10D focus issue real

[greg n]

I am not really hung up on the test, but the reviews have gotton to me, the 10D does get good reiviews, and I have to replace my whole system, so it is very tempting. I do like the 1d and the D1x but they cost almost 6 grand where I live. So my two choices are really between the two, or if the D2H was closer. Thank you for your comments.

by the way, you can e-mail for compare pics of (scientific blue
comb test) at;

[email protected]

It'd be curious to go back to the original store and try the "comb
test" again, and see if the cameras are bad, or if the salesman
simply didn't know to put it in one-shot single-AF point mode.

I went to four camera stores in Toronto, mine is not opened on
Sunday. In anycase while my wife shopped in the mall I went to
different camera stores to try D100 and 10D cameras. At one store
they had a 10D demo. I tried it out on my (scientific blue comb
test) and it focused instantly, and perfect. I then found another
store that let me demo both cameras on my (scientific blue comb
test) and again the 10D focus tack sharp instantly. Very
inpressive. I do believe the two 10D's I and the sales rep tried on
Saturday had something wrong or missaligned with there AF. In the
compare pictures I took today, I noticed both cameras lost a little
softness to the high right end of a green pen and the D100 also
lost some softness or blurring to the lower keys in the bottom
right.

It appears to me that the Canon took a better picture. I do not
have online picture availability, but I can email anyone the four
pictures if they want. One with flash one with out. anyways now
this post is done and I am back to either getting the 10D or hoping
the D2H is not more than 3500 and can actually be purchased before
November. Thank you to all who gave constructive comments.

--
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

As you've probably noticed from your posts here and on the Nikon
forum, even the experts can disagree,and quite heatedly , too!
I,and I suspect you,are not experts.
So why not play it simple? As you can see fromyour own tests,
results vary from camera to camera and the precise parameters of
the trests are very important.
Just take it that some people have had hassles with the 10d
fromfocussing, some from their own errors and some from faulty
cameras,and most seem pretty happy.
Work out your budget - I saw you were enquiring about the 2Dh,
which is a very different camera at a very different price point,
and is in competition with the 1D, an awsome camera according to
most who have used it.
If you can afford either of those, go for it.
If you can't, shoose whichever feels best to you from the 10D or D100.
i suspect that your first love is the D100- so go for it!
It's a fine camera. They all have their upsides and their downsides.
Just check out what lenses you intend getting,as the price of the
Nikon super-telephotos are absurd.
Otherwise, get your Nikon!
And HAVE FUN!
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[greg n]

Doesn't everyone shoot combs? I was trying to see the great colour and picture quality of the 10D i had read so much about. So i took a number of brightly coloured objects, including a blue plastic comb to take pictures and compare.

I had my D100 and gear stolen and I have been bouncing back and
forth between the D100 and the 10D, not to mention thinking about
the D2H. I have been reading all the forum info on the 10D and all
the reviews. Every online review has rated the 10D as the better
buy and better camera. So I read all the foums, there was a lot in
the canon forum about problems with focusing, but then a lot of
people saying people didn't know how to use their camera and it was
just a few cameras. I had two well known posters who have both
cameras e-mail me their take, both suggested the Af focusing and
low light abilities of the D100 over the less noise better picture
10d. Well I was still considering the 10D cause all the online
reviews were so pro for it. I took a flash card into the big camera
store in my area, along with some objects to photograph for
comparing the two. One object i took was a blue plastic comb, I
wanted to see just how much better these out of camera 10D pictures
were. We set the cameras to Jpeg fine and auto and the same or as
close to lenses, and everything as equal as possible. Took some
pics with the nikon then put the card in the 10D and took some
pics. I noticed the comb would not focus clearly like the D100 just
did, the teeth just sort of blurred or blended together. The sales
rep looked and noticed the same problem, he said we were using
cheaper lenses so that could be the trouble. He put on the 16-35, a
good lens, and still the same focus trouble. So then he got another
10D and we tried it, still the same thing. The picture was
basically clear but the focus was a little off and very noticeable
difference on the comb teeth from the Nikon. I could tell the sales
person was getting a little frustrated so he said I should just get
the D100 again. So out of two 10D's at this camera store both had
focus trouble. I think that is pretty high numbers. Listening to
some of the people on the Canon forum chastising members who are
concerned about their 10D focus for asking or complaining, well
maybe you should take another look. cause there does seem to be a
problem. If you got a good 10D then good for you, but don't diss
those that didn't. It would seem that Canon, and I am sure Nikon as
well, makes sure they send a good focusing 10d to the reviewers,
but does not take the same care with the ones they sell to the
general public. I know you can send the camera and lens into Nikon
for focus alighnment, but i do not think that is acceptable for a
camera of this value. I am not a troll, I am just a consumer who
wants a good digital DSL. I think it is great that Canon came out
with the better, cheaper, stronger 10D, but I think they should
have been more careful to get it right. Right now I am neither a
Nikon owner or a Canon DSL owner, just a concerned potential
consumer.

 

[sg10]

I agree, his explanation is perfectly valid. At 200mm you aren't going to get the paragon of sharpness with any machine. It probably wasn't the best sharpness sample, because in absolute terms it isn't super sharp, but given the conditions (explained later, I agree its an excellent shot.

I hear what you're saying but I don't believe it is quite fair to
compare your samples to his because the conditions and equipment
are different.

I do however, appreicate your input and your opinion.

Jim

Note the samples below are simply food for thought for anyone
interested in honest comparisions (I am), not a sales pitch or a
reflection of overall quality in any way.

I think pupils/eyelashes are generally a good test, and the ones
from the 1:1 below certainly don't match this, which I think is a
good example of sharpness. From experience with the camera, I'd
guess that USM would only screw up an image like this and you are
probably seeing a result that has not been USM'd at all...

(My first shot with the camera and a $90 lens follows, I find
highly typical in retrospect... just to show the level of sharpness
a complete novice can achieve with no training and zero experience
with the camera)

In my original post I told you it was not an attack on you and the
first thing you respond with is a condescending subject line. Good
for you. Feel better now?

I don't care whether you think the image is sharp or the magazine
loved it and paid you a million dollars for the job. None of that
has anything to do with my question.. My question was to the forum
members.. not you or the magazine.

I have clients that don't know a good picture from a bad one.. if
it's better than something they might take themselves many of them
love it.. some of them have even selected rejects with obvious
flaws in the past... clients want what they want. The fact that a
client likes something is not certification that they are not out
of their minds or have used good judgement in their choice.

I didn't ask you what YOU thought of the image.. the question was
to the rest of the forum. It was not a silly question but a
reasonable one. It was not an attack on you. I don't know you nor
do I have any reason to pick on you or attack you... I will not
insult you. I will not argue with you. I am not interested in
YOUR opinion of the image because you obviously thought it was a
prime example to display.. you even said so in one of your posts.

I did not find the image to be particularly sharp but it has been
reduced and I am looking at it at 72dpi.. but compared to other
images posted here your image is not that sharp.

I did find your image to be attractive and to have good composure.
I never said it was a bad image. On the contrary, it is a good
photo, just not as sharp as I thought it should or could be...
totally subjective and we, even you, are allowed to be subjective
in our opinions.

If you post images on this forum you will get pro and con responses
to what you post. You posted your images as proof of how sharp and
in focus images from your 10D are. I have a 10D myself.. it
produces amazing pictures. There is not argument on that point.

Not everyone in this forum is out to pick a fight, John. Get a
thicker skin and learn to not only read but comprehend what is
being asked. This is not about you, it's about the image. Nothing
more.. you want to take it personally, that's your choice but it
was not my purpose for asking the question. I'm not the one
requiring a reality check here.

Jim

Ah, I'm maybe fourty feet away with a zoom lens set at 200 mm and I
can count the girl's eyelashes. I think most people can do the
math. I know the magazine I shot it for was happy.



This has gotten just plain silly.

Fish
--
John Fisher
South Beach, Miami
http://www.johnfisher.com/models.htm
(305) 534-9322

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

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

 

[Rune Moberg]

EV = ( log10(Av*Av/Tv) - log10(ISO/100) ) log10(2)

unless I change it to
EV = ( log10(Av*Av/Tv) - log10(ISO/100) ) / log10(2)
it doesn't quite give me the values I expected..?

That said, I can't get Phil's to work with ISO > 100. f/1.4 16s ISO 800 should be about -6 EV according to your (now slightly modified) formula. (7 steps from EV1 makes sense looking at Phil's table)

Using Phil's EV formula I get 0:

• 1.4 squared is 2
• divided by 16 gives me 1/8
• multiplied by 8 gives me... 1.
• log10 of 1 is 0.

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

 

[DavidP #28649]

You interpreted my typo correctly. That ) should be a / before the final log10(2).

I didn't actually check Phil's forumula to see if it was correct, but at first glance, it simply looked like he'd rearranged it somewhat.

If my math isn't too rusty, my formula should be equivalent to

EV = ( log10( (Av*Av*100) / (Tv*ISO) ) ) / log10(2)

which should be the same as

EV = log2( (Av*Av*100 ) / (Tv*ISO) )

But who has log2(x) on his calculator?

EV = ( log10(Av*Av/Tv) - log10(ISO/100) ) log10(2)

unless I change it to
EV = ( log10(Av*Av/Tv) - log10(ISO/100) ) / log10(2)
it doesn't quite give me the values I expected..?

--
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

 

[Mishkin™]

EV = log2( (Av*Av*100 ) / (Tv*ISO) )

But who has log2(x) on his calculator?

Actually, this formula is more convenient since log2(2)=1, log2(4)=2, etc. So if you pre-calculate EV for some fixed Av, Tv and ISO (just like sunny-16 rule), you can "dance" from that number adding or subtracting stops. E.g. if you calculated for f/8, 1/100s and ISO100, for f/11 1/200s ISO800 you just add 1 (Av), another 1 (Tv), and subtract 3 (ISO), that is, subtract -1 from the pre-calculated value.

What is a good starting point?

Another Q for you Chief Mathematician: is log2(10)=1/log10(2)? I guess I'm losing my qualification

--
Mishkin™
Theoretical Measurbator

"He's out there measurbating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct." - Measurbate Now

 

[DavidP #28649]

Actually, this formula is more convenient since log2(2)=1,
log2(4)=2, etc. So if you pre-calculate EV for some fixed Av, Tv
and ISO (just like sunny-16 rule), you can "dance" from that number
adding or subtracting stops. E.g. if you calculated for f/8, 1/100s
and ISO100, for f/11 1/200s ISO800 you just add 1 (Av), another 1
(Tv), and subtract 3 (ISO), that is, subtract -1 from the
pre-calculated value.

That's because that's the way it work, of course. LOL. But if you want to actually calculate it on a calculator, the log10 is more convenient.

What is a good starting point?

f/16 and sunny! ISO 100, f/16, 1/125 (or 1/100 depending on who you read -- probably 1/125)

By definition, I believe that 1 sec, Av = 1, ISO = 100 give EV=0 ? Check Phil's chart to be sure.

Another Q for you Chief Mathematician: is log2(10)=1/log10(2)? I

That is left as an exercise for the reader.

Yes, it is.

--
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

 

[Peter K Wagner]

So, after 147 replies we STILL don't know if everything in the photo was "out of focus" or not. I HOPE that you oriented the comb so that some teeth were closer to the camera than other teeth. In that case, if the AF is having trouble some teeth should be in focus... just not the ones you were intending to aim at.

If nothing was in focus and your photo had quite a bit of depth to it, that IS NOT the "autofocus problem." That is merely the issue of not enough in-camera sharpening. Unfortunately (for in-store demonstration purposes) the 10D doesn't do enough sharpening to "wow" people right out of the box.

 

[Surfari]

Mr. Fischer:

I agree there are a lot of people who can't focus a camera. Most of us from time to time have focused poorly.

My focus success rate with my D60 wasn't 100% but it was pretty darn good given some very tough conditions that I subjected it to. I even threw it poor lighting, mixed lighting, with moving objects all while hand holding and it came through shining like a pro!

One should reasonably expect a camera of the 10D's caliber to auto focus on a stationary object when shot within focus range using a $500.00 Bogen tripod and a $3,000.00 Canon USM IS lense, outside on a day with good lighting. But this was not the case with my 10D when I purchased it. It consistantly had focusing and exposure issues no matter what I did. Tests were even done with 3 other Canon cameras (2 digital and 1 film) that I own of the same subjects to compare. The issues were only apparent on the 10D

The 10D was purchased the beginning of April and was sent to Canon's NJ Service Facility for warranty service for focusing and exposure issues. When it was returned 5 weeks later, it came with an invoice noting that the camera needed to be adjusted for both focusing and exposure issues.

On return, the camera was still not satisfactory. Many phone calls to Canon left me with out a resolve. Fortunately for me, a wonderful man who works for Canon saw my posting on another website's forum and offered his assistance. Canon paid to have my 10D sent overnight FED/EX and it arrived in Canon USA's hands this past Friday. I anxiously await word of what is wrong, as well as what can be done to fix or replace the camera.

So, not all of us are blind bats who are drunk as a skunk and have a heavy hand on the barrel of our lens! Thank you very much!

 

[greg n]

I did the same test with two 10D's yesterday in Toronto, so it was the camera I think, for sure. The store sent them back to Canon. However the two I used my (very scinetific comb test) on in Toronto focused perfect and instantly. It is an amazing camera, I just think there are some people with focus issues and others are really dissing them as not knowing what they are doing. in some cases I am sure this is the case, but other times the camera. the picture tests done on the other cameras in Toronto had all the teeth in focus and no blurriness.

So, after 147 replies we STILL don't know if everything in the
photo was "out of focus" or not. I HOPE that you oriented the comb
so that some teeth were closer to the camera than other teeth. In
that case, if the AF is having trouble some teeth should be in
focus... just not the ones you were intending to aim at.

If nothing was in focus and your photo had quite a bit of depth to
it, that IS NOT the "autofocus problem." That is merely the issue
of not enough in-camera sharpening. Unfortunately (for in-store
demonstration purposes) the 10D doesn't do enough sharpening to
"wow" people right out of the box.