Is 10d focus issue resolved now?

[DavidP #28649]

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB8&Number=139199&Forum=UBB8&Words=pekka%20focus%20test&Match=And&Searchpage=0&Limit=50&Old=allposts&Main=139009&Search=true#Post139199

For what it's worth, there's already some good information available on the Web. Pekka Saarinen's posts on this topic contain the same testing procedure our service techs use. Anyone who is concerned about the focusing accuracy of their EOS 10D is welcome to check their own equipment with this procedure.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=10948

I believe you're a little off on that one. Chuck didn't come out
and recommend that end users test their cameras. I believe it was
more like "if you're going to test it anyway, at least this is the
best one to use since it's very much like what the techs use." I
don't believe he was advocating the wholesale testing as you're
leading people to believe with your "Canon approved" label. Chuck
WORKS for Canon. Chuck is NOT Canon's policy making person.
We've had at least one and possibly two former Canon service techs
post here basically echoing what Louis has said and I believe one
of them said that many of the cameras that were received for
service needed no repair.

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[DavidP #28649]

I'm convinced that Bill has a problem with his camera. Or lens.

Probably the lens. What Canon and PC Nation told him to do was idiotic, IMO.

They had already fixed his 10D, and it worked well with his 50/1.8 (after fixing it).

Then he got a 17-40/4 that wouldn't work with it. They authorized an exchange of his CAMERA, not of his new lens.

The ones who catch the
flack, and not from any one specific person, are the ones like Bill
who come up and DECLARE a problem and have no real tangible proof
of it. And even YOU asked him to redo his tests. If people think
they have a problem and ask for verification about it, there's
plenty of help to be had. But the problem lies in the people who
think they know it all and can never make a mistake. There's two
possible causes for the problem and you have to take BOTH into
consideration. Somehow, this offends some people terribly and it's
often someone OTHER than the person who has the camera. Weird.

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[Pearl Rider]

I'm convinced that Bill has a problem with his camera. Or lens.

Probably the lens. What Canon and PC Nation told him to do was
idiotic, IMO.

They had already fixed his 10D, and it worked well with his 50/1.8
(after fixing it).

Then he got a 17-40/4 that wouldn't work with it. They authorized
an exchange of his CAMERA, not of his new lens.

Maybe you're right but he came on here like gangbusters laying it all on Canon.

 

[Pearl Rider]

In point of fact, I've never once said (or even implied) that there
is an "issue" or "design flaw" with the 10D. The ones that work
are great and I presume that is most of them. I don't have one bit
of data from the forum - mine is a sample of one and it does not
work - not some real or imagned focus issue - it does not record
pictures. There is not much to debate about that. And my issue
with Canon is not even that I got a bad camera but rather;

I didn't say that YOU did any of that or implied it but there are folks here who've made it their mission to do so.

(1) that I have to keep sending it in for them not to fix

(2) that I have to pay for shipment

(3) that they consistently provide no valuable information on any
resolution to the problem that the majority of the time my camera
is either in transit to or from NJ or sitting on their receiving
dock

(4) that there is no apparent resolution other than continuing to
send it back and forth

(5) that the 1-800 folks keep referring me to the NJ folks with the
phone number that has either not worked or is almost never answered.

I don't think it is unreasonable, after spending $1,500 (unrelated
but plus $$$ for lenses and support stuff) to expect Canon to
provide a working camera and, after two attempts to repair it,
provide a replacement.

I am terribly sorry that, for whatever reason this opinion seems to
anger people. Further, when someone who is thinking of buying a
10D asks for an opinion, I think it is reasonable for me and others

• based on our samples of one - to warn of potential problems with

customer service as long as it is clearly identified as a sample of
one.

The anger works both ways. Person A posts that his camera is faulty and feels that it's a problem with Canon. Person B disagrees and states that their camera has worked flawlessly for them. Person A sees this as invalidating their complaint and claims Person B is slighting them and/or their intelligence or experience or integrity. Then Person C pipes up that it might be user error. This infuriates Persons A and D and E and the rest is history which keeps repeating itself over and over again.

I think in every post I've made I've said I have a friend who also
bought a 10D and his works flawlessly. Oh, and when mine did work,
the focus was tack on.

That's good to hear. I hope your problem gets resolved soon. I wish there was something I could do to expedite the process but I can't.

 

[Pearl Rider]

"if you're going to test it anyway and believe you have a problem with it, at least this is the best one to use since it's very much like what the techs use." It reads to me that if you see a problem in using the camera. I don't believe he was advocating the wholesale testing as soon as you get the camera out of the box as you're leading people to believe with your "Canon approved" label. Chuck WORKS for Canon. Chuck is NOT Canon's policy making person.

 

[sjstokes]

I will ignore it then :~
My 50mm 1.4 doesn't get here until tomorrow

I thought I saw posts in here where people with "the problem"
eventually had it resolved.
I wouldn't have "made the news public" if I was Canon. Unless is
was Every-Camera.

This is just more of the same conjecture that has been plaguing
this forum for months. It never stops and always changes. I've
heard the batch theory and seen it disproven several times over and
yet it still persists. Then there are the "Canon cover-up"
conspiracies that always surface from time to time. This'll never
stop... it's too much fun.

 

[DavidP #28649]

"Anyone who is concerned about the focusing accuracy of their EOS 10D is welcome to check their own equipment with this procedure."

If one isn't concerned, so be it.

People ask what test to run, and this is my answer. And Chuck approves of it. That's close enough to "Canon" for me.

Neither Chuck nor I will ever say "you must test".

But for those wise ones who wish to make sure their equipment is working to its potential BEFORE going past the exchange date, and who wish to get as little "you didn' test right" from the peanut gallery at DPR, this test is the way to go.

Unless one wants to go "whole hog" and use Mishkin's Measurebator's Dream setup.

"if you're going to test it anyway and believe you have a problem
with it, at least this is the best one to use since it's very much
like what the techs use." It reads to me that if you see a problem
in using the camera. I don't believe he was advocating the
wholesale testing as soon as you get the camera out of the box as
you're leading people to believe with your "Canon approved" label.
Chuck WORKS for Canon. Chuck is NOT Canon's policy making person.

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[Pearl Rider]

"Anyone who is concerned about the focusing accuracy of their EOS
10D is welcome to check their own equipment with this procedure."

And why would someone who hasn't even used the camera be concerned?

If one isn't concerned, so be it.

And you haven't ever responded to one of these posts with an, "Are you SURE?" when they say they feel their focus is fine. That's TRYING to get them to test by trying to shake their confidence in the camera.

People ask what test to run, and this is my answer. And Chuck
approves of it. That's close enough to "Canon" for me.

That'd be a good one to use but most people just don't seem to follow that advice. They still resort to toys, bottles, cereal boxes, and lately fire hydrants and doorknobs.

Neither Chuck nor I will ever say "you must test".

Chuck won't for sure but you've come as close to actually saying those words as you could.

But for those wise ones who wish to make sure their equipment is
working to its potential BEFORE going past the exchange date, and
who wish to get as little "you didn' test right" from the peanut
gallery at DPR, this test is the way to go.

There's the angle to push people towards the testing you want them to do as soon as they get the camera. You make people nervous about going past the magic date so they'll tend to test it as soon as they can and you know that.

 

[DavidP #28649]

I'm gonna take this nice and slow.

And why would someone who hasn't even used the camera be concerned?

Ummm, maybe because it's a fairly well-known issue? Not just here, but other places as well.

And you haven't ever responded to one of these posts with an, "Are
you SURE?" when they say they feel their focus is fine. That's
TRYING to get them to test by trying to shake their confidence in
the camera.

If somebody posts a picture that has a lot of DOF and then proclaims "no focus problems here", he's clearly uneducated about the focus issue. Now if he says "I never take pictures with DOF shallower than this, and don't intend to" that's one thing.

I'm not trying to shake their confidence, I'm trying to educate them.

That'd be a good one to use but most people just don't seem to
follow that advice. They still resort to toys, bottles, cereal
boxes, and lately fire hydrants and doorknobs.

All the more reason to post the test.

Chuck won't for sure but you've come as close to actually saying
those words as you could.

No, I said what I wanted to say. If I wanted to say "you must test", then I'd say that.

There's the angle to push people towards the testing you want them
to do as soon as they get the camera. You make people nervous about
going past the magic date so they'll tend to test it as soon as
they can and you know that.

There's no reason to get nervous. They are fully capable (or should be) of making an informed decision of: do I test now, or not?

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[Melanie Kipp]

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[Bob Murching]

What kind of car do you have? It would be a bit bumpy but I think I could do it in mine as long as there was no lens mounted. I myself have never driven over photographic equipment, even accidentally, but I did drop a $300 lens into a river on a canoeing trip when I was 16. My parents were not happy about that incident.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=10948

Canon approved. Be sure to do it in GOOD lighting. As in outdoors.

What difference does it make if the camera can focus accurately
only in "good" lighting. Does this imply that the camera can only
reliably be used for shooting images in good lighting?

Personally, I am baffled by the autofocus performance of my 10D.
In my portrait studio, the 10D nails perfect focus 100% of the
time. This is at shooting distances of about 5 feet to 20 feet.
The only light available for focusing comes from the modeling
lights of my strobes, which are two 250 watt quartz lamps with
their brightness reduced by the large softboxes they are usually
shrouded by.

The camera mounted flash I use at wedding receptions uses the Metz
SCA 300 system, and I have a large Metz focus assist illuminator
mounted in the hotshoe of my 10D. For dancing pictures in near
total darkness, my 10D nails perfect autofocus 100% of the time -
with the only illumination available coming from the Metz red focus
assist lamp.

Big deal, so what? The "so what" is that when I'm shooting
portraits outdoors in daylight, the so called "good lighting," my
Canon 10D front-focuses about 50% of the time - regardless of the
lens being used.

I've been a member of this forum since before the 10D was brought
to market. I've heard all the arguments, read all of the
suggestions, and tried everything that can be tried - including
sending my camera to New Jersey for repair. At this point, my
solution is to use my 10D only in dim lighting situations where the
autofocusing performs flawlessly - and never use it outdoors in
daylight, where the autofocusing sucks. By the way, I'm a pro
portrait photographer and always have the camera tripod mounted
when shooting outdoors. The problem ain't camera shake, it ain't
slow shutter speeds and it ain't poor quality lenses.

So my question is, what is accomplished by taking pictures of
focusing charts in "good" lighting? I've done that, and the
results have revealed nothing of value to me - or suggested any
course of remedial action.

In my 30-plus years of serious photography, and perhaps $100G spent
on various photo equipment, I'm certain the Canon 10D is the most
frustrating piece of equipment I've ever owned. In fact, I've
owned cameras that frustrated me less which I've laid down in my
driveway and deliberately driven over with my car.

Gene Windell

 

[DavidP #28649]

On the pony tail?

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[Melanie Kipp]

The woman in black! I have a terrible front focusing issue!

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[DavidP #28649]

LOL -- that was my second choice.

Take a look at this thread.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=6230034

Wouldn't that drive you nuts?

The woman in black! I have a terrible front focusing issue!

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[Melanie Kipp]

Sure glad I didn't buy that lens.

LOL -- that was my second choice.

Take a look at this thread.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=6230034

Wouldn't that drive you nuts?

--

Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[DavidP #28649]

The 24-70/2.8 seems to have lots of problems with 10D's. Not sure why.

Sure glad I didn't buy that lens.

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[Melanie Kipp]

Yes, that does seem to be a pattern, doesn't it?
Love my Sigma 15-30

Sure glad I didn't buy that lens.

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with
years of training and experience in such things.

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[Pearl Rider]

And why would someone who hasn't even used the camera be concerned?

Ummm, maybe because it's a fairly well-known issue? Not just
here, but other places as well.

And I'll bet the same people are making the issue "known" and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find you there as well.

If somebody posts a picture that has a lot of DOF and then
proclaims "no focus problems here", he's clearly uneducated about
the focus issue. Now if he says "I never take pictures with DOF
shallower than this, and don't intend to" that's one thing.

You ASSume all that when it isn't said. You've taken pictures that people have posted who didn't make such statements and make "focus issue" cases out of them.

I'm not trying to shake their confidence, I'm trying to educate them.

I think you NEED to be the "educator" or authority here.

No, I said what I wanted to say. If I wanted to say "you must
test", then I'd say that.

That's interesting. When someone ESLE says something, you love to misinterpret what they say. It's almost like watching a foreign movie with subtitles. Yet, you don't seem to care for the "IOW" be used on what YOU say. Interesting double standard.

There's no reason to get nervous. They are fully capable (or
should be) of making an informed decision of: do I test now, or
not?

But you know as well as I do when it comes to investing a large amount of money in something like this that ANYTHING negative is going to carry much more weight than a BUNCH of positive reports.

 

[FrancisCF]

Try to understand my words, please!

What I said is lay a ruler on the carpet, it gives you more data of focus shift than the carpet and the ruler won't ruin the test other than make the data more valid, I never said the ruler is the target.

Your comprehension is weak! Could be mislead by yourself due to bias.

If you lay a ruler on the carpet, then the test will be invalid to
PR's concept. (LOL)

You've just shown how much you DON'T understand. Anthony's target
set up gives the 10D the best chance to succeed (by not having any
other targets in the immediate vicinity of the focus area) and that
bothers you because you wish to set it up so the AF has the best
chance to be confused. The carpet will more easily show where the
plane of focus is too.

--
Nikon F100, Nikon FM3A, Canon EOS 1V
Olymbus 3030, Nikon 995, Canon G2
Radio call sign VR2XEE
Handheld ham transceiver - Yaesu VX-5

 

[Pearl Rider]

Try to understand my words, please!

What I said is lay a ruler on the carpet, it gives you more data of
focus shift than the carpet and the ruler won't ruin the test other
than make the data more valid, I never said the ruler is the target.

Your comprehension is weak! Could be mislead by yourself due to bias.

Or perhaps it's because english isn't your primary language. I'm supposed to know all of that from your rather short, sarcastic post? Sheesh! Shooting a ruler isn't the best way to test the camera... period. Even David will attest to that and has proposed the better test set up. It just doesn't make sense to try and have the camera figure out just the numbers (out of the other numbers or the tick marks) I intend to focus on... it needs something which will be definitive in showing whether the camera will focus or not. Unfortunately, no one seems to want to to go through the trouble of constructing the set up David recommends. Therefore, Anthony came up with a viable alternative... a large, well defined target for the camera and the carpet acts as a good indicator of the focus plane without providing something distracting for the AF system. Simple yet effective.