HONEST users of Canon Bodies who earn their living with photography

[mingulay]

Again I find myself in a state of rage and I am cursing all responsible canon managers. Having shot a group of people at a wedding six times I now find out - sitting in front of my 24 inch screen - that the autofocus six times chose the wall behind the group... I accept one can go wrong once or even twice. But not six times out of six. It is clearly a problem of the product. In the particular case a 1D IV paired with a 24-70 2.8.

Back in 2005 I bought a 5D. It focused well and was a great camera in general. Since then I bought a 1D III which could not autofocus at all. I spent about 7000 $ for a camera that can't autofocus and nobody from canon could or wanted to help me. Then I bought a 5D II. In much too many cases the autofocus just goes wrong. Then I bought a 1D IV. Another 7000 $. And again in much too many cases the autofocus is not working properly (as in the case described above). All in all I spent 17'000 $ on cameras from Canon which can not (or not often enough) autofocus.

Now I come to the point: I feel like going for a new body but I am not willing (and able...) to spend even more money on cameras that just don't deliver what the are priced for. So I would appreciate feedback regarding the quality of the autofocus from people who use the 5D III or 1DX. Critical, honest and heavy users and people who have to deliver to customers. Is the autofocus in the mentioned cameras good - ore just LESS BAD but still not as it should be with such a price tag? Your feedback would help me a lot!

By the way. If you wonder how stupid one can be to still think of buying Canon gear: I have a wide range of lenses from 14 2.8 up to 500 4 and would like to still use it in the future.

If you want to have a look on what level I work you can have a look here: www.peoplephotography.ch

 

[Loswr]

Having shot a group of people at a wedding six times I now find out - sitting in front of my 24 inch screen - that the autofocus six times chose the wall behind the group... I accept one can go wrong once or even twice. But not six times out of six.

Four questions - what AF selection mode were you using (auto, manual, expansion, etc.), what was the size of the face(s) relative to the AF point(s), do you realize that the actual AF point is larger than the little box representing it in the VF (even with Spot AF), and lastly and possibly most importantly, did you AF microadjust your lens (and if so, how - ok, sorry, that was 5 questions)?

 

[mingulay]

Thank you for your reaction.

AF selection was manual. The faces were rather large and the group covered about 80% of the frame. The lens is well adjusted and if the background is pitch dark or there is no background at all (close ups), the autofocus even works perfectly. Unfortunately this is a rather rare case.

Your not answering directly lets me think you meet autofocus problems with your 1DX as well?

 

[wickidwombat]

I have never had any sort of problem with Af on my 1dmk3 my 5dmk2s well the center point works well enough the outer ones i gave up on.my first copy of the 5dmk3 was a complete dog and could not af to save its life my new replacement one is dead accurate and really really awesome

 

[Loswr]

No problems at all, except for the AFMA bug. My 1D X consistently nails focus, even with close, complex backgrounds.

Another couple of questions - what lens/aperture, did you focus-recompose?

 

[vuilang]

ouch.. 6 out of 6 missed focus?? even my old historic 30D wouldn't do it.
using my 5d3 and the focus is nail on everytime (95%+).. my 1d2 is also very reliable at AF. hitting focus around 85%

I have the 24-70 and i think that lense is horrible at AF, most of my missed AF is from that lense, thus i rarely use it

 

[Sycotek]

It's a mixed bag for Me - I was/am pretty close to dumping my canon stock and going over to the dark side. But I don't like their primes (however their zooms are great) and that does stop me tbh.

AF wise I have always found Nikon to be more accurate but noticeably slower.

They are cheaper (at least where I am).

I've bought and dumped 2x5D3s and about to replace my first 1DX - If the new one screws up a wedding like the first (the af locked up in broad daylight...) I'll be over on the Nikon camp come Monday - I don't have room for that kind of machine failure.

I have entertained Canon long enough - there is no quality assurance even with their flag ship bodies.

 

[Richard Lane]

Sorry, about your troubles!

I've used the 24-70mm f/2.8L as well as many other lenses with the 7D, MKIV and 1DX and I've never had any problems with Canons AF.

The 1DX AF is completely redesigned and it's very,very, good and it's also quicker than the MKIV, and the 1DX seems to snap right into focus with confidence.

Maybe you need to send your lens and/or MKIV into CPS.

Rich

 

[dafrank]

Well, I'll be as clear as possible. Most of the time I manual focus whenever possible and use the autofocus assist light to confirm my focus if I am having any diffiiculty - as with eyes getting tired from a long day. This system is about 99.8% effective in bringing home proper focus. On those times when I do autofocus, on my previous 1Ds2 and my current 1Ds3, I have found the cameras to be about equal in getting the job done: a little over 90% with dead-on on static subjects and about 70-80% acccurate on moving follow-focus subjects. My new 5D3 autofocus is about 99% accurate on static subjects. However, I have not yet enough experience to give you a figure for the moving follow-focus, but so far, it looks better than my previous cameras and very promising. Also, on both the 1Ds3 and 5D3, manual live-view focus is 100% accurate when you can take the time to use it.

As for your recent problem witht the group picture, I have no idea what could have caused the specific problem you describe, but here are some possible reasons for the misfocus: light level too low for the autofocus system to work properly without an assist, user error in mis-aiming the focus sensor markings over the subjects, extremely and unusually low subject contrast, lens microadjustment not done or inaccurate, lens or camera focusing systems grossly out of adjustment (needing Canon service repair), accidentally nudging the manual/auto focus switch to "manual" while mistakenly thinking the lens is autofocusing, or even a totally out of alignment glass element from some abuse to the lens. Take your pick.

In my experience, the autofocus capabilities of the higher end Canons, with a few exceptions, are as good as, or better than, the only other autofocus system I'm familiar with - Nikon's. And now - with the 5D3 and 1Dx - Canon's autofcus is at the top of the heap. Do, however, consider the joys of manual focus; it's certainly a technique you could easily use to perfect a group shot of people with very little trouble.

I'm afraid that, in the end, you'll have to figure this one out for yourself.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Cameras can go bad, lenses can get out of calibration, there are lots of potential things that can happen. You need to try to see if you can recreate the issue.
1D MK IV Low light with AI Servo, for example, is going to fail, the camera will shoot even if AF is not completely achieved when in AI servo. Use one shot. It may not AF, but will not close the shutter until its focused. That might not be your problem, its just a possibility.
My 1D MK IV had very accurate autofocus, but struggled in low light. Thats pretty well documented. The 5D MK II is a excellent low light AF body (center point).

 

[Dylan777]

Ouchhhhh 6 out of 6????....so far so good with my 5D III here. No issue with AF

 

[M.ST]

I don´t have any problems with the AF (1D X, 1D Mark IV, 1 Ds Mark III, 1 Ds Mark II, 1 Ds, 5d Mark III and the rest) in Canon cameras. The only problem I had with th EF 50 1.4 that needs some adjustments after buying it a few years ago.

Even with the old seven point AF build in the 350D in combination with the EF 70-300 IS I shoot very fast squirrels a few weeks ago. With the 5D Mark II the 350D is my "24h in the car" camera for private use. All images are in focus and sharp. The 350D is also my camera with the most shutter releases and antediluvian my first 1 Ds Mark III and 5D Mark II together.

If you shoot with very long supertelephotos or if you shoot under bad conditions it´s advisable to focus manually.

 

[ishdakuteb]

i had this problem before and it turned out a camera problem. i found out by using a big newspaper, laid it down on a flat surface, choose a letter and focus on that letter with camera angle to that newspaper at less than 45 degree (wide open and closest to the newspaper to get a great shallow dof, in your case would be around 1.3ft.) i am not sure about your case, it might be a camera problem or lens problem. one thing that i know for sure that when you drop/or bump your lens into something, it can cause your lens element tilt. hope that help...

 

[keithfullermusic]

There is no way that 1 series bodies should perform that way. I have a hard time believing that it was user error. I'm assuming you weren't in full auto focus right? If you were having problems that bad canon needs to fix it.

I will say on my 5D3 the AF is outrageous. I am catching sparrows and swallows zooming through the air with my 100-400 with well over a 90% success rate, and I don't know how you can put the AF to a harder test than that. Also, I shot a wedding last weekend and the wasn't one shot that the camera missed. There were a few that I missed, but those were my fault.

 

[Bruce75]

"Do, however, consider the joys of manual focus"

I Still consider manual focus a perfect way to mantain more control ovest the shot and i like to have in me this kind of responsability.
But wę spend pur money for camera with autofocus so, gong back to your post, i find difficult to understand how for you the 5d mark ii was worse then the mark I. I found then exacty the same. But the 5d mark II, 1d mark III, IV, were more expensive then the 5dc so your disappointment has celar causes.
I love to shoot with e 85L and I know this lens is a difficult one and still I am not sure If I'll have real autofocus advantages with the new bodies..

(story for the spelling. Only one think is worse then not to have autocorrection: to have autocorrection set in the wrong language)

 

[nda]

No No No, there must be something wrong with camera(s), I have a 40d, 5d2 & 1d4 no problems sure they miss here and there but not 6 out of 6, have you had the bodies checked from Canon?

 

[mingulay]

Thank you all for the variety of feedbacks.

Up to now I see several points.

The shots described were taken in conditions which were not "ideal". It was indoors, the light was coming in through the windows. Having had the light in the back on the other hand means that it was not the most difficult of tasks. In spending 7000$ for a high end body I would expect it to perform under conditions like that. Maybe I expect too much. But then why spend so much?

There seem to be inconsistencies in the quality of the bodies. Something I find unacceptable in that range of the product line. But again I maybe expect too much.

The remark regarding the poor quality of the 24-70 2.8 is certainly true. But I wonder whether the camera or the lens failed. The shots were not unsharp or soft (as they often are with that lens) but clearly out of focus.

Manual focussing is ok and often a good alternative. But shooting weddings you often can't take that time. And again: Going for the flagships makes me expecting that they can perform.

After all there seem to be some folks who trust in the newest bodies. At least a sign of hope.

 

[Loswr]

i had this problem before and it turned out a camera problem. i found out by using a big newspaper, laid it down on a flat surface, choose a letter and focus on that letter with camera angle to that newspaper at less than 45 degree (wide open and closest to the newspaper to get a great shallow dof, in your case would be around 1.3ft.) i am not sure about your case, it might be a camera problem or lens problem.

Sounds like a test method problem, in this case. As I mentioned above, the actual AF point is larger than the little box representing it in the viewfinder, even with Spot AF:

So...while you may think you're focusing on a specific letter, the camera can't read your mind - it's going to grab onto the feature with the greatest phase difference (contrast) along the proper orientation for the sensor line, within the actual AF area, even if that's outside the little box you placed squarely over that specific letter.

This is one reason why I always ask how people have done the AF Microadjustment, because if you do it wrong (as you would have likely done with the newspaper test as described), you get an incorrect adjustment, and that leads to a high proportion of OOF shots.

 

[rumorzmonger]

<inappropriate comment deleted by moderator>

 

[mingulay]

I don't know if rumorzmonger deliberatly tried to offend me? Maybe images tell more than words?