Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?

[Ryan85]

Had mine three weeks and almost all were soft. Sometimes it looked like the focus was somewhere else. Multiple lens setup etc. Contacted Canon they had me reset everything and nothing helped. Asked if there was a hard reset and they said no. (If you look were the battery goes in there is a plug there but I didn't explore more.) So option was return it or send to Canon Va. Opted to return it tomorrow. btw serial number started with 02202100XXXX maybe there is a pattern..

Mine starts with 02202000xxxx.....nice to know I am not crazy

01202000XXXX for me. I guess mine is an earlier run?

I have to admit I was a bit disappointed in the crop image quality after a decade of full frame. I don't have any trouble telling 5D2/3 files from 7D2 at 100% in lightroom. I suppose I knew that would be the case but the reality is still a bit disappointing. It seems like Canon should be a little further along with the IQ by now. But, I'm getting shots that I just couldn't get with the 5D3 and my lenses so "it is what it is". It is an absolute hoot to shoot with but IQ is not up to full frame specs. Apparently the laws of physics are alive and well.

You can't really tell much of a difference on BIF bomber runs like the Shoveler I posted above just because that photo has so much going on. You can really see the difference on low light still animal photos. They definitely don't have the crispness and clarity of my 5D3 photos. It may be that the 7D2 is out-resolving my lenses. My 400 5.6l only hits about a .75 on the MTF charts. That may not be high enough for the 7D2. If it wasn't December I'd be able to do much more extensive testing.

Hopefully Canon will get you squared away. I think it's a keeper.

After editing are they still not very sharp? Are we taking about jpgs or raws?

 

[Ryan85]

After editing are they still not very sharp? Are we taking about jpgs or raws?

Raws at 100% in Lightroom or Photoshop. I'd say they they just aren't as tack sharp as a full frame image from my 5D3. It's not that they aren't in focus. Sharpness might not be the best word. More like a 5D3 file that's been cropped and then rez'd back up to a higher resolution. 7D2 files are a 60% magnification of 5D3 files so its no surprise that it shows. I'm sure lots of folks won't agree, but I'd say the 7D2 vs 5D3 gives you an additional 20% increase in resolution (7D2 vs croped 5D3) but magnifies your files by 60%. So the extra 40% shows up as a lack of sharpness if that makes sense. There is a price to be paid which can be seen at 100%. Sorry about all of the %'s.

Got you that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

 

[chimperjake]

I also have a 400 5.6, a 600 f4 is usm, a 70-200 2.8 is ii, a 24-70 II and results are about the same with all lenses so I dont think it is a resolution problem.

Keep us up to date if you don't mind. Maybe mine can be improved? And no, the rest of your lenses definitely don't have a resolution problem.

I will definately keep you in the loop. Will ship out tomorrow or Tuesday. Canon anticipates a week or so turn around on it. We shall see what the resolution is.

 

[Ryan85]

After editing are they still not very sharp? Are we taking about jpgs or raws?

Raws at 100% in Lightroom or Photoshop. I'd say they they just aren't as tack sharp as a full frame image from my 5D3. It's not that they aren't in focus. Sharpness might not be the best word. More like a 5D3 file that's been cropped and then rez'd back up to a higher resolution. 7D2 files are a 60% magnification of 5D3 files so its no surprise that it shows. I'm sure lots of folks won't agree, but I'd say the 7D2 vs 5D3 gives you an additional 20% increase in resolution (7D2 vs croped 5D3) but magnifies your files by 60%. So the extra 40% shows up as a lack of sharpness if that makes sense. There is a price to be paid which can be seen at 100%. Sorry about all of the %'s.

Got you that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

Sure, it's a simplification but I think it gets to the core of the issue. Added an edit so I thought i'd bump it

edit...this is just for 100% pixel peepers. Normal size prints and electronic files for distribution look fine. But, if you won't be happy with anything less than the highest possible IQ. Well...do you need me to say it...1DX, Big Whites and a bird blind to hide in...

Lol got you. I'm not looking for perfect iq from it. It's much cheaper than the 1dx for a reason. I'm not a pixel peeper I just want nice normal size prints and digital files to look good and it seems Ill be happy

 

[sdsr]

I have to admit I was a bit disappointed in the crop image quality after a decade of full frame. I don't have any trouble telling 5D2/3 files from 7D2 at 100% in lightroom. I suppose I knew that would be the case but the reality is still a bit disappointing. It seems like Canon should be a little further along with the IQ by now. But, I'm getting shots that I just couldn't get with the 5D3 and my lenses so "it is what it is". It is an absolute hoot to shoot with but IQ is not up to full frame specs. Apparently the laws of physics are alive and well.

As you suggest, it's not surprising (you can see the same thing if you do comparisons with the relevant tool at thedigitalpicture.com), and it's not a reflection of Canon's IQ backwardness that it's FF sensors make better images than its APS-C - the same lens tends to make slightly better images on a FF sensor than on a crop sensor, regardless of camera brand; I see it on my Canon FF vs APS-C bodies (I don't have a 7DII, but at most I would expect it to narrow the difference), and also my Sony a7r vs a6000. Pixel peeping is more fun with FF sensors....

 

[Loswr]

I have to admit I was a bit disappointed in the crop image quality after a decade of full frame. I don't have any trouble telling 5D2/3 files from 7D2 at 100% in lightroom. I suppose I knew that would be the case but the reality is still a bit disappointing. It seems like Canon should be a little further along with the IQ by now. But, I'm getting shots that I just couldn't get with the 5D3 and my lenses so "it is what it is". It is an absolute hoot to shoot with but IQ is not up to full frame specs. Apparently the laws of physics are alive and well.

As you suggest, it's not surprising (you can see the same thing if you do comparisons with the relevant tool at thedigitalpicture.com), and it's not a reflection of Canon's IQ backwardness that it's FF sensors make better images than its APS-C - the same lens tends to make slightly better images on a FF sensor than on a crop sensor, regardless of camera brand; I see it on my Canon FF vs APS-C bodies (I don't have a 7DII, but at most I would expect it to narrow the difference), and also my Sony a7r vs a6000. Pixel peeping is more fun with FF sensors....

Indeed. As much as those with smaller, errrmmm...sensors...would like to believe differently, size matters.

 

[Ryan85]

As you suggest, it's not surprising (you can see the same thing if you do comparisons with the relevant tool at thedigitalpicture.com), and it's not a reflection of Canon's IQ backwardness that it's FF sensors make better images than its APS-C - the same lens tends to make slightly better images on a FF sensor than on a crop sensor, regardless of camera brand; I see it on my Canon FF vs APS-C bodies (I don't have a 7DII, but at most I would expect it to narrow the difference), and also my Sony a7r vs a6000. Pixel peeping is more fun with FF sensors....

Yes, pixel peeping is definitely more fun with larger sensors. My guess is you get about a 20% increase in resolution from a 60% crop / 50% higher pixel density sensor. I don't have the equipment or temprement to be able to quantify it exaclty but I think that's in the ballpark. I generally leave that sort of thing to the more analytical. Regarding Canon, I didn't expect them to repeal the laws of physics, I had hoped the high ISO noise would be a bit better. That may have been unrealistic.

Still, 20% is a big improvement when you're reach limited and can't get the magnification any other way. No doubt in my mind that same lens, same subject and subject distance, the 7D2 IQ easily outperforms a similar FOV crop from my 5D3. Well worth the $1600 or so that I paid for it.

In your opion what's the highest usable ISO on you 7d2 & 5d3?

 

[Ryan85]

Thanks!

 

[takesome1]

After editing are they still not very sharp? Are we taking about jpgs or raws?

Raws at 100% in Lightroom or Photoshop. I'd say they they just aren't as tack sharp as a full frame image from my 5D3. It's not that they aren't in focus. Sharpness might not be the best word. More like a 5D3 file that's been cropped and then rez'd back up to a higher resolution. 7D2 files are a 60% magnification of 5D3 files so its no surprise that it shows. I'm sure lots of folks won't agree, but I'd say the 7D2 vs 5D3 gives you an additional 20% increase in resolution (7D2 vs croped 5D3) but magnifies your files by 60%. So the extra 40% shows up as a lack of sharpness if that makes sense. There is a price to be paid which can be seen at 100%. Sorry about all of the %'s.

Got you that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

Sure, it's a simplification but I think it gets to the core of the issue. Added an edit so I thought i'd bump it

edit...this is just for 100% pixel peepers. Normal size prints and electronic files for distribution look fine. But, if you won't be happy with anything less than the highest possible IQ. Well...do you need me to say it...1DX, Big Whites and a bird blind to hide in...

Many people miss the bird blind part and would rather use a 1.6x crutch for their pictures.

 

[Lee Jay]

After editing are they still not very sharp? Are we taking about jpgs or raws?

Raws at 100% in Lightroom or Photoshop. I'd say they they just aren't as tack sharp as a full frame image from my 5D3. It's not that they aren't in focus. Sharpness might not be the best word. More like a 5D3 file that's been cropped and then rez'd back up to a higher resolution. 7D2 files are a 60% magnification of 5D3 files so its no surprise that it shows. I'm sure lots of folks won't agree, but I'd say the 7D2 vs 5D3 gives you an additional 20% increase in resolution (7D2 vs croped 5D3) but magnifies your files by 60%. So the extra 40% shows up as a lack of sharpness if that makes sense. There is a price to be paid which can be seen at 100%. Sorry about all of the %'s.

Got you that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

Sure, it's a simplification but I think it gets to the core of the issue. Added an edit so I thought i'd bump it

edit...this is just for 100% pixel peepers. Normal size prints and electronic files for distribution look fine. But, if you won't be happy with anything less than the highest possible IQ. Well...do you need me to say it...1DX, Big Whites and a bird blind to hide in...

Many people miss the bird blind part and would rather use a 1.6x crutch for their pictures.

How's a bird blind going to help me when I'm shooting airplanes?

 

[takesome1]

After editing are they still not very sharp? Are we taking about jpgs or raws?

Raws at 100% in Lightroom or Photoshop. I'd say they they just aren't as tack sharp as a full frame image from my 5D3. It's not that they aren't in focus. Sharpness might not be the best word. More like a 5D3 file that's been cropped and then rez'd back up to a higher resolution. 7D2 files are a 60% magnification of 5D3 files so its no surprise that it shows. I'm sure lots of folks won't agree, but I'd say the 7D2 vs 5D3 gives you an additional 20% increase in resolution (7D2 vs croped 5D3) but magnifies your files by 60%. So the extra 40% shows up as a lack of sharpness if that makes sense. There is a price to be paid which can be seen at 100%. Sorry about all of the %'s.

Got you that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

Sure, it's a simplification but I think it gets to the core of the issue. Added an edit so I thought i'd bump it

edit...this is just for 100% pixel peepers. Normal size prints and electronic files for distribution look fine. But, if you won't be happy with anything less than the highest possible IQ. Well...do you need me to say it...1DX, Big Whites and a bird blind to hide in...

Many people miss the bird blind part and would rather use a 1.6x crutch for their pictures.

How's a bird blind going to help me when I'm shooting airplanes?

It helps keep you hidden when you sneak up close to the runway before daylight.

 

[Ryan85]

Lol

 

[Sabaki]

After editing are they still not very sharp? Are we taking about jpgs or raws?

Raws at 100% in Lightroom or Photoshop. I'd say they they just aren't as tack sharp as a full frame image from my 5D3. It's not that they aren't in focus. Sharpness might not be the best word. More like a 5D3 file that's been cropped and then rez'd back up to a higher resolution. 7D2 files are a 60% magnification of 5D3 files so its no surprise that it shows. I'm sure lots of folks won't agree, but I'd say the 7D2 vs 5D3 gives you an additional 20% increase in resolution (7D2 vs croped 5D3) but magnifies your files by 60%. So the extra 40% shows up as a lack of sharpness if that makes sense. There is a price to be paid which can be seen at 100%. Sorry about all of the %'s.

Got you that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

Sure, it's a simplification but I think it gets to the core of the issue. Added an edit so I thought i'd bump it

edit...this is just for 100% pixel peepers. Normal size prints and electronic files for distribution look fine. But, if you won't be happy with anything less than the highest possible IQ. Well...do you need me to say it...1DX, Big Whites and a bird blind to hide in...

So this thing, where an image looks pin sharp on the LCD (yup, I know it's a jpeg preview) and impressively sharp in ZoomBrowser but looks super soft in ACR, is to be expected with 7Dii files?

 

[takesome1]

After editing are they still not very sharp? Are we taking about jpgs or raws?

Raws at 100% in Lightroom or Photoshop. I'd say they they just aren't as tack sharp as a full frame image from my 5D3. It's not that they aren't in focus. Sharpness might not be the best word. More like a 5D3 file that's been cropped and then rez'd back up to a higher resolution. 7D2 files are a 60% magnification of 5D3 files so its no surprise that it shows. I'm sure lots of folks won't agree, but I'd say the 7D2 vs 5D3 gives you an additional 20% increase in resolution (7D2 vs croped 5D3) but magnifies your files by 60%. So the extra 40% shows up as a lack of sharpness if that makes sense. There is a price to be paid which can be seen at 100%. Sorry about all of the %'s.

Got you that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

Sure, it's a simplification but I think it gets to the core of the issue. Added an edit so I thought i'd bump it

edit...this is just for 100% pixel peepers. Normal size prints and electronic files for distribution look fine. But, if you won't be happy with anything less than the highest possible IQ. Well...do you need me to say it...1DX, Big Whites and a bird blind to hide in...

So this thing, where an image looks pin sharp on the LCD (yup, I know it's a jpeg preview) and impressively sharp in ZoomBrowser but looks super soft in ACR, is to be expected with 7Dii files?

Process with DPP4 and it will be sharp like the JPEG previews. Keep in mind the JPEG you are looking at on the LCD and in ZoomBrowser has already been sharpened. In ACR it will start out by looking soft but should sharpen the same, it just starts at 0.

It is to be expected, LR is the same way and it will sharpen to equal the JPEGS.

 

[Sabaki]

After editing are they still not very sharp? Are we taking about jpgs or raws?

Raws at 100% in Lightroom or Photoshop. I'd say they they just aren't as tack sharp as a full frame image from my 5D3. It's not that they aren't in focus. Sharpness might not be the best word. More like a 5D3 file that's been cropped and then rez'd back up to a higher resolution. 7D2 files are a 60% magnification of 5D3 files so its no surprise that it shows. I'm sure lots of folks won't agree, but I'd say the 7D2 vs 5D3 gives you an additional 20% increase in resolution (7D2 vs croped 5D3) but magnifies your files by 60%. So the extra 40% shows up as a lack of sharpness if that makes sense. There is a price to be paid which can be seen at 100%. Sorry about all of the %'s.

Got you that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

Sure, it's a simplification but I think it gets to the core of the issue. Added an edit so I thought i'd bump it

edit...this is just for 100% pixel peepers. Normal size prints and electronic files for distribution look fine. But, if you won't be happy with anything less than the highest possible IQ. Well...do you need me to say it...1DX, Big Whites and a bird blind to hide in...

So this thing, where an image looks pin sharp on the LCD (yup, I know it's a jpeg preview) and impressively sharp in ZoomBrowser but looks super soft in ACR, is to be expected with 7Dii files?

Process with DPP4 and it will be sharp like the JPEG previews. Keep in mind the JPEG you are looking at on the LCD and in ZoomBrowser has already been sharpened. In ACR it will start out by looking soft but should sharpen the same, it just starts at 0.

It is to be expected, LR is the same way and it will sharpen to equal the JPEGS.

Thanks takesome1, it was really bugging me that the RAW images looked so poor.

 

[takesome1]

After editing are they still not very sharp? Are we taking about jpgs or raws?

Raws at 100% in Lightroom or Photoshop. I'd say they they just aren't as tack sharp as a full frame image from my 5D3. It's not that they aren't in focus. Sharpness might not be the best word. More like a 5D3 file that's been cropped and then rez'd back up to a higher resolution. 7D2 files are a 60% magnification of 5D3 files so its no surprise that it shows. I'm sure lots of folks won't agree, but I'd say the 7D2 vs 5D3 gives you an additional 20% increase in resolution (7D2 vs croped 5D3) but magnifies your files by 60%. So the extra 40% shows up as a lack of sharpness if that makes sense. There is a price to be paid which can be seen at 100%. Sorry about all of the %'s.

Got you that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

Sure, it's a simplification but I think it gets to the core of the issue. Added an edit so I thought i'd bump it

edit...this is just for 100% pixel peepers. Normal size prints and electronic files for distribution look fine. But, if you won't be happy with anything less than the highest possible IQ. Well...do you need me to say it...1DX, Big Whites and a bird blind to hide in...

So this thing, where an image looks pin sharp on the LCD (yup, I know it's a jpeg preview) and impressively sharp in ZoomBrowser but looks super soft in ACR, is to be expected with 7Dii files?

Process with DPP4 and it will be sharp like the JPEG previews. Keep in mind the JPEG you are looking at on the LCD and in ZoomBrowser has already been sharpened. In ACR it will start out by looking soft but should sharpen the same, it just starts at 0.

It is to be expected, LR is the same way and it will sharpen to equal the JPEGS.

Thanks takesome1, it was really bugging me that the RAW images looked so poor.

The RAW images out of the 7D II do look poor. They can be PP to look very nice though.
The JPEG out the camera are a big improvement over the JPEG out of previous models. They look great.
That is because the PP is better in camera on the 7D II.
The 7D II is a great camera for someone who has very little or no PP skills and just uses JPEG.

 

[MichaelTheMaven]

UPDATE- Got my new 7Dii in today. Issue is resolved and I was able to complete my tests this afternoon, Ill let you guys know when the shootout vs the NX-1 is finished. Turns out there are many others who are having this issue: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1406704&page=64, there is a guy in there who also had 2 bad 7Dii bodies, I do believe we will hear more about it in the future, and yes, perhaps a tutorial on how to troubleshoot it, MFA, etc is in order.

While most of you seem quite knowledgeable and helpful (Jrista is a good example), there are others who use their obvious intellectual gifts to belittle & ridicule others. Sometimes cameras don't work the way they should, and just because they don't it doesn't mean the photographer is always to blame, doesn't know how to use a camera, did it intentionally or you should assume the worst about that person.

I know many of you do not like what I do with my tests, and that is fine. I am not as smart as many of you, but I will use what I do know and learn about to help and inform those who might sincerely be seeking it.

 

[rzuch]

I received a new 7d Mark II this week and have been very frustrated with this camera. I bought the camera primarily to shoot skiers (moving subject) and have spent the last few days trying to get in focus pictures. I've spent several hours on the phone with Canon tech support and have viewed videos about the AF system and settings. After trying many different settings and 2 lenses this camera severely underperforms my Nikon D300s (5 years old, with a Nikkor 28-300mm lens). The 7D Mark II looses focus on my subject frequently and then refocuses after several frames. Even the "in focus" shots are not as sharp as I'd expect.

I'm using the Canon L series lens 70-300mm, and also borrowed the 55-250 lens (from my SL1). I'm shooting 8 shots/sec in Aperature priority, shutter speed 1/1000 or faster with ISO ranging from 200 to 1600. The loosing focus problem does not seem to be effected by changing my settings or lens. The problem is worse in low light.

I may have to take a big loss on this purchase as the seller will not refund a camera with 2000+ activations.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I received a new 7d Mark II this week and have been very frustrated with this camera. I bought the camera primarily to shoot skiers (moving subject) and have spent the last few days trying to get in focus pictures. I've spent several hours on the phone with Canon tech support and have viewed videos about the AF system and settings. After trying many different settings and 2 lenses this camera severely underperforms my Nikon D300s (5 years old, with a Nikkor 28-300mm lens). The 7D Mark II looses focus on my subject frequently and then refocuses after several frames. Even the "in focus" shots are not as sharp as I'd expect.

I'm using the Canon L series lens 70-300mm, and also borrowed the 55-250 lens (from my SL1). I'm shooting 8 shots/sec in Aperature priority, shutter speed 1/1000 or faster with ISO ranging from 200 to 1600. The loosing focus problem does not seem to be effected by changing my settings or lens. The problem is worse in low light.

I may have to take a big loss on this purchase as the seller will not refund a camera with 2000+ activations.

A new camera has a 1 year warranty, send it to Canon for repairs. You should not take a huge loss, except for a few dollars shipping. If it took you 2000 activations to detect a issue, the seller is right, at that point its a warranty issue.

 

[Don Haines]

I took the 7D2 out in a snowstorm.....

The lens was a 17-55F2.8.

The autofocus system would not lock on anything unless I put it into single point mode..... and in that mode I would get it to focus about half of the time. I figure it was because in multiple AF point modes that it was looking at objects (snowflakes) at random distances and got confused. This never happened on the old camera (60D), probably because the AF system was not sensitive enough.

Has anyone else had this happen, and if so, what did you do?