problematic.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
Here's what was said:

"SLR club members seemed to agree on this point as well, at east on an official note."

I'm gonna assume that "east" is supposed to bt "least".

Now, let me at my emphasis to the sentence:

SLR club members SEEMED to agree on this point as well, at least on an official note.

Why the "seemed" ?

And why the addition of the phrase "at least on an official note".

It sounds to me more like they were simply tired of the whole issue, and that Canon/LG weren't really giving them what they wanted.
Ashley Cheng said:
One more thing interested me though. The Korean people seem to be
quite critical on this issue (the 10% return rate confirmed that),
why then do you think that they accept the results? I wonder.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
You are correct. The mis-calibration part of "10D focus issues" (there are more than one of them) is common to all Canon SLRs (digital or not).

Did you also have a 1Ds that needed to be calibrated? I guess I got lucky. Only one of my two 1D's needed a calibration.
Stefan Schott said:
I can't speak for David but for me it's clear from my own
experience with the 1D and 1Ds that AF miscalibration is not a
problem of the 10D only. It is a problem of Canon's AF per design
and Canon's quality control.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
You got more picky with your results. You didn't KNOW how crappy the Rebel-II was until you used something better.
tcp100 said:
I had an el-cheapo EOS Rebel II for ten years. Never thought its AF
was a problem or tough to work with. I took plenty of shots in all
different situations, using manual when I had to, and letting the
AF do its thing most of the time.

Then I got my 10D.

Now I find the old crappy Rebel II completely unusable.

Why d'ya think that is?? :) Has something in my Rebel II
malfunctioned in the past two weeks after 10 years of faithful
service? Doubt it.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
hello mr nikkon troll......
daytontp said:
Parallax said:
Did this post get buried in the noise? No comments? I wonder how
the 279 shots were selected. How many of them were under difficult
conditions? It would have been interesting to use at least one
other lens, such as the 70-200 f/4L, which many have reported as
having a backfocus issue with the 10D. Anyway, this certainly
shows that if you have a complaint, send it to Canon for adjustment.
Click to expand...
--
'More people shoot Nikon than all other companies combined'. quote
from 2003 Nikon Presentation. http://www.pbase.com/daytontp/
Click to expand...
--



Steve
If I was a horse they'd shoot me......
10D/NO Minolta stuff/ETRSI/5X4 & kodak Instamatic.
Some sarcasim included, may need assembly.
 
But several have said that their D60 was more accurate (when it locked focus) than the 10D.
JamesM said:
This is a MID LEVEL SLR, guys. No one would expect an ELAN 7 to
have perfect AF. Why are you expecting a 10d?
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
Try again about the fact that they "accepted the results". Read the sentence again. Quote it exactly. You are allowed to replace "east" by "least".

I don't care how the 10D fares against the D100. That's not exactly an issue, since the D100 doesn't take EF lenses.
digitaltourist said:
Afraid of the facts? You mean like the fact that the 10D's did
better in the same test than the venerable Nikon D100? Or, how
about the fact that the most critical members of the most vocal
camera club (on the focus issue anyway) in the world have accepted
the results and are satisfied?

Those are facts, what you have presented is once again 99%
assumption and 1% hyperbole.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
Before I can start "another" thread on the subject, I have to start ONE.
digitaltourist said:
That is a hoot David. You are now concerned about the facts? Why
don't you take your own advice.

Anyway, no one would read that as literal as you did unless they
were looking for a red herring. Go ahead and try to change the
subject, however the intent of the post is still valid. You have
posted several times as an outspoken critic of the 10D focus and as
a result of propogated more rhetoric and hyperbole on this issue
than anyone else. That is a fact.

Beside, I never said that you had started any 10D sucks threads.
I simply asked that you get your facts straight before you start
another thread about focus issues. I agree that the wording is
vague, however I think you as well as everyone else understood that
the "another" in this context referered to the topic of the thread
and not necessarily to any other prior activity on your part.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
The problem is that you cannot compare apples and oranges. Contrary to your assertation, I do NOT believe that any engineer (which type are you, btw? Please don't tell me a train engineer) would so carelessly make an assertation not knowing all of the data.

What is interesting about your comments is that you repeat them over and over with very little information. i.e. no sample of 10ds. No knowledge - in reality - of how tests were performed. No first hand usage of a single unit (not that it would necessarilly be statiscially valid anyway)...

All you have is some first hand, subjective, information with a very different camera with a very different AF sensor.

Explain to me again what kind of engineer would be doing what you say they do?

This has become horribly banal to me.

-JM
DavidP said:
Of course, I also recommend additional testing so that I have more
data about the new piece of fruit that I'm trying to analyze.

Nobody's given additional data yet about the testing that took
place, other than what's been posted here in this thread.

My main assumption is that the testing was done in good light with
a high-contrast target. Why do I make that assumption? Because
I assume that Canon and LG had a vested interest in giving the
cameras the highest marks they could for focusing correctly.
JamesM said:
So as an engineer you find it OK to extrapolate information about
apples from another piece of fruit? I have problems with that.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and
tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
Click to expand...
--
http://www.MasterworkPhotography.com
 
Thanks for the additional translation.

Maybe we need a dozen people who speak Korean to summarize the thread for us, and then we can maybe figure out what was said.

Or maybe Canon can hold a similar test here in the US. I'm sure that mini-me would LOVE to show up. ;)

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
I don't know. That's just my impression after reading the original post.

Why the "seemed"? Perhaps your guess is correct or perhaps the original poster, Solo, wasn't that sure himself on that statement as he was just relying on Babbelfish translation?

Try this: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5805881

Perhaps Solo or Papablue, a native Korean speaker, could help us clarify this point.

Did the SLR club members accept the result or did they not?

DavidP wrote:
0.
DavidP #28649 said:
SLR club members SEEMED to agree on this point as well, at least on
an official note.

Why the "seemed" ?

And why the addition of the phrase "at least on an official note".
Click to expand...
 
I'm a petroleum engineer. Specifically a reservoir engineer.

We NEVER have enough data, and are paid to extrapolate based on analogy, experience, and reliance upon less-than-perfect data like seismic and geological interpretations.

I do this every day. Perhaps that's why I'm comfortable doing it. One is very unlikely to get all the data he wants in analyzing things like this over the internet. So you can either sit back and not make any conclusions, or you can try to analyze what you know, and fill in the rest as best you can.
JamesM said:
The problem is that you cannot compare apples and oranges.
Contrary to your assertation, I do NOT believe that any engineer
(which type are you, btw? Please don't tell me a train engineer)
would so carelessly make an assertation not knowing all of the data.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
I couldn't make heads or tails out of the BabelFish translation. =
Ashley Cheng said:
I don't know. That's just my impression after reading the original
post.

Why the "seemed"? Perhaps your guess is correct or perhaps the
original poster, Solo, wasn't that sure himself on that statement
as he was just relying on Babbelfish translation?

Try this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5805881

Perhaps Solo or Papablue, a native Korean speaker, could help us
clarify this point.

Did the SLR club members accept the result or did they not?
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
DavidP said:
Did you also have a 1Ds that needed to be calibrated?
Click to expand...
Yes I did. It's fine now.

The funny thing is that right after it came back from CPS my AF test results were abysmal, pretty much same as before the repair. But after a couple of days worth of shooting the camera performed much better, even with the 1.4/50 wide open and certainly with the better lenses, including the 1.8/85 and 2.0/135. I called CPS and asked them whether their cameras need to be broken-in, kind of like a new car. The tech said he had experienced this same strange effect a number of times with cameras they had in the workshop and he had also heard this same feedback from more than one customers. He had no explanation at hand why this is so, not even a guess.

Later I bought a used 1.8/200 L and was fortunate enough to be able to select the better one out of two, both in excellent shape. One of them was backfocusing grossly (even visible on the LCD screen of the 1Ds), the other one was dead-on every time. You know the margin for error at f=1.8 and 200 mm is absolutely zero so I guess they actually did a good job at CPS re-calibrating my 1Ds. It goes against logic and is in contradiction to what I've said in the past but I'm now convinced the lenses have a big say as well when it comes to AF. The only two lenses that still don't work correctly on the 1Ds are the Sigma 70-200 EX (at 200 mm, 70 is fine) and the Sigma 15-30 EX (at 15 mm, this one doesn't AF correctly on the 1D either, nor on the 300V I have) and I'm simply going to get rid of them.

Cheers
Stefan
 
it is as cryptic to me as the original page. :-P
DavidP said:
Ashley Cheng said:
I don't know. That's just my impression after reading the original
post.

Why the "seemed"? Perhaps your guess is correct or perhaps the
original poster, Solo, wasn't that sure himself on that statement
as he was just relying on Babbelfish translation?

Try this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5805881

Perhaps Solo or Papablue, a native Korean speaker, could help us
clarify this point.

Did the SLR club members accept the result or did they not?
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and
tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
Click to expand...
 
The "Break-In" period sounds like hocus-pocus to me. LOL. Probably just a bit of re-training yourself NOT to do the things you were (subconciously) doing to fight the back/front-focus you had before? Now, if these conclusions were based on actual focus tests (tripod, etc), then I don't know what to say.

You are correct, though. It's not just a body problem, but a lens problem.

We're all wondering how many BODIES are out of calibration . . . I wonder how many LENSES are out of calibration.

My 200/1.8 seems pretty good, though I haven't done a formal "ruler test" on it.
Stefan Schott said:
Yes I did. It's fine now.
The funny thing is that right after it came back from CPS my AF
test results were abysmal, pretty much same as before the repair.
But after a couple of days worth of shooting the camera performed
much better, even with the 1.4/50 wide open and certainly with the
better lenses, including the 1.8/85 and 2.0/135. I called CPS and
asked them whether their cameras need to be broken-in, kind of like
a new car. The tech said he had experienced this same strange
effect a number of times with cameras they had in the workshop and
he had also heard this same feedback from more than one customers.
He had no explanation at hand why this is so, not even a guess.
Later I bought a used 1.8/200 L and was fortunate enough to be able
to select the better one out of two, both in excellent shape. One
of them was backfocusing grossly (even visible on the LCD screen of
the 1Ds), the other one was dead-on every time. You know the margin
for error at f=1.8 and 200 mm is absolutely zero so I guess they
actually did a good job at CPS re-calibrating my 1Ds. It goes
against logic and is in contradiction to what I've said in the past
but I'm now convinced the lenses have a big say as well when it
comes to AF. The only two lenses that still don't work correctly on
the 1Ds are the Sigma 70-200 EX (at 200 mm, 70 is fine) and the
Sigma 15-30 EX (at 15 mm, this one doesn't AF correctly on the 1D
either, nor on the 300V I have) and I'm simply going to get rid of
them.

Cheers
Stefan
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top