7D mark II still focus issues?

[monkey44]

Personally, I've shot some pretty incredible images with the 7D2 and 70-200 f4, or 100-400 v2 ... I've also shot some true losers. I generally believe the shots I missed were primarily ME, and not the equipment. Sometimes we don't take the time to 'perfect' the shot or it happens too fast, or we just don't slow down and have patience for one reason or another.

Can the 7D2 miss, probably, and it's likely due to the electronics doing exactly what it was programmed to do, which may also be a little different than we expect under the conditions at the time the shutter opens and shuts. I'd expect most of the shots are outdoors with the 7D2, because that's what it's designed for - wildlife and sports - where we are less able to set up lighting conditions we like. Altho', I admit the auto-focus is tough to master, and I haven't completely figured it out yet, and it still it does things I don't expect.

 

[yungfat]

Hi, Otus!
I unintentionally opened the photo take 3 years ago using my Nikon D7000 which I purchased 5-6 years ago, most of the portrait shoot are not sharp and out of focus compared to the photo taken by my current camera 6D.
Is it the camera AF problem? Nikon got a high praised on AF System, and don't forget the 6D isn't the best AF in Canon DSLR line up.
In others word, you can use and 1DX II to create less sharp and out of focus photo, but that's nothing to do with the camera.

Hi Otus,
Hope you will like your new 7D mk II

Hi yungfat,

i guess i know what you are trying to say. And as i searched through all the topics about focus issues i found that there are severeal cameras during the last years and brands that suffered the same problems. It seems that even the 1D hat some focus issues in their early days.

Nevermind, i could not resist and bought a 7D mkII yet
Unfortunally the weather is just dark, rainy and grey. Hopefully it will change in the next days so that i can make some pictures. I will see how it will work then. At least its very new camera, produced in june 2016 and had 0 shots on the counter. So its not a faulty one that several people sent back. Maybe thats a good sign.

 

[j-nord]

I think Glenn Bartley is proof of how good the 7DII is/can be. Definitely going to be a small % of any camera that has issues, possibly due to stacking tolerances or other manufacturing defects. Part of it is expectation vs reality vs knowing the AF and its settings. I hesitate to pick up a 7DII on the used market since some of these bad copies are definitely floating around but I serious doubt you would have an issue with a new copy.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I think Glenn Bartley is proof of how good the 7DII is/can be. Definitely going to be a small % of any camera that has issues, possibly due to stacking tolerances or other manufacturing defects. Part of it is expectation vs reality vs knowing the AF and its settings. I hesitate to pick up a 7DII on the used market since some of these bad copies are definitely floating around but I serious doubt you would have an issue with a new copy.

Probably the only way I would pick up a used one is a refurbished model from the Canon store. They offer a full 1yr warranty and have a decent return policy.

 

[yungfat]

I think Glenn Bartley is proof of how good the 7DII is/can be. Definitely going to be a small % of any camera that has issues, possibly due to stacking tolerances or other manufacturing defects. Part of it is expectation vs reality vs knowing the AF and its settings. I hesitate to pick up a 7DII on the used market since some of these bad copies are definitely floating around but I serious doubt you would have an issue with a new copy.

Probably the only way I would pick up a used one is a refurbished model from the Canon store. They offer a full 1yr warranty and have a decent return policy.

If the price different is not much, probably could consider to go for new one as this camera might able to serve for years....

 

[AlanF]

One often-quote issue with the original 7D was when tracking birds in flight it would hold focus but every third shot or so would be out of focus and this probably a limitation of the processing power. Then again, this is why the 1Dx2 has a processor assigned specifically to AF. Apparently this is much improved in the 7D2 but still happens occasionally.

The 7D II (twin Digic 6 processors) and 7D (twin Digic 4 processors) have the second processor dedicated to AF. The 5DIII has a single 5+ whereas the the 5DS R and 5DS have dual Digic 6 processors and the 5DIV has 6+ plus a 6 dedicated for AF.

I have never had any AF problems with my 7DII, which was purchased as soon as it was released. Like others, though, not all shots in a sequence in servo mode are equally sharp. The 5DIV is the bes t of mine so far.

According to the BHP cideo the second processor of the 5D4 is dedicated to image processing, not AF.
I understand the second processor on the 7D is not handling only AF while on the 1Dx2 it is.

I check every single fact before I post and I don't rely on unsubstantiated videos etc but go to more authoritative sources. According to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_IV
Image processor DIGIC 6+ (for image processing) and DIGIC 6 (for metering and tracking)

OK.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Alan.
I thought Wikipedia was fairly unreliable, where does their info come from, and can't people who know nothing but what Fred said edit page content?
I'm asking this as it is what I understand, I'm not telling as I don't know if this is correct.

Cheers, Graham.

I check every single fact before I post and I don't rely on unsubstantiated videos etc but go to more authoritative sources. According to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_IV
Image processor DIGIC 6+ (for image processing) and DIGIC 6 (for metering and tracking)

OK.

 

[monkey44]

Hi Alan.
I thought Wikipedia was fairly unreliable, where does their info come from, and can't people who know nothing but what Fred said edit page content?
I'm asking this as it is what I understand, I'm not telling as I don't know if this is correct.

Cheers, Graham.

I check every single fact before I post and I don't rely on unsubstantiated videos etc but go to more authoritative sources. According to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_IV
Image processor DIGIC 6+ (for image processing) and DIGIC 6 (for metering and tracking)

OK.

Wikipedia receives input from individuals that have expertise in a field, and from other folks that submit stuff and know nothing. Wikipedia then vets the information before it allows it to post on the public page. Anyone can submit info - but public does not see it until WIKI has a poke at it first. We'd for sure expect some things might slip in, but as soon as it gets caught and reported by either a reader or staff, it's gone if not accurate.

 

[AlanF]

Wikipedia is certainly more reliable than random posts on forums. In the fields of science I know well enough, the articles are all reliable. The same is true about photography, optics etc where my knowledge is good enough to review the facts. As written above, Wikipedia is constantly monitored by the general public, Wikipedia staff and bots. Consequently, it is a highly regarded source of information and is regularly used as material for teaching in schools and universities. I even donate to it occasionally to help keep the show on the road.

Constant perusal by the crowd means that even doctoring of biographies, history etc rapidly comes to light and gets quickly corrected. It doesn't mean that there are not errors in Wikipedia - there are bound to be some.

I challenge anyone who claims Wikipedia is fairly unreliable to substantiate that broad generalisation.

 

[MalingJemuran]

The only focus problem i've ever encountered with my 7d2 is misfocus beyond 3 meter (by number from lens distance window) with my 17-55 f/2.8 at 17mm. After i updated my 7d2 firmware to 1.0.5, it works flawlessly.

 

[Mikehit]

I check every single fact before I post and I don't rely on unsubstantiated videos etc but go to more authoritative sources. According to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_IV
Image processor DIGIC 6+ (for image processing) and DIGIC 6 (for metering and tracking)

OK.

Interesting. I got my information straight from Rudi Winston.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/promotion/12088/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv.html?origSearch=5div%20video

58:30 onwards

But even if the 7DII has 2 processors I am not aware of the second processor being dedicated to AF - it may help the additional load but whether it is does AF and AF only (as I believe the 1Dx2 does) is a different matter.

 

[AlanF]

I check every single fact before I post and I don't rely on unsubstantiated videos etc but go to more authoritative sources. According to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_IV
Image processor DIGIC 6+ (for image processing) and DIGIC 6 (for metering and tracking)

OK.

Interesting. I got my information straight from Rudi Winston.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/promotion/12088/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv.html?origSearch=5div%20video

58:30 onwards

But even if the 7DII has 2 processors I am not aware of the second processor being dedicated to AF - it may help the additional load but whether it is does AF and AF only (as I believe the 1Dx2 does) is a different matter.

Northlight is considered a reliable source, and states the same about the 5DIV. Canon states that the 7DII uses both processors.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5d4.html

"Additionally, the camera features an advanced 150K RGB+IR metering sensor with a dedicated DIGIC 6 processor for accurate exposures and precise subject detection and tracking."

Exactly the same sentence is given in http://absolutephoto.com/index.php/news/cameras/canon/650-canon-unleashes-the-eos-5d-mark-iv and so must be part of a Canon press release.

 

[Mikehit]

Northlight is considered a reliable source, and states the same about the 5DIV. Canon states that the 7DII uses both processors.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5d4.html

"Additionally, the camera features an advanced 150K RGB+IR metering sensor with a dedicated DIGIC 6 processor for accurate exposures and precise subject detection and tracking."

Exactly the same sentence is given in http://absolutephoto.com/index.php/news/cameras/canon/650-canon-unleashes-the-eos-5d-mark-iv and so must be part of a Canon press release.

As I read it, the processor is for the metering sensor and the metering sensor is used for both exposure and AF. I guess the key thing is how that information is then used by the AF module and the exposure module and the relative split between the two tasks. But the information coming from different sources is not exactly clear.

 

[NorbR]

Wikipedia receives input from individuals that have expertise in a field, and from other folks that submit stuff and know nothing. Wikipedia then vets the information before it allows it to post on the public page. Anyone can submit info - but public does not see it until WIKI has a poke at it first. We'd for sure expect some things might slip in, but as soon as it gets caught and reported by either a reader or staff, it's gone if not accurate.

::leans on the mic Trump-style::
Wrong !

Sorry, couldn't resist :-[
But seriously, as far as I know, for most articles (there are exception for some sensitive articles) there is no a priori vetting. Changes are immediately public, and the vetting, or rather the fact-checking, is done by the community, and only a posteriori. It works extremely well, surprisingly well even (at least for the English version, see below), but there is no true vetting.

Wikipedia is certainly more reliable than random posts on forums. In the fields of science I know well enough, the articles are all reliable. The same is true about photography, optics etc where my knowledge is good enough to review the facts. As written above, Wikipedia is constantly monitored by the general public, Wikipedia staff and bots. Consequently, it is a highly regarded source of information and is regularly used as material for teaching in schools and universities. I even donate to it occasionally to help keep the show on the road.

Constant perusal by the crowd means that even doctoring of biographies, history etc rapidly comes to light and gets quickly corrected. It doesn't mean that there are not errors in Wikipedia - there are bound to be some.

I challenge anyone who claims Wikipedia is fairly unreliable to substantiate that broad generalisation.

Spoken like a true English speaker

But seriously, the difference in quality between languages is really astounding. I read the English, the French and a bit of the German version of articles. The latter two, with only a few exceptions, are garbage that should never be trusted. The English version is incomparably better, undoubtedly thanks to the larger community that sustains it.

Nevertheless, I agree: English Wikipedia is, without question, much more reliable than random forum posts. It just shouldn't be used as an original source.

 

[pwp]

No problems with the 7DII. I have a significantly higher keeper rate with the 7DII vs my 1D MkIV which came as a huge surprise, because the 1D MkIV has a reputation for truly great AF. I've had the 7DII for a year, it was bought with modest expectations, but it quickly took the place of the 1D MkIV in my bag. The 1D MkIV is currently up for sale.

-pw

 

[Mikehit]

Wikipedia receives input from individuals that have expertise in a field, and from other folks that submit stuff and know nothing. Wikipedia then vets the information before it allows it to post on the public page. Anyone can submit info - but public does not see it until WIKI has a poke at it first. We'd for sure expect some things might slip in, but as soon as it gets caught and reported by either a reader or staff, it's gone if not accurate.

::leans on the mic Trump-style::
Wrong !

Sorry, couldn't resist :-[
But seriously, as far as I know, for most articles (there are exception for some sensitive articles) there is no a priori vetting. Changes are immediately public, and the vetting, or rather the fact-checking, is done by the community, and only a posteriori. It works extremely well, surprisingly well even (at least for the English version, see below), but there is no true vetting.

Wikipedia is certainly more reliable than random posts on forums. In the fields of science I know well enough, the articles are all reliable. The same is true about photography, optics etc where my knowledge is good enough to review the facts. As written above, Wikipedia is constantly monitored by the general public, Wikipedia staff and bots. Consequently, it is a highly regarded source of information and is regularly used as material for teaching in schools and universities. I even donate to it occasionally to help keep the show on the road.

Constant perusal by the crowd means that even doctoring of biographies, history etc rapidly comes to light and gets quickly corrected. It doesn't mean that there are not errors in Wikipedia - there are bound to be some.

I challenge anyone who claims Wikipedia is fairly unreliable to substantiate that broad generalisation.

Spoken like a true English speaker

But seriously, the difference in quality between languages is really astounding. I read the English, the French and a bit of the German version of articles. The latter two, with only a few exceptions, are garbage that should never be trusted. The English version is incomparably better, undoubtedly thanks to the larger community that sustains it.

Nevertheless, I agree: English Wikipedia is, without question, much more reliable than random forum posts. It just shouldn't be used as an original source.

That wording does indeed come from a Canon press release. So Wikipedia was accurate - in as much it is true to official press release which is itself a bit ambiguous

 

[AlanF]

But seriously, the difference in quality between languages is really astounding. I read the English, the French and a bit of the German version of articles. The latter two, with only a few exceptions, are garbage that should never be trusted. The English version is incomparably better, undoubtedly thanks to the larger community that sustains it.

Is that an argument in favour of Brexit - you can't believe a word of French or German compared with the veracity of the Brits?

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi monkey.
Thank you for this insightful post, I stand corrected and will have much more faith in what I read on Wikipedia now.

Hi Alan.
As I said, no proof, just what I had been led to believe.

Cheers, Graham.

Wikipedia receives input from individuals that have expertise in a field, and from other folks that submit stuff and know nothing. Wikipedia then vets the information before it allows it to post on the public page. Anyone can submit info - but public does not see it until WIKI has a poke at it first. We'd for sure expect some things might slip in, but as soon as it gets caught and reported by either a reader or staff, it's gone if not accurate.

 

[AlanF]

Hi monkey.
Thank you for this insightful post, I stand corrected and will have much more faith in what I read on Wikipedia now.

Hi Alan.
As I said, no proof, just what I had been led to believe.

Cheers, Graham.

Wikipedia receives input from individuals that have expertise in a field, and from other folks that submit stuff and know nothing. Wikipedia then vets the information before it allows it to post on the public page. Anyone can submit info - but public does not see it until WIKI has a poke at it first. We'd for sure expect some things might slip in, but as soon as it gets caught and reported by either a reader or staff, it's gone if not accurate.

Graham
Wikipedia is really very reliable as it is under constant scrutiny. I have had personal experience of this. More than a decade ago, a former student to get publicity for himself set up a wiki page for me (without my knowledge until I came across it). Over the years, teams of volunteers, unaided by me, have made it into a factually correct small article, digging out information from here and there, with others correcting mistakes etc. All the facts have references to the original source. Occasionally, trolls try to have fun by inserting spurious comments, which have all been picked up and removed.

I use it a lot for a quick survey of areas of science etc.

 

[monkey44]

The possibility always exists for "facts" as we know and accept them are inaccurate, and that includes WIKI -- but, it's a very good place to start, depending in how critical an answer you need. I've found it a very good resource over the years, as I'm a researcher (journalist) and always verify with several other sources before I publish. WIKI often includes the sources for its info when applicable, so it's fairly easy to verify those as well.

I'd always suggest at least one external "second source" outside of WIKI for verification - but WIKI is very sound as a first source.