Poor Image Quality in Snow

[Montana500]

Too bad your dog dog is black.....

Put a baseball jersey on him and then Canon AF can get sharp photos.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

 

[Maine60d]

Yes, he was. That is my concern. If he had been running or moving than this whole thread would be worthless. My concern is the poor image quality with him standing still. He wasnt moving that quickly if at all, aside from breathing. I don't feel like my camera holding technique is that terrible that it would cause so much motion blur at 1/60.

I STILL haven't figured out what the issue is... I work nights so I haven't had a chance to take more pictures in daylight. Also, all the snow here in Maine has melted so I can't test that aspect of it.

 

[Maine60d]

Finally got some tack sharp photos of my dog. The verdict: flash is necessary on a black dog. Still not quite sure why, but there is a marked difference. These are without a filter... I'll still have to test to see if the filter makes a difference. I was also pixel peeping my other dog pictures, turns out none of them are all that sharp when viewed 100%. The 18-135mm lens pictures looked about the same when viewed up close. At least I know my new lens is fine - its simply my technique that is to blame. I also bumped up the aperture in these pictures which probably helped as well.

These cameras are quite the instruments. A world of difference between these and Point and Shoots. It is no wonder so many new people complain that they got a "defective" camera when it is their technique that is off. I remember being disappointed when I first got the camera as well, I expected the camera to do everything for me with the price I paid.

Photography can be a very frustrating hobby indeed, but when you get those keepers it makes it all worth it.

 

[Apewithacamera]

Well done!

 

[bronxbombers]

you'd be surprised how much a dog or person can move their face around a bit even when standing still and even 1/160th can get motion blur at times

so it could be AF troubled by dark subject and bright background plus sometimes a bit of motion blur

 

[bronxbombers]

I shot a model for the first time at a camera show a few weeks ago and I was surprised how her face got blurred if she even started to change poses, at shutter speeds like you use so it really could be shake, it hs the sort of look that is at least as often shake as missed focus

 

[Zeee]

you'd be surprised how much a dog or person can move their face around a bit even when standing still and even 1/160th can get motion blur at times

so it could be AF troubled by dark subject and bright background plus sometimes a bit of motion blur

I can shoot the slowest paddling duck in a pond and no matter what shutter speed it's OOF. The shutter 1/2 Press and pause kills me. Gotta shoot in AI Servo for those. So yep if the dog moves even a little.

 

[Zeee]

Well typically this is more for low light but your flash acts like an extra shutter. If you are underexposed about 2 stops or more the flash becomes the dominant light source. You can be at 1/60 or 1/200 when the flash fires and the shutters are fully opened. The flash pulse is in milliseconds in comparison to your shutter speed which is like snail even at 1/200. The flash will freeze the action.

 

[Montana500]

Still looks slightly out of focus, IMHO.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Too bad your dog dog is black.....

Put a baseball jersey on him and then Canon AF can get sharp photos.

The only thing that's crappy is the expectation that a camera will focus easily on a dark low-contrast subject. Canon doesn't pretend that its AF works under all conditions. Every Canon manual I've read explicitly says that the AF has trouble with low-contrast subjects. That's not a defect. It's a feature of a system that works with contrast (duh!). As someone who grew up with manual focus (and, at first, manual exposure) cameras, I continue to be delighted by Canon's AF. Every EOS I've had has had superb AF, and each one has been better than the previous (300D, 20D, 50D, 7D). Of course, as Louis CK says, Everything's Amazing, and Nobody's Happy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

(This is not meant as a criticism of the OP, but of the poster who described Canon AF as "crappy")
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[Montana500]

Too bad your dog dog is black.....

Put a baseball jersey on him and then Canon AF can get sharp photos.

The only thing that's crappy is the expectation that a camera will focus easily on a dark low-contrast subject. Canon doesn't pretend that its AF works under all conditions. Every Canon manual I've read explicitly says that the AF has trouble with low-contrast subjects.

I don't consider a dog with brightly colored collar, red tongue, white teeth and pure white background to be "low contrast".

That's not a defect. It's a feature of a system that works with contrast (duh!). As someone who grew up with manual focus (and, at first, manual exposure) cameras, I continue to be delighted by Canon's AF. Every EOS I've had has had superb AF, and each one has been better than the previous (300D, 20D, 50D, 7D). Of course, as Louis CK says, Everything's Amazing, and Nobody's Happy:

All of my lenses except two had defects, and my new 7D has to go back for a stuck zoom button and poor focus, so I'm coming from a very different place (and I don't buy used). My opinion after years shooting wild animals (bear, moose, etc) is that Canon's auto focus sucks big time for ungulates and other mammals. Brightly-colored birds are OK. I have no problems focusing on people with a white hat, red scarf and purple shirt. Canon's focus system loves that. Same for sports.

I expect $2000 worth of camera gear to focus on a dog that's standing still. I hope you do, too.

--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Too bad your dog dog is black.....

Put a baseball jersey on him and then Canon AF can get sharp photos.

The only thing that's crappy is the expectation that a camera will focus easily on a dark low-contrast subject. Canon doesn't pretend that its AF works under all conditions. Every Canon manual I've read explicitly says that the AF has trouble with low-contrast subjects.

I don't consider a dog with brightly colored collar, red tongue, white teeth and pure white background to be "low contrast".

Doesn't that rather depend on where the focus point was? If it was on the collar or teeth, that would obviously be different from being on the black fur.

That's not a defect. It's a feature of a system that works with contrast (duh!). As someone who grew up with manual focus (and, at first, manual exposure) cameras, I continue to be delighted by Canon's AF. Every EOS I've had has had superb AF, and each one has been better than the previous (300D, 20D, 50D, 7D). Of course, as Louis CK says, Everything's Amazing, and Nobody's Happy:

All of my lenses except two had defects, and my new 7D has to go back for a stuck zoom button and poor focus, so I'm coming from a very different place (and I don't buy used). My opinion after years shooting wild animals (bear, moose, etc) is that Canon's auto focus sucks big time for ungulates and other mammals. Brightly-colored birds are OK. I have no problems focusing on people with a white hat, red scarf and purple shirt. Canon's focus system loves that. Same for sports.

I expect $2000 worth of camera gear to focus on a dog that's standing still. I hope you do, too.

Only if the focus point was on an area with contrast. That was my point, in response to you pointing out that the dog was black. I certainly wouldn't expect the AF to focus well on a black area. I hope you wouldn't either, as that would show a lack of understanding of how the system functions. Besides, as the thread has demonstrated, the slight degree of blur in the OP's pictures is most likely attributable to inadequate shutter speed, rather than misfocus.

I'm sorry you've had problems with your equipment. I've also had to send a couple of lenses in, and most recently, my 7D's built-in flash won't work, so I've sent it in for repair (thankfully still under warranty). I almost never use the pop-up flash, but it's nice to have in emergencies. However, I don't think that some problems with highly delicate sophisticated equipment are unusual. That's what the service centers are for. As for my original point. Canon's AF works very well for what it's designed to do. It will reliably focus on an area of contrast. If you put the focus point over an area of fairly uniform color and contrast, it will struggle.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile