Got my 5D, Mark II....worried about decision

[zvia_shever]

<p>Next shot....40D</p><div></div>

[zvia_shever]

<p>I do understand that a camera and lens have acceptable ranges of sharpness. So maybe the 5D is +3 and so is the 24-105, so then I'm at +6 instead of 0. When I got my 40D, I sent it into Canon with the 17-55 as I was having focusing problems. They said the 17-55 was back focusing. They fixed it and calibrated it to my 40D...so maybe that's why the 40D/17-55 combo is so sharp.</p>

<p>Anyhow, there's a local photo rental place 5 minutes from my house that wants to buy my 17-55. They're going to adjust the micro focusing on the 5D/24-105 so that it focuses properly. If they can't get it right, it goes back to B&H, and here I go again!</p>

[phule]

<p>The photos are not focused on the same spot. Why would you consider this a valid test for sharpness? </p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Rob, <br>

I used the center focus spot right on the end of the handle for both shots. The 5D is soft throughout, the 40D is sharp. Perhaps the lens is rear or front focusing and can be adjusted (see my last post). </p>

[mike dixon]

"I used the center focus spot right on the end of the handle for both shots."

 

In that case, it's the 5D that's focusing accurately. The 40D is focused near the far end of the handgrip.

 

"The 5D is soft throughout, the 40D is sharp. "

 

The 5D appears sharp at the plane of focus, though it's hard to be certain because the rounded end of the handgrip lacks the texture of the middle of the grip. The 40D was using a shorter focal length, so it has a greater DOF at the same aperture, and it was focused further away, which also increases DOF.

[phule]

<p>If you're going to continue to obsess, you should do so with a valid focus test, not some one-off thing like this. Your 5D Mark II is not "soft throughout."</p>

<p>You should also read this (unrelated to focus issues, but related to discussions of sharpness): <br /> <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2011/05/01/why-your-21mp-file-looks-softer-than-your-12mp-image-at-100">http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2011/05/01/why-your-21mp-file-looks-softer-than-your-12mp-image-at-100</a></p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/how-to-test-a-lens/">http://www.canonrumors.com/how-to-test-a-lens/</a></p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Mike: The far end of the handle grip is where I focused. </p>

<p>Rob and Bernhard: Thanks for the links, I will read them. In the mean time, I am getting someone who knows how to test properly, to actually test properly.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Update: I took the 5D and 24-105 to the place I usually rent from and they tested it properly with their charts, etc... The owner said (and showed me) at 24mm, the lens is great, but at 70mm, in his opinion it is unacceptable. He is going to tweak the micro adjustments to see if he can get both ends to acceptable sharpness. I was warned (just as one of the articles suggests) that if the lens is adjusted to be great at 70mm, then I may lose sharpness at 24mm. The point of his adjustments it to try and get decent/acceptable/good results at both ends, not perfection (that won't happen). This guy runs a camera and lens rental business and tests all his equipment when purchased and between every rental, so I trust his judgement. </p>

<p>I have had the original copy I ordered of my 17-55 for 4 years. I've only had it re-calibrated once. I have had the original copy I ordered of my 70-200 for 2 years and have never had it re-calibrated or sent to Canon for any reason. I admit to being particular, but I am not one of those people who buy, exchange, return numerous lenses to get "a good one".</p>

 

[zvia_shever]

<p>At 24mm the combo is beautiful, much nicer color, clarity and focus over my 40D with 17-55. At f/5.6 it produced nice bokeh and at f/11 it was reasonably sharp throughout. But at 50mm and 70mm, the 40D and 17-55 way outperforms the 5D with 24-105 (in focusing only)....I think the issue is the lens. Even at f/11, the only thing in focus was a very small area around the center focus point...like it should be at f/4 or 5.6 on that lens. This will obviously be a problem with landscapes where I like to shoot at f/11 or f/16. </p>

I'm leaving Monday morning at 7am for Yellowstone and the Tetons. I don't think B&H will be able to get me another package by then....what to do? Do I just take my 40D? Will I ruin shots with high ISOs I may need? Do I take the 5D/24-105 combo and keep it close to the 24 end, then send it to Canon to recalibrate with the 5D upon my return?

 

[g dan mitchell]

If you think your 5D2 is less sharp than some other camera, read this:

http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2011/05/01/why-your-21mp-file-looks-softer-than-your-12mp-image-at-100

 

Dan

[zvia_shever]

<p>G Dan: I know about and understand that concept, but that's not it. The camera is fine, as I tried 2 other lenses on it and they're fine. I think the lens is the problem. I tried the lens on my 40D and found the same problem. It's fine at 24 (although shows a lot of barrel distortion) but by 50, the focused area is so small, even at f/16, so I really think it's the lens. Maybe it's just an attribute of the 24-105 and another copy won't make a difference, but maybe it's a problem with the copy I bought.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Too much second guessing, hand wringing, buyers remorse, backseat driving, monday morning quarterbacking, selling, buying, renting, borrowing, aligning, obsessive compulsive and anal retentive here for me. 'Just take some pictures. :-)<br>

I've never had a camera "out of the box" that felt quite right. It (& me) needed some breaking in. I just shot pictures and we figured it out together.<br>

One of my mentors the late Bill Strode use to say, "Your best pictures aren't always your sharpest pictures".<br>

Good luck out there.</p>

[sam_adams2]

<p>I can understand how something like this (with or without the respective price tags) can be a gut wrenching exercise. I can totally relate. It took me weeks to find the "right" initial lens combination. It took a few months and several trips to the camera store next to my work place to pick the "right" systems BAG!<br>

But picking the right camera for me was actually pretty easy since I had a good idea what I was trying to get at. I think what made it easier for me was that I never even went near any of the digital SLRs over the last several years. Right off the bat I found them not fitting my needs - and the 1D series was out of my price range. Anything but "35mm full frame" was out of the question for me (at least). Things only got interesting when the 5D came out but I still waited it out and saved up while sticking to film (FD system actually because I never really saw any advantage in the EOS system). The 7D is a great camera and all but why bother with a sensor half the size of the already small 35mm format?<br>

But as you can see this is a matter of personal style and which aspect is more important - hence which of the compromises is better suited (and they are all compromises in one way or another). If you ask me: you already have a 40D so why add a 7D? Where is the benefit?<br>

Your 5DII is a different animal - which you may or may not like. I like mine. It's excellent bang for the buck - and the few things that I don't really really like about it are inherent to all modern cameras (e.g. the fact that it is an AF camera when what I really want is a digital version of the Canon F1...). "Slow" AF system and "only" 3 or so fps? Completely irrelevant for me to begin with and vastly overrated.<br>

Yes, if funds were unlimited I would also have a Leica M9 (in my opinion actually the best digital camera currently available) and maybe a 1DsIII. But the 5DII is so close to all this -and so much more affordable that even than it would be ridiculous to some degree. There is a reason why so many demanding professionals use it.<br>

If your goal is to ultimately get the 5DIII then I would stick to the 40D and wait. Though I'm not sure what you're expecting it to do differently. I personally will use my 5DII until it breaks and then see what the market has to offer. My guess is (and I'm not trying to add to the rumor mill and play clairvoyant here) that the 5DIII will essentially be a 5DII with a few more MP and a swivel screen and maybe a few more gizmos that I don't care about, including video stuff.<br>

And my other guess: if you don't like the 5DII then you won't ultimately be happy with a 7D either.<br>

But I would make sure the shutter is ok. If it makes weird noises you might want to check if anything in the mirror box (including the screen) is lose. There are a ton of "shutter sound" videos on youtube for comparison by the way. Always wondered what those are good for...<br>

Happy shooting</p>

<p> </p>

[sam_adams2]

<p>Zvia,</p>

<p>Just saw your comparison picture of the 40D and the 5D. As some have pointed out already I think you are on the wrong track with this. You're not comparing the same thing: different DOF capabilities, different focal length, different (effective) aperture etc etc.<br>

You come from a cropped sensor camera and things are now different for you. You may have to learn to appreciate how much better things really are. Yes, you want your expensive L lenses to be reasonably sharp - and if your 24-105 has a technical problem, by all means send it back and get a different one. Or even an even better lens such as the 24-70 or better yet any primes you like. But also get over the "sharpness" thing a little. Or in other words: I can give you my PowerShot SD500 - and you'll get even "sharper" images.<br>

The 5DII will further increase your palette of artistic tools and that may require some re-learning stuff.<br>

Enjoy</p>

[faysal]

<p>You aren't really losing reach. Just crop the photo, its the same effect...</p>

<p> </p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>Your test shots are at the same aperture, but have different depth of field because they were taken at different distances from the handle. You must have adjusted your focal length to make the perspectives similar. You will always have less depth of field with your full-size sensor for a given angle of view and aperture. Notice how even the background is more blurred in the 5D2 shot. This is normal and actually desirable. With the 5D2 you get options for depth of field. On your 24-105, f/4 has pretty shallow depth of field. For small groups, I usually shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 if I want to make sure that everyone's faces are in focus.</p>

<p>In other words, your camera and lens are working fine. If you want to get more depth of field, stop down more. You can bump up the ISO more on the 5D2 than on the 40D to compensate if you are worried about subject motion blur or camera shake.</p>

 

[zvia_shever]

<p>Sam,<br>

Thanks for your input. I actually rented the 5D, II for a recent Grand Canyon trip, and loved it. That's why I took the plunge. While out there, I did take a couple of the same shots with both the 40D and the 5D. I won't use the word sharper here as I think, as you pointed out, it's an issue of bokeh vs. sharpness, but the photo from the 40D (with 17-55) was much more crisp throughout than the photo from the 5D (with 17-40)....HOWEVER, and it's a big however, the shot with the 5D was much nicer. Not sure how else to describe it, other than richer colors, more depth perhaps, something like that. Although the shot from the crop was sharper to look at, it was also dull and flat, not exciting like the 5D's. So I do understand that sharpness is not the only key to a great landscape shot.</p>

<p>Ken,</p>

<p><em>You must have adjusted your focal length to make the perspectives similar.</em></p>

<p>Yes, that's exactly what I did. I think those were shot at f 5.6...which seems really shallow as I would think that that much bokeh would have been more suited to f/4. I will just need to take this into account and shoot groups at f/8 instead of f/5.6 and landscapes at f/16-22 instead of f/11.<br>

I am sticking with the 5D, II. After my upcoming trip to Yellowstone and the Tetons, if I'm still questioning the 24-105 lens, I may send it into Canon tech just to have it checked and perhaps calibrated with my 5D. Definitely not going back to crop over this. As a few of you have said, I now have a new learning curve. I'll post a couple of my favorite Grand Canyon shots using a 5D and 17-55.</p>

<p>Thanks again to all for the advice.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Trying to post pics again.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Horseshoe Bend</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Grand Canyon</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Zvia, how about resizing your photos on this thread to 700 pixels (in the longest dimension) so they can appear in-line with the text?</p>

<p>And now perhaps you really <em>should </em>stop fretting so much. Sheesh! Go out and get some photo-therapy already! :)</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Horseshoe Bend</p><div></div>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Grand Canyon near sunset</p><div></div>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Lower Antelope Canyon</p><div></div>