Please stop, please....

[DavidP #28649]

Errrr...the singer cant move backwards more than forwards because
he would eventually fall off his stool!!!!!

Hmmm, maybe you're right. Of course, moving forward generally tends to result in hitting the mic . . . that must be the reason for my observations.

seriously though...it doesnt look like a focus issue to me...more
like a DOF issue...and thats down to aperture setting not the
cameras autofocus

It's both -- yes, there's shallow DOF. But there's not much I can do about that. ISO 1600, 200mm, f/2.8, 1/100.

But, a properly focused image (say 7" in front of eyes and 5" in back of eyes would give me more flexibility.

So, no, there's nothing really wrong with THIS image. And if the camera would always give me images like that (in even lower lighting) I probably wouldn't complain much.

--
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

 

[werner]

I used to spend many hours lurking and sometimes posting an opinion
in this forum. Then the 10D came along and I bought one as soon as
I could back on the 1st of april. Since then I have spent less and
less time on this forum because It is no longer a place to get and
share digital camera help. I am so sick of people complaining about
the 10D. I myself have one that focues dead on when I use it
correctly with the right exposuse, iso and functions set. It has
produced many wonderful pictures and many not so because I did
something wrong, just like what used to happen with my Canon A1
film camera.
What really gets me is people who are bashing the 10D forget that
just a few years ago a camera with all the capabilties of the 10D
would cost at least twice as much and this is the point that really
irks me. Please return or don't buy one at all or for that matter
get the Nikon D100 or one of the other competitors.
All of you whinning posters have to realize you are not buying a
$5000 dollar camera but instead a very good $1500 camera that far
exceeds anything before it in that price range. I for one am
thrilled with how it performs. I don't know how to put this nicely.
The whinners without a real faulty camera, are a bunch of idiots
who don't want to take the time or put in the effort to learn how
to properly use a high tech camera. They seem to want to cry and
complain here and it makes me sick because I can no longer come
here and learn.
So to conclude, it's only a $1500 dollar camera and in many cases
cost less than the lens sitting on it so Please, Please stop the
constant never ending complaining and either sell it or skip it so
those who really have one and want to learn how to get the best out
of it can return to this forum.
OK, I finished.
don.

--

 

[Tom O'Neil]

My old film has focus issues also. My theory is I used to be an idiot. Back in my cub reporter days I would show something to our photographer and he would say, "That's not sharp." It wasn't too obvious to me back then for some reason but now it is. How did I get ANY reasonably sharp football photos back in '83? After scanning some of the negatives recently, truth is there aren't very many. I'm no longer an idiot because my current camera has EF and AI Servo.

Fact is also that I recently bought a Minolta Dimage 5400 film
scanner and I'm buzy scanning in my 30 years archive (will take
years). Guess what: looking at the 2700 to 3500 dpi scans of my
film on the PC, at least 30%, if not more, have focus issues.

 

[DavidP #28649]

I noticed focusing issues in my EOS-3, as well. I mainly noticed them, though, when I'd look at the 2400 dpi scans I'd do.

I think a LOT of people simply don't look critically at their images to see focus issues.

Yes, you'll see a lot of other things, too (like motion blur). But the focus issues are there.

My old film has focus issues also. My theory is I used to be an
idiot. Back in my cub reporter days I would show something to our
photographer and he would say, "That's not sharp." It wasn't too
obvious to me back then for some reason but now it is. How did I
get ANY reasonably sharp football photos back in '83? After
scanning some of the negatives recently, truth is there aren't very
many. I'm no longer an idiot because my current camera has EF and
AI Servo.

--
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

 

[Luther Foreman]

I used to spend many hours lurking and sometimes posting an opinion
in this forum. Then the 10D came along and I bought one as soon as

I agree fully with your sentiments. When I bought my 10D and lenses, I decided to visiit this forum to mingle with others who might be sharing in my experiences and to have a place to air questions regarding Canon camera issues. I don't know what I expected, but I think I felt I would leave my visits with a feeling that reinforced my decision to switch to the Canon camp, or at least to feel that I was learning more about photography using Canon equipment. Instead, I usually leave with a feeling of depression. One would wonder why anyone would buy a 10D after reading the many threads in this forum regarding focus.

Although I don't have a focus issue that I know of, I always leave here thinking I might have. I'm sure that somewhere in past messages there exists an explanation of how bad this phenomenom is when it exists. From the threads, it would seem that getting a sharply focused picture might be an unlikely event. Since I have taken many shots and have not had any that would lead me to believe I have a problem, I've decided not to expend effort investigating the issue further. I'm sure that there is a real issue and that it exists on some percentage of cameras or camera lens combinations and that it affects some percentage of pictures taken of certain subject matter in specific conditions. I perhaps delude myself by believing that the issue is rather minimal and can be ignored if one has been taking pictures with satisfactory results. I keep coming back to visiit to see if anything ever changes and leave once again, depressed.

--
lou

 

[DavidP #28649]

Amazing. That's exactly why there are so many PROBLEMS discussed here. Because this is where they come to discuss them.

It's as if some people would go to a morgue and complain about how many of the people there are dead.

I agree fully with your sentiments. When I bought my 10D and
lenses, I decided to visiit this forum to mingle with others who
might be sharing in my experiences and to have a place to air
questions regarding Canon camera issues.

--
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

 

[Pearl Rider]

It's as if some people would go to a morgue and complain about how
many of the people there are dead.

They died trying to weed through all the focus issue threads to get to some relevent camera/photography information. ;-)

P.S. People don't ONLY come here to discuss problems. They ALSO come here to LEARN about their cameras... not how BAD they REALLY are and they're just too stupid to know it.

 

[Pearl Rider]

If you don't understand that it's imporant, and WHY it's VERY
important, then you clearly do NOT understand the issue at all.

It's all a matter of the subject size relative to the focus point
size.

Jeeze! Give it a REST, David. You really expect someone to go out
and shoot a wild animal in the open at the SAME distance and the
SAME environment and the same lens using the SAME (try and fool the
AF system) technique as someone else did before it qualifies?
Looking at John's 10D shot, his AF sensor was in a lit area of the
bird's wing. Looking at mine, the AF point would have to be in the
same general area as his was with one BIG exception... the target
area in my shot was NOT lit by direct sunlight and even MORE of a
challenge to obtain a proper focus from. You didn't lay any of
these prerequisites out before and you changed the parameters just
as I predicted you would do. You simply said that other people may
not be seeing any issues because they're not shooting. Here are
your EXACT words...
"Find John Mankos' shot of the robin. Where the 10D's AF failed
miserably. And where the D60 was perfect.
Then go take a a bunch of very similar shots, and see your results.
I don't think it's a generalization to say that in those
conditions, the 10D is worse than the D60.
Now, most people may not shoot that type of shot, or be quite as
picky about the AF (see PearlRider's tiger shot, for example). That
doesn't mean that their 10D doesn't do the exact same thing. It's
simply a matter of their usage and their degree of satisfation with
what they want not being the plane of focus."
Two things here... I did go take a smiliar shot and the AF didn't
"fail miserably"... it succeeded. So... you HAD to change your
story to keep from being WRONG.
Secondly, you maintain that John took the same shot with BOTH the
10D and D60. How do we know where HIS focus points were on the D60
shot? Did he even POST the D60 shot? How did he get a robin to
stand in the same spot long enough to take exactly the same shot
with BOTH cameras? You've taken this ball from John and are running
for a touchdown with it. It's HIS camera and HIS problem yet YOU
are making more noise about it than HE is. I find that rather odd.
Does all this sound far-fetched to anybody else? Like I've said
before, your whole premise is silly and your crusade has blinded
you.
You REALLY need to get out of that chair and go take some pictures.
My wife and I went shooting down here yesterday.



It's such a beautiful place. Very relaxing.

 

[ratz2plt]

Actually that should be "Whoever whinnes about whinners is a bigger whinner".

However whines about whiners is a bigger whiner!

Actually that should be "However whinnes about whinners is a bigger
whinner" - certainly on this cite, uh - sight that is. I think my
lense may be fogged.

This is a remarkably entertaining zite tho not very enformativ latly.

--
Thanks for any help!!!

 

[David Martin]

I really wanted the eyes to be closer to the center of the DOF.
I tried to focus on his beard, as I recall.

By my calculations, I should have 12 inches of DOF -- half in
front, half behind.

If the eyes were closer to the center of the DOF, then I'd have a
built-in "slop factor" for when ol' Don decided to move his head
backwards.

If he moved his head forward a lot (and rarely backwards), then I
suppose I'd be happy with what I got. But he (and other
performers) will typically move backwards, more than forwards.

David I have found your comments interesting but this one FLOORS
ME. It looks perfectly focused. The focus plane includes the eyes
and face and a little of the mike. You wanted the MIKE but not the
face ? I am now beginning to think you may have been doing this
too long. Did you take this pic? Looks GREAT to me. I am sure
you will say I am just not picky. Think what you like; this one
has really changed my perception of you. And I am aware you could
care LESS about that!

--
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

David, I've followed and accept many of your and Mishkin's arguments about focus, and certainly support your right to air them here - any genuine concern should be aired.

However, I'm starting to think that maybe cameras in the 10D class just don't have the accuracy you need, and that presumably would apply to things like the D100 as well.

I can't remember the exact figures,but the accuracy of the 1D class cameras is given at around 3 times that of the 10D.
They are just not as precise.

It irritates me too, and I certainly plan to move up to a better systemwhen I can, 1D or 3D or whatever, but if something is operating within it's design specs it really boils down to deciding if those specs meet your needs.
The 10D has only been marketed as a consumer camera and with wider tolerances.

I think you just need higher spec for your very fine work, and the same thing applies to those who do bird photography etc.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[DavidP #28649]

I'm already using a 1D (two of them, actually).

I'd hate to think what I'd get with a 10D.

David, I've followed and accept many of your and Mishkin's
arguments about focus, and certainly support your right to air them
here - any genuine concern should be aired.
However, I'm starting to think that maybe cameras in the 10D class
just don't have the accuracy you need, and that presumably would
apply to things like the D100 as well.
I can't remember the exact figures,but the accuracy of the 1D class
cameras is given at around 3 times that of the 10D.
They are just not as precise.
It irritates me too, and I certainly plan to move up to a better
systemwhen I can, 1D or 3D or whatever, but if something is
operating within it's design specs it really boils down to deciding
if those specs meet your needs.
The 10D has only been marketed as a consumer camera and with wider
tolerances.
I think you just need higher spec for your very fine work, and the
same thing applies to those who do bird photography etc.

--
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

 

[yada10d]

For goodness sake!

I'm fed up with the nay-sayers on this forum!

This forum is supposed to be about photography with Canon SLR gear, and that gear.

Canon, Nikon, Leica, etc, never made a camera without a flaw. It's the job of the photographer to extract the best image they can from the camera. There's an old saying that says 'Its a bad workman that blames his tools', and it is very apt here.

DavidP and his mates should get a grip, they have poisoned this forum and taken the enjoyment out of it for many members. Have a look for innocent threads where one of the 'focus clan' takes over and reduces the thread to yet another focus argument.

Where I come from, people buy cameras to take photo's, not as a ticket to bash the camera and it's manufacturer. If there's a problem with the machine, take it back and stop bleating.

If I can find where to make the comment, I'll pass on some moderation suggestions I have to Phil because the forum is a laughing stock, and a small section of it's members are out of control.

I'll be off to take some photo's with my 10D now, which seems to give me beautiful images with or without a focus issue. I suggest anyone reading the forum that hasn't had their 10D poisoned by it, do the same.

Sheesh!

Y.

It's as if some people would go to a morgue and complain about how
many of the people there are dead.

They died trying to weed through all the focus issue threads to get
to some relevent camera/photography information. ;-)
P.S. People don't ONLY come here to discuss problems. They ALSO
come here to LEARN about their cameras... not how BAD they REALLY
are and they're just too stupid to know it.

 

[yada10d]

Amazing. That's exactly why there are so many PROBLEMS discussed
here. Because this is where they come to discuss them.

It's as if some people would go to a morgue and complain about how
many of the people there are dead.

Nope, It's like people going to the car dealer and complaining about the Exhaust Gas CO2 reading being higher than they'd like, and then stopping everyone they can find in the dealer, the street etc, and informing them about this HUGE CO2 problem with their cars, even though 99.9% of the owners would never be affected or care.

The internet is a great means of drumming up support for minority causes with captive audiences, and this forum is a perfect example of how far off-the-rails it can get.

Y.

I agree fully with your sentiments. When I bought my 10D and
lenses, I decided to visiit this forum to mingle with others who
might be sharing in my experiences and to have a place to air
questions regarding Canon camera issues.

--
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

 

[orlandoom]

That is what I was trying to convey in the original post that started this thread. Thanks.
Don

 

[John Burns]

Nope, It's like people going to the car dealer and complaining
about the Exhaust Gas CO2 reading being higher than they'd like,
and then stopping everyone they can find in the dealer, the street
etc, and informing them about this HUGE CO2 problem with their
cars, even though 99.9% of the owners would never be affected or
care.

The government won't let me register my car if the CO2 reading is above spec. Thanks for pointing this out. How can we test for this. I don't want to spend $20,000 plus and not be able to use the car! Is it all cars or just 6.8%? Do they do this with all types of fuel or just certain brands? I think a class action suit will be necessary before the automakers will "step up to the plate".

--
John

 

[yada10d]

Nope, It's like people going to the car dealer and complaining
about the Exhaust Gas CO2 reading being higher than they'd like,
and then stopping everyone they can find in the dealer, the street
etc, and informing them about this HUGE CO2 problem with their
cars, even though 99.9% of the owners would never be affected or
care.

The government won't let me register my car if the CO2 reading is
above spec. Thanks for pointing this out. How can we test for
this. I don't want to spend $20,000 plus and not be able to use
the car! Is it all cars or just 6.8%? Do they do this with all
types of fuel or just certain brands? I think a class action suit
will be necessary before the automakers will "step up to the plate".

It's hard to find a perfect analogy, but I think the car CO2 one is a lot better than the morgue one, because it's pretty plain that most cars are within or close to CO2 spec, and even if they are outside the spec, they still function. Same goes with the 10D.

It's all rather sad really, considering the biggest expounder of disasterous 10D focus on this forum doesn't have one.

So to correct the analogy, the person drumming up the trouble for the car dealer doesn't even have a car of the type their complaining about.

Makes you wonder about motives.

Y.

--
John