40d still soft (to me) after 2 services, multiple lenses

[bitterkittenmedia]

Hello photo.netters.... I have had an ongoing problem that I cannot seem to figure out, and according to the

folks at the Canon service center (multiple techs), they don't see one.

 

I do not have pix to post at the moment, but here is the deal: bought 40d body brand new from reputable dealer in

dec 07. I noticed this problem only after the 1st 60 days (so I couldn't just return it) - I got really sick

after I purchased it and didn't have the time to thoroughly check it out. Unfortunate, but it happened.

 

Prior to the 40d I used the hell out of a 1st year Digital Rebel with nary a hitch (at least, no hitch other than

it's a digital rebel and is kinda slow). I never had any problem that I could see like the kind I am having

now... so I feel like I have a good frame of reference for comparison. I also never used any in-camera adjusting

of pix on the Rebel except for pushing up the sharpening 1 notch from center.

 

After my first few experiments with the 40d, I thought the focus was too soft and sent it in to service. Same

result in RAW or large JPEG. I had shot a few things under several lighting conditions... the pix shot in bright

light seemed a bit better, but pix that were not shot in bright light were definitely extra soft. When the camera

got to service, they did in fact find a problem with the focussing mechanism at that point and fixed it, sent it

back. When I got it back, I said to myself, "these pix are still not right". That is to say, I couldn't spy any

difference from before the 1st service. So I sent it back in a 2nd time, this time with a lens at their request,

my trusty 50 1.4, which I had recently had serviced a few months prior.

 

I specifically tried to request in writing the 2nd time that if they could not spy a problem at the factory to

call me before sending back the camera. They did not. When the camera came back, the tech report said they found

nothing wrong with the camera but that the 1.4 had had something up with the smoothness of the USM motor, which

they replaced as a courtesy. While that was nice of them, the problem still appeared to persist. So.

 

I upgraded the firmware to 1.0.8. No difference there.

 

After further experimenting, utilizing my 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 17-55 IS 2.8 (all of which took great pix on the

Rebel) I discovered that if I jack the 40d in-camera sharpening all the way the hell up to near maximum (which is

what.. +6 or +7? whatever is one notch short of the max), THEN the pix look much better. I still feel like they

are not quite as good as the Rebel pix. So I took some comparison pix like this, sent them to Canon tech support.

The person I spoke with, while nice, said he did not feel there was anything wrong when he viewed the pix side by

side. However, he also wondered why I had to crank up the in-camera sharpening so high, but didn't suggest Canon

ought to do anything about it.

 

Since then I have just been unsatisfied with the camera and am hesitant to trust it to use for anything really

important. I am really disappointed because I have always been happy with all my Canon stuff until now. I guess I

can just keep pestering them (the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and all) but I am wondering how widespread the

'soft focus' problems I have been hearing about are.

 

I realize there's plenty of folks who are ecstatic about their 40d, but I am not one of them.

[bill_dewberry]

I'm a film shooter, following digital threads, I don't understand why this type of issue comes up soo often in digital forums, and never did in film. Is it something unique to sensors ? We miss focus, sure, but that is understood.

[bryantan]

"I'm a film shooter, following digital threads, I don't understand why this type of issue comes up soo often in digital forums, and never did in film."

 

Because pixel peeping at 100% would be the equivalent as looking at a neg through a 100x loupe. Also, Bayer sensors interpolate to get to the camera's native resolution, so rarely is there complete sharpness at 100%.

 

Jeff: Without a controlled focus test, done on a tripod, there is nothing we can conclude for you. And if you have performed a valid focus test and there is no significant front/backfocus tendency with your camera, then there is nothing wrong with it. What you might be seeing is that your 40D is less sharp per pixel than your Rebel, which is to be expected.

[derrickdehaan]

I have had my 40D for a few months, bought from B&H if I remember right. I used to shoot with a Rebel XTi. Both cameras have excellent focus, in fact the 40D is superior in the number of so called "keepers" after a full day of shooting. I almost always shoot with the center focus point only in one shot mode.

 

Derrick

[phule]

[[i'm a film shooter, following digital threads, I don't understand why this type of issue comes up soo often in digital forums, and never did in film. Is it something unique to sensors ? We miss focus, sure, but that is understood.]]

 

Because most people shooting film were not often printing 20x30 prints and looking at them from 2" away. Technology has provided such a thing with 100% views in Photoshop and, unfortunately, the people most likely to not understand what they're seeing are the most likely to think there is something wrong. Measurbation is a disease that, sadly, has no cure.

 

For example, Jeff did you ever read the following paragraph from the review of the 300D/Digital Rebel on dpreview.com?

 

"To give the camera more consumer appeal Canon has also replaced the EOS 10D's neutral image parameters with a new default set called 'Parameter 1' which defines Contrast, Saturation and Sharpness as +1. Adjustment to Contrast and Saturation have the same power as the EOS 10D, however the EOS 300D's sharpness is twice as strong as the EOS 10D. Thus the EOS 300D's "Parameter 1" is the same as Contrast +1, Saturation +1, Sharpness +2 on the EOS 10D. The EOS 10D's 'Standard' setting is called 'Parameter 2' on the EOS 300D."

 

Indeed in the 40D review, it was noted a difference in the default sharpening on the 40D as compared to the 30D, with the 40D being slightly softer. Does this mean the internal processing changed or does it mean the anti-alias filter changed? I personally haven't seen any definitive answer, mostly because the difference is minimal at best.

 

Given that there's a difference between the 300D and the 10D in default sharpening, it is not surprising that there is a difference in default sharpening between the 300D and the 40D. Viewing images at 100% is likely to exacerbate this apparent "problem."

[bryantan]

I should say, sensors, in general (as both Bayer and Fovean do so), interpolate.

[jason_hall5]

Bill, It is the ability to look at every image at 100% and beyond. In film, unless you printed it that big you would not see it. Also I think grain was an understood part of film that often lend to its character, while in digital it is expected every image to be silky smooth no matter what.

 

That is how it seems to me.

 

Jason

[jason_hall5]

Boy, this must be a hot topic. When I started typing the above, Bill was the only response!

 

Jason

[g dan mitchell]

Samples?

[PuppyDigs]

"I'm a film shooter, following digital threads, I don't understand why this type of issue comes up soo often in digital forums, and

never did in film. Is it something unique to sensors ? We miss focus, sure, but that is understood."

 

How often do you use a 20x loupe on your sides or print 16 x 20 and view from 6 inches? Not too often I'd wager. Most DSLR

owners never print their images but, instead, view them at pixel level (100%) on huge LCD monitors. So small defects or user

errors are painfully evident. Of course most of these problems would never be noticed in even a moderately sized print, say 8 x

12.

 

I have a 40D and my wife has a Rebel XTi. Images are about the same given the same lens and technique. However the default

parameters on the XTi are set more aggressively than the 40D (& "0" on the XTi isn't the same as "0" on the 40D). In other words,

the contrast, sharpening and saturation are cranked on the XTi. To get the same "look" on the 40D all you need to do is increase

image defaults to taste. Takes about 30 seconds in-camera or you can do it after the fact in DPP if you shoot RAW. This is not an

AF calibration matter. It's merely setting the software defaults according to your taste.

 

Personally I prefer sharpening set to "zero" as default. Why? I sharpen the tweaked file as a last step and according to target size.

An image for monitor/web viewing needs different amounts of USM than a file for print. Now my wife isn't so particular and likes

the file to look ready to go when she views it in iPhoto, so she leaves XTi sharpening defaults as is.

 

When I borrow my wife's XTi I reduce many of the image parameter settings so I can tweak them in PS later. Hate that over

sharpened look...

[petemillis]

Too much measurbation makes you go blind, at which point you'll be able to enjoy photography even less.

 

I use a 10D. As Rob rightly points out, the images do come out softer than on the 300D but only bacuase they're not sharpened internally to the same extent on the default settings..

[JohnMWright]

Jeff,

 

If Canon says there is no problem, then likely what you see is the conservative in-camera processing. Hard to say without an example.

 

The default JPGs from my 20d are softer than from my Olympus P&S. But, by shooting RAW and using good photoshop techniques (as well as good shooting technique), I can get MUCH better results from the 20d RAW files. It just takes a little more effort.

 

I admit the first time I saw the default JPGs I was disappointed, but it wasn't a flaw. There is a learning curve.

 

To test it yourself you need a solid tripod, focus manually, use a cable release. I would use the 50mm for the test. The raw file will appear soft until you work with it.

[jason_hall5]

While this info is geared toward the 1D series cameras, the info would relevent to other models such as the 300D and 40D.

 

>>>"If you have moved from the EOS-1D to the EOS-1D Mark II, you might find that the images look less sharp. There are two reasons for this. First, images captured with the EOS-1D Mark II have less noise than images from the earlier model.

 

This provides a smoother gradation, which can give the impression of reduced sharpness. Also, the EOS-1D does not have a phase plate. This makes the images look sharper, but can increase the level of false colours. If you want images from the EOS-1D and EOS-1D Mark II to be similar, set the sharpness parameter on the EOS-1D Mark II to ‘1’.

 

Even after making these changes, images from more recent EOS professional digital cameras can still look softer than those from earlier models. This is because recent models have more pixels, which means that pixel size is smaller (11.5µm on the EOS-1D; 7.2µm on the EOS-1Ds Mark II). Smaller pixels are more sensitive to camera shake, as a smaller movement will cause the image to move across more pixels. You need to hold the camera steadier - ideally on a tripod.

 

For the same reason, sports photographers also need to re-think their shutter speeds, as blur from subject movement will be more apparent on cameras with more pixels. Where possible, consider increasing the shutter speed, even if this requires an increase in ISO speed."<<<<

 

-Canon Professional Nework

 

The site can be found here.

 

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/infobank/capturing_the_image/pixels_and_image_size.do

 

Jason

[elliot1]

If turning up the sharpening gives you the kind of sharpness you are satisfied with, what exactly is the problem?

The control was made adjustable so someone who wants more sharpening could apply it, just like you.

 

I assume the problem is only visible when pixel peeping - do your prints look good?

 

If you want to know if your camera is the problem or not, get another 40D body and test it with the same settings

and lens. Or, sell your camera and buy something else.

[bobatkins]

I suspect user error (in assumptions and/or expectations) is more likely than camera error. It's very possible the Rebel uses more agressive default sharpening than the 40D.

 

The real test is to shoot RAW, use whatever sharpening you feel is right, then make some large prints and look at them from a normal viewing distance

 

If the 40D still looks softer, it's the camera. If there's no difference (or the 40D is better!), then there's nothing wrong.

[bitterkittenmedia]

Jason - AH ! THAT is a very interesting and informative answer. Why the [expletive] Canon could not have

mentioned that possibility to me I have no idea. Thank you very much Jason. Seriously.

 

Now.. re: "need to hold the camera steadier"... Gah! And to think I had been getting magically, awesomely sharp

pix from my Rebel all along, plus adding the IS lens, only to discover that getting a far newer digital camera

would require me to hold it MORE steady? [jeff bangs head on desk]

 

Elliot - Does just turning up the sharpening give me the sharpness I'm satisfied with? Not exactly. But I believe

Jason's answer may be the answer I have been looking for this entire time.

 

I have hardly needed to make actual prints myself most of the time I've been shooting digital. Not because nobody

needs them, but I personally have hardly needed them. I will investigate this. The few prints I have made looked

quite good, to me - but then I have never needed to print anything much bigger than 8x12.

 

Bob - as I mentioned in my first post - on the Rebel I have never needed, for my personal taste, to push the

in-camera sharpening above +1. I don't know what it defaults to, but that was always enough for my purposes. Not

that I think the sharpening levels in the 40d are necessarily relatable to the Rebel, but if we presume they are

similar, then yeah, I don't get why I'd have to crank it up so high to match the +1 Rebel adjustment.

 

Obviously per Jason's posting from the Canon Pro folks, things are softer by default overall at least (if for no

other reason) due to the pixel count increase and decrease in pixel size, than the Rebel. But ultimately, if I

can prove the camera is working properly, then I will just have to accept that for my purposes, I don't like what

the 40d does in terms of its sharpness. Nothing I can do about that, really, other than sell it off asap and hunt

for a suitable replacement.

[bitterkittenmedia]

Oh and I typically always use the "1 shot" setting, I don't shoot anything moving very quickly and always use only the center focal point. Which may beg the question why exactly do I need a 40d... mainly because I occasionally do small weddings and the Rebel is just too slow to respond.

[j_smith6]

<i>Because pixel peeping at 100% would be the equivalent as looking at a neg through a 100x loupe.</i>

<br><br>

No.

[bobatkins]

"Because pixel peeping at 100% would be the equivalent as looking at a neg through a 100x loupe"

 

It's more like looking at a 24x36" print from a distance of about 1ft.

 

As for why the Rebel default sharpening may be different, the Rebel and 40D are aimed at different market segments. I would not be at all surprised to find the Rebel having higher sharpness, contrast and saturation default settings to give default images more "punch". They're appealing to the comsumer, possibly someone used to a P&S digicam which also tend to try to make "punchy" images. The problem with that is that craking up those settings can add artifacts to images. They may well assume the 40D buyer wants a more natural "default" setting and may chose to post process the image in Photoshop.

 

Digital images are naturally "soft" and need some degree of default sharpening to look their best under most circumstances. How much default sharpening is applied varies between makes and models of cameras. Those makers who don't want complaints about "soft" images may crank up the sharpness setting, but that will upset those who want the most faithful images and who prefer to sharpen in Photoshop where they have a lot more control over the sharpening process.

[milton-chris]

<<I am wondering how widespread the 'soft focus' problems I have been hearing about are. >>

 

Can you point me to the discussions of these problems?

 

TIA

[KenPapai]

"I'm a film shooter, following digital threads, I don't understand why this type of issue comes up soo often in digital forums, and never did in film. "

 

Because, 99% of the time it's user error. Film shooters have labs (pros) do the work to the fnial print -- in the digital era "everyone's a pro" and think their in-camera-JPGs ought to be always perfect. people who complain don't print at 8x10 or larger and ever claim "softness". Same with this OP I suspect.

 

Learn to shoot raw and learn proper PP skills. Print your photos too. The 40D + 85 1.8 is one sharp shooting tool.

[geofox]

I had the same experience with my new 40d. It took me a day or two to realize that the Picture Styles offer a range of sharpness that can be adjusted. It did the trick. I upped the sharpness on the first user defined setting and go to that whenever I need a very sharp image. I certainly wouldn't use it for portraits as it would show every pore, especially with the very sharp 28-135 IS lens.

[jamie bushley]

No one has mentioned one possible cause of the problem, dirt on the lens. If you have any dirt or scratches on your lens it will decrease the resolution and apparent sharpness of the images. It could be that the lenses have gotten dirty over their time of not being used. Have you tried your lenses on the rebel again recently, and have you checked the lenses to make sure they are clean and scratch free?

[bill_dewberry]

Aha, I'm starting to get the drift of this, its like when we film guys look for the "best lens", and blame the lens lack of contrast, sharpness, whatever for our less than stellar prints. I see, the song remains the same, the lyrics change.

[geoffs1]

If sharp photos are your passion, I'd second Ken's suggestion to shoot raw for awhile. For the best treatment of sharpening, I highly recommend Bruce Fraser's book "Real World Image Sharpening...".