DSLR mediocracy or is it me or too high of expectations

[michaelnotar]

ive been a photographer for 15 years now. i currently use a 7d, 1d4 with a range of L series zooms (24-105 and 70-200/2.8 the first one) along with the 28/1.8, 50/1.4. i consider myself very proficient with the gear, see gear head. i have calibrated all my lenses with lens align, they were all fine, this is no a front/back focus question.

my question, why cant i get a great looking file 90% of the time from an slr. it seems i am always compromising. i can get good shots in all my tests but really have a hard time getting really good focus in the real world. i just finished a high school senior sessions outside and inside and was surprised with the number that i had to sharpen up. i shot with my 7d with 24-105 at f5.6 with shutterspeeds atleast 1/250. i stabilized the camera and had a stationary subject in one shot auto focus. i was really surprised with the number of focusing errors, just slight, that prevented ultimate sharpness. but damn when it hit it, eye lash detail was great. most shots were taken around 65-85mm on the lens and where half body shots.

so i am i asking too much from cameras? are zooms notorious for not amazing focus? primes better? other brand primes better? while i dont have unattainable expectations i have favored a P25 file for being pretty damn near perfect. MFDB rule no question, not my point of this question.

[Paulo Bizarro]

It is difficult to properly evaluate your problems, without some samples and more information. For instance, did you:

1. Use manual focus? There is no reason why you should not use manual focus if you want ultimate control. Auto-focus is normally calibrated within certain tolerance specifications;

2. Do you shoot RAW? What is your post-processing workflow? Files straight from a DSLR will need sharpening applied.

There are many good instructional materials in this site, and others, for you to explore.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Why do you think manual focus is better calibrated than autofocus?

Best regards
Erik

It is difficult to properly evaluate your problems, without some samples and more information. For instance, did you:

1. Use manual focus? There is no reason why you should not use manual focus if you want ultimate control. Auto-focus is normally calibrated within certain tolerance specifications;
There are many good instructional materials in this site, and others, for you to explore.

[Ken Bennett]

A couple of thoughts:

Are you manually setting the focus point over the eye, or using the center point and recomposing? I was an inveterate focus-and-recompose shooter, having come up shooting film in manual focus cameras. My success rate with fast primes was pathetic, until I followed Canon's instructions to set the focus point manually over the thing I wanted in focus, and then it was like magic -- even wide open, I get a much higher percentage of tack-sharp photos.

I do find that I have to constantly re-focus the get good results shooting location portraits. I've gotten into the habit of using my finger to push the manual focus ring out of focus, then hit the rear focus button to re-focus every few shots. This has helped a lot, too.

Even at f/5.6, there's not much depth of field, and tiny focus errors show up in larger prints (and at 100% in Photoshop.) You may think that you and your model aren't moving ("stationary subject"), but that's not really true when shooting people hand-held.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Why do you think manual focus is better calibrated than autofocus?

Jesus, Erik!?

[ErikKaffehr]

Slobodan,

I don't really see your point. Manual focus is based on visual observation of a focusing screen. This focusing screen is aligned with the bayonet of the camera within some tolerance. In addition we have a moving mirror assembly that needs to be in alignment with both the focusing screen and the bayonet. There is naturally also a possibility that the sensor is out of alignment with the bayonet, or focusing screen. In my view it is a miracle that SLRs actually can be focused!

So I'd suggest that it is a perfectly good question which is better aligned the focusing screen or the AF-sensor?

Another issue I think a lot around is viewfinder magnification, how large is the projected image in the viewfinder compared to a print or computer screen at actual pixels?

I'd suggest that one of the reasons manual focusing works at all is that we move back and forth between backfocus and frontfocus and the position midway is quite optimal.

Best regards
Erik

Jesus, Erik!?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

In a sense I have seen a similar problem. I mostly shoot landscape and have no problem with focus, on the other hand when I shoot people I often miss. Two reasons:

I often don't put the focusing point on the most important person, try to compose and forget to focus. Camera probably focuses on the background. The other way around, with multipoint focus the camera may focus on the wrong subject.

The other issue I have noticed is that depth of field with todays high resolution sensors is incredibly short. With a 150 mm lens at f(8 we would definitively see difference in sharpness on an object 150 m away depending on lens being focused at 150 m or infinity.

The article here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1 discusses the effect of minor defocusing on sharpness. The measurements were done with a 100 mm macro lens at three meter distance. The image in the upper right corner would still be regarded sharp accordng to the normal "depth of field" criteria with a CoC of 1/50 mm for APS-C and 1/30 mm for full frame.

Best regards
Erik

ive been a photographer for 15 years now. i currently use a 7d, 1d4 with a range of L series zooms (24-105 and 70-200/2.8 the first one) along with the 28/1.8, 50/1.4. i consider myself very proficient with the gear, see gear head. i have calibrated all my lenses with lens align, they were all fine, this is no a front/back focus question.

my question, why cant i get a great looking file 90% of the time from an slr. it seems i am always compromising. i can get good shots in all my tests but really have a hard time getting really good focus in the real world. i just finished a high school senior sessions outside and inside and was surprised with the number that i had to sharpen up. i shot with my 7d with 24-105 at f5.6 with shutterspeeds atleast 1/250. i stabilized the camera and had a stationary subject in one shot auto focus. i was really surprised with the number of focusing errors, just slight, that prevented ultimate sharpness. but damn when it hit it, eye lash detail was great. most shots were taken around 65-85mm on the lens and where half body shots.

so i am i asking too much from cameras? are zooms notorious for not amazing focus? primes better? other brand primes better? while i dont have unattainable expectations i have favored a P25 file for being pretty damn near perfect. MFDB rule no question, not my point of this question.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Erik, in test after test, careful manual focusing beats AF anytime. The point being, whatever alignment issues manual focusing has, AF has its own issue ON TOP of that, let alone tolerance levels.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... i have favored a P25 file for being pretty damn near perfect. MFDB rule no question...

If anything, MFDB are notoriously difficult to focus correctly, much more so than DSLR

[David Sutton]

It depends Slobobodan. Here's my experience. High school students are not going to put up with careful manual focussing, they want to get back to the party. I find focussing with digital much more critical than with film, and in situations where speed is important or in low light where I have trouble seeing the magnified image in Live View, auofocus beats manual every time for me.
To the OP: the warning about about focussing and re-composing is a good one. Are you getting the focus point right on the eye and then immediately shooting?

[ErikKaffehr]

Slobodan,

I have seen many articles on the difficulty of focusing. C'tein has a good article, Lloyd Chambers had issues focusing the Leica S2 and the M9 manually. Erwin Puts who is a Leica expert says that it is not possible to achieve exact focus on the Leica M9 except by using focus bracketing. But the same testers report problems with AF. SLRGear wrote an article on the issue: http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, in test after test, careful manual focusing beats AF anytime. The point being, whatever alignment issues manual focusing has, AF has its own issue ON TOP of that, let alone tolerance levels.

[JohnBrew]

Erik, in test after test, careful manual focusing beats AF anytime. The point being, whatever alignment issues manual focusing has, AF has its own issue ON TOP of that, let alone tolerance levels.

Oh, yeah. +1

Erik, Lloyd Chambers has trouble focusing all sorts of lenses and camera combinations that no one else does.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Look, guys... I am the first one to use AF most of the time... simply more practical, and in variety of situations, vastly superior to my, or average Joe's manual focusing skills. But... and that is a big but (no pun intended)... when it comes to careful, critical focusing, using live view and 10x loupe, in most situations it will beat AF, simply because of the tolerance range AF has by design. You never know what your lenses are capable of unless you do this test and see for yourself.

Eric, rangefinders have less than precise focusing? Who would have thought so? 

[michaelnotar]

i only shoot raw, and always put an AF point on the eyes and never focus then recompose.

manual focus might be more accurate but if you are using the focusing assist that lights up when in focus then you are back at square one.

one thing that might have contributed to some of my problems is i had AF point expansion set and didnt realize it took affect. it would choose a point very close but not exact where i want it. solved that tho.

is any one truely impressed by an slr file at 100%, it always seems mediocre. MF sees easier to focus due to a longer focus throw and bigger viewfinder but focus is very critical, more so for stabilization of the camera really.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... is any one truely impressed by an slr file at 100%..

I do not know what impresses you, but this one impresses me. Canon 17-55/2.8, dusk, hand-held at 24mm, 1/60s, f/4 ISO 400, and the "lowly" 8 mpx 20D. Only default sharpening in LR3.

[jeremypayne]

so i am i asking too much from cameras?

Maybe ... why not post some samples of shots that failed to meet your expectation?

In my experience learning to shoot digital and striving for the highest image quality I found that technique and not gear was usually the limiting factor.

[Schewe]

Only default sharpening in LR3.

And you left image quality on the table by not optimizing the capture sharpening in LR 3. Just so you understand...

[telyt]

is any one truely impressed by an slr file at 100%, it always seems mediocre.

100% crop, no sharpening, focussed manually.

The full image:


another one, 100% crop, no sharpening, manual focus:


the full image:

[marcmccalmont]

focus fixer
Marc

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And you left image quality on the table by not optimizing the capture sharpening in LR 3. Just so you understand...

But of course... The reason I posted the default sharpening version is to preempt the immediate reaction by skeptics: "it only looks sharp because you sharpened it excessively it in PS/LR". Also, it is customary to compare various files using comparable settings, and the default settings are a natural choice. Otherwise, the discussion turns to what constitutes optimum capture sharpening, instead of sharpness factors before post-processing.