My ordeal with Canon's AF

[jan_kowalski6]

<p>Hello everybody and sorry for my not-so-perfect English...<br>

Owning Canon's DSLRs for some years now I would like to tell my sad AF story. Started with a 1D, first version, there were no problems with AF whatsoever, at least I did not notice any.<br>

Then I went on to 40D, had two different bodies, no one would autofocus correctly out of the box. There was always some missfocus (back focus, front focus) with all my Casnon lenses. Sold one of the bodies, the second one went to Canon for calibrating the AF along with all my lenses (17-40, 70-200 white&without IS, 50/1,4 and 28/1,8) THREE TIMES and it still doest not work OK with the telezoom (missfocus at 200mm). Will have to send it in for the 4th time.<br>

Then I went to a 1D Mk III, which was a complete mess, THREE TIMES AF calibrated for missfocus, viefinder unit with the lightning AF - markers missaligned (not centered), it had to be exchanged, what too nearly two months (there were no spare parts available). And now after all that still some of the AF points have missfocus, whereas others do not. And I am not talking sport photography here, but rather slow and static photo journalism, politics and portraits! Will have to send it in for the 4th time as well.<br>

I like Canon cameras because I find image quality when it comes to contrast and colour better than with Nikon, but these AF probs just drive me crazy. The gear is all the time at Canon's repair shop, I payed for it and I cannot use it.<br>

Oh, I have forgotten: I used to have a 50/1,8 and 35/2,0 lenses, too. They would missfocus with my first 40D - and the technician at Canon's repair shop had told me then, that there is not much they could calibrate with these. I did not like the lenses so I sold them anyway.<br>

But actually, what kind of answer is that?! You buy original Canon stuff and Canon's own employees tell you this ain't gonna work with a Canon camera?! I should have suit them right on the spot, but oh well....<br>

Anyway, from my point of view, you cannot speak of any "Canon System". It seems, that every one or two camera generations you have to buy new lenses in order to have an unit which will focus correctly. Nearly all of the most important Canon's L-lenses now have got a MK II version, that is supposed to focus much better with the present bodies.<br>

So what's is the point in investing your money in the so called (Canon) "system" then, when you are forced to renew your stuff for incompatibility reasons anyway, and that as often as every five or so years. I do not mean a gradual improvment, I meant plain incompatibility.<br>

I hear, for instance, that a very fine lens such as 135/2,0 which does not has a Mk II version yet, would not focus reliably on a newest Canon bodies. And apparently to get my otherwise very fine 70-200 to work on a 1D Mk III correctly, you have to open it and re-soldier some connectors inside. This is plain crazy... Can anybody confirm that?<br>

For me the Canon set up is rather a complete mess, *whith the lenses I own and the bodies I bought*, out of the box, nothing works.<br>

Anybody knows Nikon having the same problems? Can I use older Nikon lenses on a modern Nikon body and will they focus correctly? Let them be slow to focus, this does not bother me, as far as they focus correctly.</p>

<p>Sadly,</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_stemberg]

<blockquote>

<p>For me the Canon set up is rather a complete mess, *whith the lenses I own and the bodies I bought*, out of the box, nothing works.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh Dear! I am a Canon person myself, but in your case I will happily recommend you move to Nikon ..or Sony...or Pentax...or Samsung. ..or maybe I am just plain crazy. Surely with your history there has to be some huge impossible expectactions, or some equally huge 'user error' issues.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I'm certainly happy using my brand new, and my decades-old Nikkor lenses on new Nikon bodies. The AF is very good. And, of course, you can fine-tune the AF (per lens if and as you see fit) using the camera's internal menu system. It does sound, though, as if you've had a rougher go of it than some of your fellow Canonites. There wouldn't be so many pros shooting sports with Canon hardware if it was that treacherous, AF-wise.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Either you have had such incredible bad luck with defective merchandise that we would have to wonder whether you have actually been the victim of a malicious conspiracy involving Canon and its retailers, or we should consider the perhaps more likely possibility that you just don't know what you're doing. I've mixed and matched Canon cameras and lenses across most of the range of the EOS system's existence. I've used lenses built in the late '80s on bodies introduced in the 21st century and vice versa. I've never had any problems with any of it. I've used some of the equipment you mention specifically, such as the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 lenses, both of which have given me wonderful images and no focus issues except under extremely poor light. My 5D Mark II allows me to micro-adjust focus settings for particular lenses, but I've never found it necessary. I'm sorry, but I simply don't find your claims credible. And as Matt points out, if Canon's equipment was as unreliable and incompatible as you claim, there wouldn't be so many pros using it.</p>

[jan_kowalski6]

<p>dont really think there are any "impossible expectations" on my side, i do not even look at the images at 100% percent magnifcation, use always only 50%.<br>

but what I can say, unsharp is unsharp. with a 40D for instance, all lenses are ok now, apart from the 70-200 when zoomed out to 200mm. i try to never go past 135mm with the lens, but this only a half solution. and I payed full money for the camera and the lens.<br>

working at a midsized press agency, some of our photographers now use nikon, but the vast majority still work with canon, anything from a 20D up to a 1D Mk IV.<br>

i tell you, when browsing through our database with many 100.000s of pictures, these nikon images are just sharp and no one of our few nikon photogs has ever calibrated anything. most of the canon guys keep calibrate and keep uploading unsharp images. the pics are ok for newspaper print at 80dpi, but they are more often that not, unsharp.<br>

and yes, I can calibrate the AF in-camera with my 1D Mk III. but this will be a general value for all AF sensors. it wont help if some single sensors are standing out of the line, as in my case.</p>

<p> </p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>I have a 40D an EOS-3 and my son has an XTi and Elan 7. Collectively we have used 8 lenses. After reading of mis-focus I tested the lenses. It all works perfectly. NEVER has there been any focus problem.</p>

<p>An unsharp image is not necessairly out of focus. Many things to cause an usharp image.</p>

<p>Before comdemning Canon, which you have done already, I suggest you post photos complete with EXIF information. Sorry, but I find it difficult to believe one person has this much trouble. I think it is in your technique.</p>

<p>What percentage of your photos are onut-of-focus or unsharp?</p>

<p>PLEASE POST examples and then we can examine and comment providing it has the EXIF intact.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>jan.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i tell you, when browsing through our database with many 100.000s of pictures, these nikon images are just sharp and no one of our few nikon photogs has ever calibrated anything. most of the canon guys keep calibrate and keep uploading unsharp images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>? ?.<br>

After this conclusive empirical evidence, why don't you just switch to Nikon or something? You'll probably be much happier, from the placebo effect, if nothing else. That's assuming of course, that you are not some Nikon fan-boy in Canon clothing trying to stir something up.</p>

<p>Maybe you have had an incredible run of bad luck, and maybe Canon has never got the lenses right after various efforts to "calibrate" them; but an outside observer sees one common element, one shared thread running through this complex story -- namely <em>you</em>.<br>

Many of us have used Canon, Nikon, and many other makes of lenses and camera bodies and never had the difficulties, nor seen any significant differences among whole marques. Individual lenses do differ, but if the differences were so clear, Canon would never sell a camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>What does calibrate the lens mean? I've been seeing that expression a lot lately. </p>

<p>I did have an experience with a Canon lens missing focus which was disappointing. I was doing a group shot, one row of people. I focused on the bodies of the people, not head, using the center point. When I pulled up the image I thought, wow pretty soft. But I noticed the focus was on the wall many feet behind the group.</p>

<p> </p>

[paddler4]

<p>Thomas--calibration takes care of front- or back-focus if you really have it. Most people who think they do, don't. Check out http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths. If you really do (there are numerous tests posted on the web you can use), you have two choices. If you have one of the newer Canons, like a 50D or 7D, you can make adjustments yourself ("microadjustment"), and the camera will store the settings for each lens you adjust. If not, you have to send it in. However, I recommend you do one of the tests properly, ideally with a tripod.</p>

<p> </p>

[zml]

<p>Cameras are tools: if a tool doesn't work for you, switch to something else. But why act if one can whine..?</p>

[edouard_mutabazi]

<p>Actually, if I were you, I would try buying from a different shop. I bought a 24-70 lens from a store and it was defective out of the box. Nothing worked...focus, colors, zooming, etc...I returned it and they tried to tell me that it would get tested and if it worked I would get charged 25% of the price to restock it, I told them it wasn't my first L-lens and to check my records at the store to see which I had bought. Anyways, they replaced it but it will be hard for me to go back to them. <br>

Try buying from a different shop and see if you get defective units, if you do, it's a sign to run away from Canon...if you don't, it's the shop that was trying to dump its probably returned junk on you. </p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Troll.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

I've shoot Canon for 20 years, owned most oftheir mid-range SLRs and 40 or so oftheir lenses. It's been rare to have AF

problems. My 70-200 L needed calibration a few years back, my 1N suffered a LCD failure, command dial broke in an A2

and the AF motor burn out in a 75-300 IS. All but one of those problems were during the 90s, so QC has been amazing

the last 10 years.

[steven_f1]

<p>I have 4 canon l lenses, one sigma lens, I have barrowed an old 100mm cannon macro, and barrowed at Tamron 90mm macro. I have had no focus problems with them. When I use the camera correctly I get a sharp shot. However if I makea mistake I get soft shot. I am in full agreement with the others. If you want to solve this issue don't keep blamming the same thing (the auto focus issue). </p>

<p>Focus issues can be caused by many different things. slow shutter speed, using AI Servo when you are taking a picture of a static object, bad exposure, using IS when the camera is on a tripod..... Post some images and provide the exif data. Then we might be able to help. Or you could keep complaining about canons autofocus isssue and end up right back were you started.</p>

[roy_s4]

<p>...have a 5dM2 w 24-105L and Sigma 50 1.4...no focus problems whatsoever unless I am hand holding in low light at slow shutter speeds..the Canon camera lens combination is magnificent...upgraded from Nikon D 80...</p>

[jan_kowalski6]

<p>sorry but i'm not into a discussion, what camera maker is better, nikon or canon. as I have already pointed out, I am very happy with Canon's IQ, when the camera nails the focus. which unfortunately for me is often not the case with the newer bodies.<br>

and what I see in my daily work with thousands of images from other photographers tells me the same story.<br>

for instance, this guy here seems to see general AF problems with canon, too, being on the other hand very positive about Canon's equipment as a whole, just like me:<br>

http://www.arcurs.com/clash-of-the-titans-canon-1ds-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d3x-for-stock<br>

sorry again, but all the nice people here telling me "it cant be what you are writing, because my own camera with my zoom lens focuses well" just do not get the point. <br>

may be this is wrong forum for such a discussion. no offense intended, but working for 20 years plus in the industry I do know what techniques to use to prevent any unintentionally unsharp images.<br>

thanks for reading though! :-)</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>sorry again, but all the nice people here telling me "it cant be what you are writing, because my own camera with my zoom lens focuses well" just do not get the point.</em></p>

<p>No, you're not getting the point. If Canon AF was as unreliable as you portray it, nobody would use their cameras and they would be out of the photography business. It's pure statistics. You can't possibly be as unlucky as you claim yet everyone else has no or few problems.</p>

<p>You either have unrealistic expectations or you are committing errors, or both. Instead of believing you can do no wrong, start doing some tests and asking some tough questions about how you use the equipment and what you expect out of it under those conditions.</p>

[john_bolton2]

<p>Sorry to hear of your troubles. Since '98, I've owned a film body (EOS 5), two digital bodies (Rebel XT, 50D), and five Canon lenses. All focus perfectly.</p>

[jan_kowalski6]

<p>@ Lee Taylor: what do you mean with"everybody have no or few problems"? when did you talk to that "everybody"?<br>

even in this thread there are negative opinions about canon's AF. reading helps.<br>

i see that in my country more and more pros are leaving canon and choose the other maker. look a few years back and virtually nobody were using nikon. <br>

also, canon's equipment is simply cheaper than nikon's, that's why lots of people would buy it in the first place. also, there are photogs out there who sit on the pile of canon's lenses and equipment which they collected over the years and do not want to or cannot change their camera brand for that reason.<br>

it is a plain and simple world you are living in, dear Lee Taylor.<br>

cheers everybody and many thanks to the other folks with constructive input to this thread <br />. </p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>Started with a 1D, first version, there were no problems ... 40D, had two different bodies, no one would autofocus correctly ... a very fine lens such as 135/2,0 which does not has a Mk II version yet, would not focus reliably on a newest Canon bodies</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's why you should have stayed with the 1D, problem solved. Newer doesn't mean better. You learned that yourself</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Incompatibily?.... Crazy?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, that's true. They could have made their products so that any lens would work the same on any camera of any brand. We have a lot of standardized stuff, why not a standard lens mount (one for all)</p>

[lukeap69]

<p>Wow that sucks! If you had that much bad luck, you might as well change brand.</p>

[tallplumphotography]

<p>A serious question: I think its an accepted truism (if not in practice) that for comparable gear, the Nikon equipment will tend to be more expensive than Canon gear. I can vouch for photographers I know, bot Nikon and Canon shooters.<br>

<br />However...can the Nikon stuff be that much more expensive that with all the time, energy and frustration you experienced with the Canon gear, you never thought, "screw it...I'm getting a Nikon. The colors, etc. (as you admit) might not be up to par with Canon _when it works_, but the sharpness is there at least." And considering that sharpness is your main concern...why did you waste so much money on Canon gear over the years?</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Jan, My Canon works fine. The AF is fast and accurate. I'm sorry that you have experienced so many problems, but that doesn't mean that Canon gear doesn't work.</p>

<p>Perhaps you are not using AF correctly. There is some technique involved, even though it's called "AUTO" focus. For instance, you need to focus on areas of the photo that has contrast or edges. Autofocus doesn't work well when focusing on a flat surface with no contrast.</p>

<p>Also, if you are focusing on a moving object you need to use the SERVO setting.</p>

<p>Do you know someone else who owns a Canon? Can you try their camera to see if it works for you?</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Jan - maybe its me but I do not see in the article "...this guy here seems to see general AF problems with canon,...".</p>

<p>From the link you posted:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Remember that to do this comparison we had to downsize the nikon file to match the canon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't this make the Nikon file seem sharper? Are you comparing like with like?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But if you make the mistake of pushing some Nikon lenses to the edge, they certainly do not do justice to the full 24MP that the D3X is capable of handling. To get great sharpness out of this camera, you really need to know which F-stop range each lens achieves maximum sharpness within. Once my team and I figured out the right parameters, we soon learned to work beautifully with this camera. We ordered a whole bunch of lenses and returned the ones we did not find sharp</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is clearly a learning curve with Nikon lenses. Have you done the same with your camera/lens combo?<br>

You say that you are viewing at 50% - don't forget that viewing at 50% with modern cameras is equivalent to viewing at 100% (or more) with older cameras due to the pixel count. As Kerry said - at least post some examples of your experiences along with shooting conditions.</p>

<p>If sharpness is your main objective, I am really surprised that you have kept throwing what I would call 'good money after bad' without once checking out the Nikon gear.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>@ Lee Taylor: what do you mean with"everybody have no or few problems"? when did you talk to that "everybody"?</em></p>

<p>As I said, if Canon's error rate was significantly higher than Nikon's, such that your experience were possible, then Canon would be losing market share fast. Every production line has an error rate and some people need bodies / lenses replaced or calibrated from every manufacturer. But statistically the problems you describe could not all happen to one person. There is a confounding factor and you are arrogant to not look for it and just assume you are 100% correct in your usage and expectations. (Or a troll, which is definitely possible given you just signed up.)</p>

<p>Especially when a Canon service center says the equipment tests out fine. Do you have any idea what kind of testing equipment they use, and the precision it is capable of?</p>

<p>I'll note that in your description you did not give even one example of what you think is an AF problem, with notes on your AF mode, exposure settings, etc. It wouldn't shock me at all to discover that you've got all points active and expect the camera to read your mind as to subject, or that you're stopping down to f/22, or some other simple error that leads to soft or OOF images.</p>

<p><em>even in this thread there are negative opinions about canon's AF. reading helps.</em></p>

<p>Yes, reading does help. Prior to my post I did not see a single negative opinion about Canon's AF from anyone but you. Let's summarize some of the responses, shall we?</p>

<p><strong>...Surely with your history there has to be some huge impossible expectactions, or some equally huge 'user error' issues...</strong><br /><br /><strong>...There wouldn't be so many pros shooting sports with Canon hardware if it was that treacherous, AF-wise...</strong><br /><br /><strong>...I've mixed and matched Canon cameras and lenses across most of the range of the EOS system's existence. I've used lenses built in the late '80s on bodies introduced in the 21st century and vice versa. I've never had any problems with any of it...</strong><br /><br /><strong>...I have a 40D an EOS-3 and my son has an XTi and Elan 7. Collectively we have used 8 lenses. After reading of mis-focus I tested the lenses. It all works perfectly. NEVER has there been any focus problem...</strong><br /><br /><strong>...I've shoot Canon for 20 years, owned most oftheir mid-range SLRs and 40 or so oftheir lenses. It's been rare to have AF problems...</strong><br /><br /><strong>...I have 4 canon l lenses, one sigma lens, I have barrowed an old 100mm cannon macro, and barrowed at Tamron 90mm macro. I have had no focus problems with them...</strong><br /><br /><strong>...have a 5dM2 w 24-105L and Sigma 50 1.4...no focus problems whatsoever unless I am hand holding in low light at slow shutter speeds...</strong></p>

<p><em>i see that in my country more and more pros are leaving canon and choose the other maker. look a few years back and virtually nobody were using nikon. </em></p>

<p>What country would that be? Neither appears to be true from yearly sales statistics.</p>

<p><em>also, canon's equipment is simply cheaper than nikon's, that's why lots of people would buy it in the first place. </em></p>

<p>Which is cheaper depends entirely on what is being compared. Never the less, even where Canon is cheaper, Canon is not 'cheap'.</p>

<p><em>it is a plain and simple world you are living in, dear Lee Taylor.</em></p>

<p>No, you live in the plain and simple world. In your world the possibility that you are doing it wrong never crosses your mind regardless of the evidence.</p>

<p>Switch brands. Placebo effect and confirmation bias will make you the happiest photographer on Earth until the day you get a soft photo. Then it will be Nikon's problem when you send equipment to them 4x and still insist it's their fault.</p>

<p>And if I seem harsh, it's because I see a person who will not even consider that they might be the confounding variable in an otherwise simply unbelievable run of bad luck. You say I live in a simple world? You are the one with a closed mind. A critical thinker would look in the mirror and ask "Am I <strong>sure</strong> the equipment is faulty?", then test the heck out of it and post samples for others to review and comment on performance.</p>