10D Focus issue - is it "real" ? can Canon test for it?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by matt del vecchio, Apr 14, 2004.

  1. having heard so much about the focus problem, now im wondering if i
    have it. i always unsharp mask every single pic to get a nice sharp
    image. OTOH, ive read that all digital cams/scans must do this because
    of their nature..

    so is it a 100% certified actual known defect that some copies have?
    can & does Canon test for it if you ship your 10D to them?


    thanks,
    matt

    --
    Matt Del Vecchio
    matt del vecchio, Apr 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Don't have a 10D, but using a meter stick or a test target tilted at 45
    degrees to the image plane is not a particularly difficult experiment to set
    up.
    Charles Schuler, Apr 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. matt del vecchio

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: (matt del vecchio)

    >having heard so much about the focus problem, now im wondering if i
    >have it. i always unsharp mask every single pic to get a nice sharp
    >image. OTOH, ive read that all digital cams/scans must do this because
    >of their nature.


    You can set the in-camera sharpening higher but most people prefer to do this
    later in the flow in Photoshop. What you describe it normal.

    >so is it a 100% certified actual known defect that some copies have?
    >can & does Canon test for it if you ship your 10D to them?


    Here's a link to a good write-up on the problem, with a test you can try
    yourself.

    http://www.photo.net/learn/focustest/

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Apr 14, 2004
    #3
  4. > having heard so much about the focus problem, now im wondering if i
    > have it. i always unsharp mask every single pic to get a nice sharp
    > image. OTOH, ive read that all digital cams/scans must do this because
    > of their nature..


    Jesus, get over it. That was a problem for the initial run about a
    year ago. It was fixed long ago.
    Randall Ainsworth, Apr 15, 2004
    #4
  5. (matt del vecchio) wrote in message news:<>...
    > having heard so much about the focus problem, now im wondering if i
    > have it.


    If you wonder, you have it. Every image you take should be this sharp
    before any USM is applied...

    http://www.pbase.com/image/26898707/original

    If they aren't, your camera is defective, just that simple.

    > i always unsharp mask every single pic to get a nice sharp
    > image.


    All Bayer cameras are defective by design--they incoporate a blur
    filter specifically to annoy you--oh--and so you don't get an image of
    a rainbow mosiac in place of every shot.

    > OTOH, ive read that all digital cams/scans must do this because
    > of their nature..
    >
    > so is it a 100% certified actual known defect that some copies have?
    > can & does Canon test for it if you ship your 10D to them?
    >
    >
    > thanks,
    > matt
    George Preddy, Apr 15, 2004
    #5
  6. George, you are now up to 5,800 posts! Most are related to
    the Foveon. Doesn't that simple fact tell you that you are
    OBSESSED?? That's a LOT of arguing!

    IF you like your camera so much, why not spend your time
    USING it instead of DEFENDING it? Why do you care what
    others think of your purchase?? You have failed to convince
    anyone of the legitimacy of the numerous (boy is THAT an
    understatement!) issues you bring up over and over and over
    again. Do you think that by repeating yourself, someone is
    suddenly going to think, "Why George, I now see the
    light!!"? You've exhausted every possible argument in favor
    of the Foveon. Just enjoy your camera and let Canon users
    enjoy theirs.

    How's your endless argument been working for you SO FAR, George?

    dave

    George Preddy wrote:

    > (matt del vecchio) wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >>having heard so much about the focus problem, now im wondering if i
    >>have it.

    >
    >
    > If you wonder, you have it. Every image you take should be this sharp
    > before any USM is applied...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/26898707/original
    >
    > If they aren't, your camera is defective, just that simple.
    >
    >
    >>i always unsharp mask every single pic to get a nice sharp
    >>image.

    >
    >
    > All Bayer cameras are defective by design--they incoporate a blur
    > filter specifically to annoy you--oh--and so you don't get an image of
    > a rainbow mosiac in place of every shot.
    >
    >
    >> OTOH, ive read that all digital cams/scans must do this because
    >>of their nature..
    >>
    >>so is it a 100% certified actual known defect that some copies have?
    >>can & does Canon test for it if you ship your 10D to them?
    >>
    >>
    >>thanks,
    >>matt
    Bay Area Dave, Apr 15, 2004
    #6
  7. matt del vecchio

    Mark Roberts Guest

    Bay Area Dave <> wrote:

    >George, you are now up to 5,800 posts! Most are related to
    >the Foveon. Doesn't that simple fact tell you that you are
    >OBSESSED?? That's a LOT of arguing!
    >
    >IF you like your camera so much, why not spend your time
    >USING it instead of DEFENDING it?


    I think George is paid to make all those posts... by Canon.
    Certainly no one has done more to soil the reputation of Sigma/Foveon.

    --
    Mark Roberts
    Photography and writing
    www.robertstech.com
    Mark Roberts, Apr 15, 2004
    #7
  8. Good point! His comments regarding the "poor" quality
    pictures from Canon cameras are nothing short of lunacy.

    dave

    Mark Roberts wrote:

    > Bay Area Dave <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>George, you are now up to 5,800 posts! Most are related to
    >>the Foveon. Doesn't that simple fact tell you that you are
    >>OBSESSED?? That's a LOT of arguing!
    >>
    >>IF you like your camera so much, why not spend your time
    >>USING it instead of DEFENDING it?

    >
    >
    > I think George is paid to make all those posts... by Canon.
    > Certainly no one has done more to soil the reputation of Sigma/Foveon.
    >
    Bay Area Dave, Apr 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Bay Area Dave <> wrote in message news:<fEHfc.37353$>...
    > Good point! His comments regarding the "poor" quality
    > pictures from Canon cameras are nothing short of lunacy.


    They're not "my comments," see for yourself look how bad the
    (interpolated, yuck) Canon 1Ds performas compared to a camera with pro
    quality sensor...

    http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/essay.html
    George Preddy, Apr 16, 2004
    #9
  10. dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in message news:<>...
    > >From: (matt del vecchio)

    >
    > >having heard so much about the focus problem, now im wondering if i
    > >have it. i always unsharp mask every single pic to get a nice sharp
    > >image. OTOH, ive read that all digital cams/scans must do this because
    > >of their nature.

    >
    > You can set the in-camera sharpening higher but most people prefer to do this
    > later in the flow in Photoshop. What you describe it normal.


    It is normal for a heavily interpolated Bayer digital camera--which
    most are. But really you should never, ever have to apply unsharp
    mask after the fact if the image was taken in focus.

    Another important tip is to never, ever shoot JPEG if your camera is a
    Bayer, since the heavy artifical sharpening required to make the image
    look accepatable will sharpen the JPEG artifacts too. RAW (or 8-bit
    TIF is ok in a bind if your camera supports it) is the only way to go.

    The only high quality answer for Bayer camera users, unfortunately, is
    to downsample your RAW images (after outputing them as 16-bit TIF
    images) to the actual size supported by the sensor. Since Bayer
    cameras have RGGB mosaic sensors (1 complete color per 4 sensors),
    this means downsampling to 25% of the rated, interpolated MP count to
    get the optical sharpness you are looking for.

    Of course, this reduces the MP count as advertised since they lied to
    you and listed an interpolated MP count in the first place, but that's
    life, since the sensor count is in fact much smaller than you were
    told.
    George Preddy, Apr 16, 2004
    #10
  11. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > They're not "my comments," see for yourself look how bad the
    > (interpolated, yuck) Canon 1Ds performas compared to a camera with pro
    > quality sensor...
    >
    > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/essay.html


    The usual 'Preddy' bullshit. A flawed comparison between an anti-aliased
    sensor and one without a lowpass filter. Also the different field of view is
    rigged to disadvantage the 1Ds, look at the magnification difference here:
    http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/AoR.png .

    Bart
    Bart van der Wolf, Apr 16, 2004
    #11
  12. matt del vecchio

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on 16 Apr 2004
    06:00:21 -0700, (George Preddy) wrote:

    > (Bill Hilton) wrote in message news:<>...
    >> >From: (matt del vecchio)

    >>
    >> >having heard so much about the focus problem, now im wondering if i
    >> >have it. i always unsharp mask every single pic to get a nice sharp
    >> >image. OTOH, ive read that all digital cams/scans must do this because
    >> >of their nature.

    >>
    >> You can set the in-camera sharpening higher but most people prefer to do this
    >> later in the flow in Photoshop. What you describe it normal.

    >
    >It is normal for a heavily interpolated Bayer digital camera--which
    >most are. But really you should never, ever have to apply unsharp
    >mask after the fact if the image was taken in focus.


    Nonsense -- in-camera sharpening interferes with post-processing.

    >Another important tip is to never, ever shoot JPEG if your camera is a
    >Bayer, since the heavy artifical sharpening required to make the image
    >look accepatable will sharpen the JPEG artifacts too....


    Nonsense -- at best quality, JPEG is indistinguishable from lossless.

    >The only high quality answer for Bayer camera users, unfortunately, is
    >to downsample your RAW images (after outputing them as 16-bit TIF
    >images) to the actual size supported by the sensor. Since Bayer
    >cameras have RGGB mosaic sensors (1 complete color per 4 sensors),
    >this means downsampling to 25% of the rated, interpolated MP count to
    >get the optical sharpness you are looking for.


    Utter nonsense.

    >Of course, this reduces the MP count as advertised since they lied to
    >you and listed an interpolated MP count in the first place, but that's
    >life, since the sensor count is in fact much smaller than you were
    >told.


    Utter nonsense.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

    "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
    difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
    boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
    John Navas, Apr 16, 2004
    #12
  13. matt del vecchio

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on 14 Apr 2004
    19:10:49 -0700, (George Preddy) wrote:

    >All Bayer cameras are defective by design-- ...


    Rubbish.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

    "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
    difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
    boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
    John Navas, Apr 16, 2004
    #13
  14. matt del vecchio

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on 16 Apr 2004 05:47:28
    -0700, (George Preddy) wrote:

    >Bay Area Dave <> wrote in message news:<fEHfc.37353$>...
    >> Good point! His comments regarding the "poor" quality
    >> pictures from Canon cameras are nothing short of lunacy.

    >
    >They're not "my comments," see for yourself look how bad the
    >(interpolated, yuck) Canon 1Ds performas compared to a camera with pro
    >quality sensor...
    >
    >http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/essay.html


    Here's what that site (Digital Outback Photo) actually has to say about the
    1Ds:

    12/03/2002 Digital Outback Photo goes 1Ds

    We liked the Canon EOS 1Ds so much that we got our own today. This is
    a major step as we were shooting Nikon (The D1x will be our second
    body for now) for nearly 30 years.

    Here is our motivation:

    * We very much like the Canon IS lenses
    * The Canon EOS 1Ds is an exceptional body
    * 11MPs are nice to have
    * We like the Capture One RAW converter for the 1Ds

    ...

    Dave Etchells from Imaging Resource and Rob Galbraith raved about the 1Ds
    sharpness and detail. We must say the detail is really amazing. The EOS 1Ds
    is in terms of detail in a league of its own. This is the level of detail
    all landscape photographers long for (us of course included).

    ...

    We have never had before such a high rate of keepers.

    ...

    1Ds (defining digital state of the art)

    You can't have it both ways. Since you keep citing Digital Outback Photo as
    an authority, that would seem to put the matter to rest.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Apr 16, 2004
    #14
  15. ever heard the term, "liars figure and figures lie"?

    dave

    George Preddy wrote:
    > Bay Area Dave <> wrote in message news:<fEHfc.37353$>...
    >
    >>Good point! His comments regarding the "poor" quality
    >>pictures from Canon cameras are nothing short of lunacy.

    >
    >
    > They're not "my comments," see for yourself look how bad the
    > (interpolated, yuck) Canon 1Ds performas compared to a camera with pro
    > quality sensor...
    >
    > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/essay.html
    Bay Area Dave, Apr 16, 2004
    #15
  16. matt del vecchio

    Bryce Guest

    I've kept quite on this too long.

    You are so FULL of shit!


    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > (matt del vecchio) wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > having heard so much about the focus problem, now im wondering if i
    > > have it.

    >
    > If you wonder, you have it. Every image you take should be this sharp
    > before any USM is applied...
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/26898707/original
    >
    > If they aren't, your camera is defective, just that simple.
    >
    > > i always unsharp mask every single pic to get a nice sharp
    > > image.

    >
    > All Bayer cameras are defective by design--they incoporate a blur
    > filter specifically to annoy you--oh--and so you don't get an image of
    > a rainbow mosiac in place of every shot.
    >
    > > OTOH, ive read that all digital cams/scans must do this because
    > > of their nature..
    > >
    > > so is it a 100% certified actual known defect that some copies have?
    > > can & does Canon test for it if you ship your 10D to them?
    > >
    > >
    > > thanks,
    > > matt
    Bryce, Apr 16, 2004
    #16
  17. matt del vecchio

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bay Area Dave <> wrote in message

    news:<fEHfc.37353$>...
    > > Good point! His comments regarding the "poor" quality
    > > pictures from Canon cameras are nothing short of lunacy.

    >
    > They're not "my comments," see for yourself look how bad the
    > (interpolated, yuck) Canon 1Ds performas compared to a camera with pro
    > quality sensor...
    >
    > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/essay.html


    Once again, George doesn't bother actually reading the references that he
    posts:

    "Some will claim that these test are not real life and of course we as
    nature photographers agree. These tests demonstrate what we see also in real
    world photos , but off not at such an extreme."

    "It is easy to se that the Bayer sensors and the raw converters have a hard
    time handling the red-blue transitions and also show some halo at the edges
    of the digits. The X3 sensor handles these transition very well but also
    shows a higher level of noise in the blue channel (we might have also
    underexposed the SD9 image). Do not forget that the two Canon cameras are
    also known to produce exceptional low noise at ISO 100."

    On an artificial test that the tester admits is no representative of
    real-world photography, the Foveon did better on red-blue transitions, but
    exhibited higher noise levels on the blue channel.
    PTRAVEL, Apr 16, 2004
    #17
  18. "PTRAVEL" <> writes:

    >On an artificial test that the tester admits is no representative of
    >real-world photography, the Foveon did better on red-blue transitions, but
    >exhibited higher noise levels on the blue channel.


    And it did this even when the Sigma camera had the benefit of higher
    image magnification, since the testers did not adjust the camera-target
    distance to equalize the field of view. This gives the Sigma a minor
    advantage over the D60, but a 1.7X advantage over the 1Ds. Essentially,
    only about 1/3 of the pixels of the 1Ds were used to capture the same
    area of the target as the SD9.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Apr 16, 2004
    #18
  19. "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message news:<c5p8j6$4cdo9$-berlin.de>...
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Bay Area Dave <> wrote in message

    > news:<fEHfc.37353$>...
    > > > Good point! His comments regarding the "poor" quality
    > > > pictures from Canon cameras are nothing short of lunacy.

    > >
    > > They're not "my comments," see for yourself look how bad the
    > > (interpolated, yuck) Canon 1Ds performas compared to a camera with pro
    > > quality sensor...
    > >
    > > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/essay.html

    >
    > Once again, George doesn't bother actually reading the references that he
    > posts:
    >
    > "Some will claim that these test are not real life and of course we as
    > nature photographers agree. These tests demonstrate what we see also in real
    > world photos , but off not at such an extreme."
    >
    > "It is easy to se that the Bayer sensors and the raw converters have a hard
    > time handling the red-blue transitions and also show some halo at the edges
    > of the digits. The X3 sensor handles these transition very well but also
    > shows a higher level of noise in the blue channel (we might have also
    > underexposed the SD9 image). Do not forget that the two Canon cameras are
    > also known to produce exceptional low noise at ISO 100."
    >
    > On an artificial test that the tester admits is no representative of
    > real-world photography, the Foveon did better on red-blue transitions, but
    > exhibited higher noise levels on the blue channel.



    IOWs, the $8000 Canon 1Ds stunk up the place--what's your point?
    George Preddy, Apr 16, 2004
    #19
  20. matt del vecchio

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message

    news:<c5p8j6$4cdo9$-berlin.de>...
    > > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > Bay Area Dave <> wrote in message

    > > news:<fEHfc.37353$>...
    > > > > Good point! His comments regarding the "poor" quality
    > > > > pictures from Canon cameras are nothing short of lunacy.
    > > >
    > > > They're not "my comments," see for yourself look how bad the
    > > > (interpolated, yuck) Canon 1Ds performas compared to a camera with pro
    > > > quality sensor...
    > > >
    > > > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_05/essay.html

    > >
    > > Once again, George doesn't bother actually reading the references that

    he
    > > posts:
    > >
    > > "Some will claim that these test are not real life and of course we as
    > > nature photographers agree. These tests demonstrate what we see also in

    real
    > > world photos , but off not at such an extreme."
    > >
    > > "It is easy to se that the Bayer sensors and the raw converters have a

    hard
    > > time handling the red-blue transitions and also show some halo at the

    edges
    > > of the digits. The X3 sensor handles these transition very well but also
    > > shows a higher level of noise in the blue channel (we might have also
    > > underexposed the SD9 image). Do not forget that the two Canon cameras

    are
    > > also known to produce exceptional low noise at ISO 100."
    > >
    > > On an artificial test that the tester admits is no representative of
    > > real-world photography, the Foveon did better on red-blue transitions,

    but
    > > exhibited higher noise levels on the blue channel.

    >
    >
    > IOWs, the $8000 Canon 1Ds stunk up the place--what's your point?


    My point is (1) per the article, the 1Ds most certainly did not "stink up
    the place," and (2) you continue to fail to read the articles you cite.
    They don't support your jihad against Canon (or Bayer-sensor cameras,
    generally). I've asked you this before: why do you have to lie to support
    your positions?
    PTRAVEL, Apr 16, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest

    test test test test test test test

    Guest, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    892
    halfalifer
    Jul 2, 2003
  2. W6DKN
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    357
    W6DKN
    Aug 1, 2003
  3. IRISH1EAR

    depth of field , focus points ,group shot canon 10d

    IRISH1EAR, Jan 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    917
  4. Jimmy Smith

    how many here have Canon 10D with no focus problem?

    Jimmy Smith, Jun 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,749
    grant kinsley
    Jun 16, 2004
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    689
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page