Disgruntled with Canons

[tamandra]

<p>I am really trying to figure out what to do here. I have had Canon for nearly a decade now, and have been using the 5D3 for the past few years. Upgraded from the 5D2 because the autofocus drove me nuts. I am a pet photographer, and it's pretty much like I need a sports body, to capture fast action. Adding to the challenge, I love shallow DOF. Well, I just have been trying out the 7DmkII, and thought it was going to be the answer, to supplement my gear. I don't think so. I'm still getting lots of missed focus, soft images at settings that shouldn't be. I'm sure some of it is me, and my lenses are getting old now, so maybe that has a big part to play in it. They're all L lenses. <br />I keep thinking of jumping ship and switching to Nikon. Want to try the D750. If it's time to upgrade some of my lenses, I'd be taking a hit on selling the old ones anyway. Maybe I should switch...? I just want to be able to get images like this...https://500px.com/tanjabrandt She shoots Nikon....</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Frankly, as a Nikon user: you'll run into the same issues. In terms of AF performance, Canon and Nikon are quite close, and the complexities of setting up the AF system so that it gets you best results, equally so. Lenses - each brand has its gems and duds, and again not a lot of difference there. Lenses don't age all that much, so softness isn't coming from aging lenses.<br>

Instead of losing a considerable amount of money on switching systems, I'd look for a workshop with a sports or wildlife photographer and work together to start getting the best out of the AF of your 5D Mk. III (which should easily be up to the challenge). I think in the long term, that will bring you more than changing gear, having to learn other conventions and renew the muscle memory (because buttons are located elsewhere) - switching will not bring instant success anyway. But most of all, there are way too many wildlife and sports photographers delivering top notch work with 5D mk. III and 7D to assume this gear isn't suitable for what you want to do.</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>It's no good you should feel this way. As you put it, there are just too many variables. Is it the camera, lenses, the DOF demands you put on the picture, or you?<br>

Maybe you should document what lens, what setting etc for a while. It's easier, of course, with prime lenses. Sometimes it's just one lens that throws you.<br>

Does the lens and F stop show up in the metadata? I use an old Rebel Xti (400d) which doesn't supply that info, but it's a toy camera by comparison.<br>

I have some 'great' (ie shallow DOF) old manual fast film lenses that I can't focus manually at wide aperture with any accuracy, that were great on old film bodies for shooting children moving. The Rebel I have has a smaller viewfinder image than any of the old film cameras I used. I have been considering getting a viewfinder magnifier maybe around 1.35X. It has been great, really helpful, to have one on my Leica M9, for any lens 50mm or longer.<br>

Its hard to tell. I imagine a 5D has a bigger viewfinder image; at least it has a proper pentaprism. However, I read that the magnifiers work fine on full frame as well, maybe cropping the corners a little. At least you would get a bigger viewfinder to work with.<br>

Then again, are you sure it's as bad as you think? Pixel peeping is just too easy for the perfectionist with digital. It wasn't easy with film; you got it to the enlarger before you could see that stuff; then you had to put a positive spin on it.<br>

good luck</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>No camera is going to be able to get every shot where you want it with fast moving subjects. It is an unthinking machine - unless you always get an AF point over an eye or close enough, or the subjects move in the meantime then the result will be less than perfection. Even if you have a Canon 1Dx/7DII or Nikon D5/D500, this will still happen. No one says this is easy. You will never achieve 100% success rate. Save your money and effort and stick with what you have. Stop down a little.</p>

[PapaTango]

<p>After over 40 years of dedication to Canon--starting with the venerable FT/QL--I made a jump early last year to Nikon. This choice was not based on 'performance', but rather rather how the camera body felt in my hands and how the controls were arrayed. Both Canon and Nikon are solid machines--and a 'better picture' discussion is akin to one of those "Ford versus Chevy" arguments.</p>

<p>Changes to the motors in lenses and other characteristics have 'improved' lenses somewhat. The Canon L series is the top of the heap for professional use in that manufacturers line--millions of photos of subjects in sports and animal photography are out there to attest to their prowess. As others have pointed out, there is something else at work here.</p>

<p>As with any problem to be solved, work on reducing the variables. One body, one lens at a time. Set yourself up a jig for assessing focus on a flat field test subject. This article is helpful:</p>

<p><a href="https://photographylife.com/how-to-quickly-test-your-dslr-for-autofocus-issues">https://photographylife.com/how-to-quickly-test-your-dslr-for-autofocus-issues</a></p>

<p>This will identify gross problems between your lens and final image. Second, if issues present find out which directions your camera is moving the focus--forward or backward. A yardstick at a 45 degree angle is a ready tool. Focus at a distance of 6 feet or so at the 18" mark. Check your final image for the point of best focus--front or back. Some fine tuning may be in order for particular lenses.</p>

<p>Once you know the "what" of it on a standardized, non moving test subject--you can address the why and make accommodations. Sometimes it is an adjustment, others it is changing techniques. Throwing money at the issue with new lenses and bodies might very well solve the matter. But find out if you can fix the one you have first!</p>

[DickArnold]

I am a 7DII owner and am highly satisfied with it. Having said there have been recorded difficulties with the 7DII

not producing sharp images because of focusing issues. . Those users have gotten some relief by sending the

camera to Canon for analysis and adjustment. I have used an 18 year old 70-200L 2.8 on it and the pictures are

very sharp. The point about isolating the problem by trying different lenses is important. I use the 7DII for major

swim meets and I have gotten more keepers than any other Canon body over the years. Case 2 should be good

for pets jumping around. The camera captures swimmers faster and holds the focus at 10 fps superbly. Again,

send it to Canon with examples and your favorite lens. Of the complaints I have read about defective 7dIIs yours

seems to fall in that category.

[kerry_grim]

The 5DIII is avery capable camera. I don't own a 5DIII but suspect it could be a setting that may not be

quite appropriate. Post photos and this may help give better ideas. Unless there is something wrong

with the camera, switching to a different system will not help. Did you look at the Sports Forum? There

may be tips there as to how their camera is set for focusing as well as shutter speeds. Keep in mind that

a lot of sports photos are fairly predictable and you may be able to pan with the subject and all photos

will be in focus. But, trying to take a moving pet will likely cause less photos to be in focus since their

movements are less predictable. In a case like that, the focus point may suddenly select past your

subject do to erratic movements of the pet.

 

For your own peace of mind, go outside and take photos of moving subjects such as cars and see if

they are in focus. If, for example I took photos of runners coming at me using the center point, the

camera is set to follow focus, but if I got that focus point off the subject just prior to the shot, it will try to focus

in the background.

 

Are the mis-focuses back focus or front focus?

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Pets (like young children) are very difficult to consistently get in focus unless they are motionless (which can make for a LOT of dull images), or the DOF is very deep. Given the similarities between Nikon and Canon AF systems, I don't think you'll see much improvement (and perhaps a significant negative impact). </p>

<p>I would suggest two alternatives. <br>

1) try (rent) a 1D... either a 1Dx or a 1D4. The AF capabilities of these are a step above that of your 5D3 (though I'm sure many 5D3 owners will disagree) - as good as it is. You may very well see a tangible difference in your keeper rate. </p>

<p>2) Set your DOF to a reasonable depth (given the distance from the camera and the action of the animal), and control the OOF elements through position relative to the animal and your shooting position. Doing this will give you a keeper rate of nearly 100%, though it will obviously require some proper staging and forethought - especially in your position and shooting angles.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>If the 5D3 was not capable of taking a decent image, you would see professional photographers everywhere ditching the camera. But you don't. Most of the complaints of the sort in the OP turn out to be either a defective camera, not a bad brand, or user problems. Typically it's user problems. Occasionally with any DSLR there will be a problem with back/front focus which is why many cameras, Canon and Nikon, have the ability to adjust this. Best to do some controlled tests to find out where the problem originates.</p>

<p>I shoot with a 5D3 and a variety of lenses and have a relatively small number of out of focus images, usually due to subject motion. I shoot moving subjects wide open most of the time so any type of focusing error would show up quickly. You can see a lot of shots on <a href="http://bangbang.photo/">my web site</a>, most after page 1 are taken with the 5D3. (Page one includes some older photos taken with a 1D3.) You should be able to get sharp photos with the camera, changing brands is a good way to spend money fixing the wrong problem.</p>

[tamandra]

<p>Well, I think there is things wrong with my 5D3, as in full raw, it corrupts images randomly, get the banding and colorful patterns. It can't be lenses, it's always hit or miss, no matter which. I understand that nobody gets all of them, but I mean that the focus is off enough to make me annoyed. I've been shooting ten years, I've tried tons of different tweaks in it. Particularly with a dog running towards the camera, it hardly EVER gets one sharp. If it is, it could be better, but it's passable with editing. There's just been enough things to make me really disgruntled. <br />I returned the 7D2. I got the Nikon D750 to try :) I just need to see if it does feel more intuitive...cuz after 4 years, I STILL have trouble with the way you have to zoom and look at the LCD by pressing multiple buttons. PITA. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I think there is things wrong with my 5D3, as in full raw, it corrupts images randomly, get the banding and colorful patterns.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> How many cards have you tried? And if it's a defective body, that's not just something that happens with Canon. Statistically speaking, every camera will have failures. If images have banding and are corrupted, why not send it in?</p>

<p>As I said above, you can't have all these cameras in the hands of professionals and have a badly designed or built product.</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>Jeff sounds right. While you have the Nikon, or If you still have a stand-by body like the 8mp XT (or pref. 18mp), you could send the 5D3 in to Canon for repair.</p>

[tamandra]

<p>I don't have a stand by body, and it does need sent in. I contacted Canon and they'll take a look at it. Yes, they do sometimes have bad copies! When I exchanged my 5D2, I compared images shot at the same event, and the one they sent me to trade was better. I'm asking too much of it probably. I like shallow DOF and action, and need the eyes tack sharp on dogs. I just bought the D750 yesterday, and went to a dog park for a bit this afternoon, in low light. It WAS better! I was nailing eyes on running dogs, at ridiculously low shutter speeds even. So it's a keeper. I'm going to the dark side! </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>One hesitates to ask: but did you adjust the AF in camera? This is a common reason why AF is not hitting the spot, same applies to Nikons. Some lenses do need to undergo AFA in camera, which you can do yourself. The D750 is a good camera, but I am entirely confident that it does not beat the 5D3 into a cocked hat.</p>

[fmueller]

<p>Since nobody else has pointed it out, the images on the web site you have linked to are masterfully taken, but they did not come out of the camera as they are presented. They show a rather heavy amount of post processing in Photoshop or a similar software. To me it looks like certain areas of each image were enhanced using unsharp masking, while Gaussian blur was applied to other areas. If you are not familiar with how to do that, you might want to find some online tutorials or a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Photoshop-Classic-Guide-Correction/dp/032144017X/ref=sr_1_4">good book on image processing</a>, and experiment with those techniques. The problem might not be with your gear, but with knowing what technique to use to achieve the desired result!</p>

[tamandra]

<p>Thought I would look at this again and give a little update. I am seriously head over heels thrilled in love with my D750! Yes, I had adjusted this and that, and experimented like crazy. Of course I did, having this issue so many years! It's more than that...the images I'm getting now have the eyes nailed tack sharp, even with action, even at a huge distance, in tricky conditions. I went to a dog trial over the weekend, and was even shooting through orange netting, full length 200 mm, and I'm shocked at how many keepers and good shots I got. I'm even fumbling with having a new camera! LOL. For what I do, and how I shoot, it's got the 5D3 beat. Badly. <br /> As for the images I showed that I liked, of course they're post processed. I enjoy the hell out of doing that, but you need good foundation. So it's not the blur that I was pointing out, but just how tack sharp the dogs are, when in extreme action. Here's an example from the mondio trial. Before, my Canons would likely have gotten a spot on the body suit sharp near the face, but everything else mush. Anyway, there's a whole host of reasons that I think it was worth it to switch for me. The gear is lighter, feels more ergonomic to me, the LCD swivel feature is huuuge for me, and I love what's coming out of the camera. I wish I had done this sooner!</p><div></div>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Well, great. The acid test will be how you feel once the honeymoon period wears off. I give this a year to 18 months. Check back and let us know whether it was worth it.</p>