# 7D mark II still focus issues?



## Otus (Oct 21, 2016)

Hi,

i am planing to buy a 7D mark II. But during my research about experiences from other users i found some people complaining about a bad hit rat with their 7D II cameras. was this an issue from the first produced cameras or are there any users who bought a 7D II recently and got the same problems with soft focus?


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 21, 2016)

I have a 7D2 and am very happy with it. 
The problem with the internet is that (a) you hear about far more people with problems than people who are happy and (b) in most technological issues the problem is user error than equipment error and (c) people not understanding the limitations (related to point b)

Most of the issues with focussing are related to the fact that the focal area is larger than the little square you see in the viewfinder and the fact there are so many more pixels in the focal area it is more likely than a FF camera to focus on what you don't want. Once you understand this it becomes much easier. 

One thing I am mindful of is people saying that the focus using the 5D III or 1Dx bodies is the focus is far more assured and snappy. But what do you expect when those bodies are 3-5 times the price?

My 7D2 has produced great images with any lenses with no microfocus adjust but maybe you need to do this. This article may be of interest:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

Buy it when you have a free weekend, put it though its paces and return it if you don't like it. I would say buy it with confidence.


----------



## Otus (Oct 22, 2016)

Thank you for your answer, i will give it a try.

From what i had read, it was/is not an issues that could be solved by microadjust. Peolple complained about a general softness in the whole image and inconsisten hit rate. Sometimes images are perfect sharp and sometimes the camera takes the picture while nothing is in focus.

Jared Polin is pointing that out in his review of the 7d II - just one example.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 22, 2016)

In business, we call this the 20:1 ratio. It takes one unhappy customer to share his bad experience with 20 people, and 20 satisfied customers to share their positive experience with 1 person. I'd not hesitate a moment to buy a 7D II, especially new. Perhaps used I'd look into the serial number to not get one of the first few, but that would be more for peace of mind than for the actual likelihood of getting a problematic copy.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 22, 2016)

It is impossible to know the issue when reviews (and people quoting the reviews) simply say 'it is soft'. What are the circumstances and the subject? You also need to bear in mind people have different tolerances - softness compared to what? (equipment as well as their expectations).

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. 
It also depends a lot on the lens used. 

The best way to check AF is to use spot AF on increasingly complex subjects and see where in your opinion it starts to become a problem for you. 
If you aren't gong to buy the 7D2 the question is what are the alternatives (the 80D is a very good option) but you can't expect AF the level of the 1Dx2.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Oct 22, 2016)

Otus said:


> Thank you for your answer, i will give it a try.
> 
> From what i had read, it was/is not an issues that could be solved by microadjust. Peolple complained about a general softness in the whole image and inconsisten hit rate. Sometimes images are perfect sharp and sometimes the camera takes the picture while nothing is in focus.
> 
> Jared Polin is pointing that out in his review of the 7d II - just one example.



There are a couple of things to note in all of these complaints.

1) there was an early issue with AF sensors that were improperly mounted. Caused all kinds of AF problems. Required a mirror box replacement and factory recalibration. (Mine fell into this category). Mine now works almost as good as my 1dxii.

2) the higher resolution sensor tends to look soft but it does record more detail. You can sharpen it in camera or in post and it looks fine. The issue has to do with how lower res sensors record edge detail.

3) the 7dii AF system is much advanced over standard 9 point AF and requires a bit of tweaking to work best for your subject material. I use different af settings for shooting soccer than shooting birds in flight.

Dont let all of the early problems affect your decision to buy one. Buy from a reputable dealer with a good return policy and make sure you dont test over their shot count limit. After a certain point most wont take them back as new.

Once you start using it you will be happy with it.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 22, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> Otus said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for your answer, i will give it a try.
> ...


I would like to add that the smaller the pixel pitch, the more accurate the AF system needs to be, plus the faster the shot speed needs to be to avoid subject blur..... If you needed 1/600 second on A 20MP FF camera, then you need 1/1000 on a 20MP crop camera to get the same relative motion blur on a per pixel basis.... A proper AFMA of your lenses becomes even more critical on a crop camera.....

You have to calibrate the system for peak performance and adjust your shooting style accordingly......


----------



## hbr (Oct 22, 2016)

I purchased one when they first came out. No focus problems with any of my lenses. It was stolen so I got a second one as a replacement for the first one. Again I had no focusing issues with it either. I purchased it for photos of birds in flight. To get clear photos every time I did have to increase the shutter speed. I bumped it up to 1/2500 / sec and I seldom got a blurry or out of focus photo,


----------



## CanoKnight (Oct 22, 2016)

Here's what I have learned from shooting action with the 7d2:

1. I had assumed every frame was always going was going to be sharp but that's not the case. It applies to any camera in servo mode. Only a fraction from a sequence will, and you select your keepers from that.

2. Avoid using automatic focus point selection. The larger the set of points from which the camera has to select a focus point, especially with fast moving objects, the worse the focus performance will be. For example if you want to shoot a dog running, you will get the best results from preselecting a focus point and placing it on or near an eye and panning the camera while keeping the focus point on the eye. Not only will this make sure it's the eye in focus as opposed to something else, you will also get better focus accuracy as the processor is freed up from doing the work of focus point selection and "focusing" only on focusing. Until I realized that I was getting a lot of bad shots but afterwards I have been very happy with the 7D2. It's a great action cam.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Oct 22, 2016)

Like others have said, set the shutter speed faster than you think you need. I could easily have been one of the ones complaining about poor focus, but recognized it was user error that wasn't exaggerated with lower resolution cameras in the past. My hands are particularly unsteady, always have been, so I always go with faster shutter. For a three day event last summer I was using 100-400II and 1.4x and was quite disappointed after day one and was looking at pictures on the computer. Even with 4x IS, 1/600 is just not enough for 560mm plus crop factor in my shaky hands. The next day I didn't go below 1/1250 and tried for 1/2000 or better and most shots were very sharp.


----------



## langdonb (Oct 22, 2016)

Otus said:


> Thank you for your answer, i will give it a try.
> 
> From what i had read, it was/is not an issues that could be solved by microadjust. Peolple complained about a general softness in the whole image and inconsisten hit rate. Sometimes images are perfect sharp and sometimes the camera takes the picture while nothing is in focus.
> 
> Jared Polin is pointing that out in his review of the 7d II - just one example.



I purchased a new 7DII six months ago along with a 100-400 mark II lens. After two months of African safari in May and June, I found all of the problems that many (relative of course) have complained about. I sent the body back for warranty repair and it came back with a comment that they found issues and adjusted it "electronically" and said if problems continue to return it with the lens. 

Now, just back for another two month trip, I find the same issues. As a test while on the trip, I put the 100-400 with 1.4 TC III on my 5D3 and had very good hit rates, way, way better than with 7DII. So I will now send it back again, with the lens to see it they can fix it. If it returns with the same issues in local testing, I will sell it. I am not going back to Africa till March but for sure will not take that body with me!

BTW, I checked all soft images with FocusPoints LR plugin and the focus was on the subject, focus captured and all were high shutter speeds, 1/1500 to 1/3000th a second.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> 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.


----------



## AdamBotond (Oct 22, 2016)

When I was considering buying a 7D II, I rented one from a local Canon retailer for a tryout. It was far less reliable than my 6D in identical scenarios and I ended up with lot of OOF, soft images. It became clear quickly: the AF system behaved upredictable. Sometimes it hit the target perfectly, sometimes it missed even the easiest one badly.
Later, I decided to go with a used 1D IV instead, which I did not regret. Certainly, I don't think it is a general problem as it has been and still is a very popular camera. The copy I rented just didn't convince me.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 23, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## yungfat (Oct 24, 2016)

Otus said:


> Thank you for your answer, i will give it a try.
> 
> From what i had read, it was/is not an issues that could be solved by microadjust. Peolple complained about a general softness in the whole image and inconsisten hit rate. Sometimes images are perfect sharp and sometimes the camera takes the picture while nothing is in focus.
> 
> Jared Polin is pointing that out in his review of the 7d II - just one example.



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.


----------



## Otus (Oct 24, 2016)

yungfat said:


> 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 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.


----------



## Mick (Oct 24, 2016)

Hi all, just my observations. I own a 1DX and 7D2. I love the 7D when I really need reach but it does have one big problem and its an odd autofocus issue. Taking shots of motorcycle racing and it nailed them all, tack sharp, excellent images. But....I then go off two years running lay on the beach doing grey seal shots. Its awfull, virtually all mis focused. I had tried microadjustment which didn't cure anything. Took it again the next year and again the same problem. Then the light changes, the seals get darker and it worked. Small waders pass by and it nailed them. Hmmm I thought. High contrast bikes fine, birds fine, seals in poor light fine but seals in decent weather poor. Except the seals when I look at the pics that misfocused had poor contrast, all the others have lots, birds bikes etc. The 1DX nailed every shot but then again its 3 times the cost. Very weird!Still an excellent camera but mine just seems to like contrast. Very odd.


----------



## Otus (Oct 24, 2016)

Well, thats exactly the same issue some people talking about in a german canon forum. The topic says (my rough translation) "7D II AF at too much light unuseable (for me)". So far there is no solution. Some experienced the same issues while it works well for others. 

On the other hand, in the Jared Polin Review is certainly not to much light. And i have looked at many example images from the 7D II during the last days where images where perfectly sharp - even in bright sunlight. But as said above, we are far away from good lighting conditions here at the moment. I will check it as soon as possible.

I am very curious if it is a user problem or if there are some cameras with a technical problem. Some users said that canon changed the whole AF system in their cameras and after that it worked as expected.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Oct 24, 2016)

Some lenses have less contrast for one reason or another. Most canon L lenses are fine. However the original 100-400 had some coma issues wide open and would cause some hunting. 

Other issues that plague 3rd party lenses are coma, poor coatings, internal reflections, bad af motors.

If you have reflection problems, bright light can make it worse. All cameras like good contrast. That's how phase detect works most efficiently.

I've used my 7d2 with a number of Canon L lenses and it locks just fine for both moving and stationary subjects. In fact I just leave it in ai servo unless I need to shoot in almost total darkness.


----------



## Ray-uk (Oct 25, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> Some lenses have less contrast for one reason or another. Most canon L lenses are fine. However the original 100-400 had some coma issues wide open and would cause some hunting.
> 
> Other issues that plague 3rd party lenses are coma, poor coatings, internal reflections, bad af motors.
> 
> If you have reflection problems, bright light can make it worse. All cameras like good contrast. That's how phase detect works most efficiently.



This is the most sensible response to this problem that I have read so far.

Anyone who has tried to focus manually with a plain focus screen and an under performing lens will know how difficult it can be, this happens often even with good quality wide aperture lenses that are slightly soft or flare when wide open.

Personally I have never experienced focus problems with my 7D2 and whilst I agree there must be some cameras out there that are below spec and show a definite fault the vast majority of reports are from people who are either overwhelmed by the 7D2's AF setup options or have unrealistic expectations.


----------



## monkey44 (Oct 25, 2016)

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 (Oct 25, 2016)

Otus said:


> yungfat said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Otus!
> ...


----------



## j-nord (Oct 25, 2016)

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 (Oct 25, 2016)

j-nord said:


> 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 (Oct 25, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Oct 25, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



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 (Oct 26, 2016)

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. 



AlanF said:


> 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)
> ...


----------



## monkey44 (Oct 26, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Oct 26, 2016)

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 (Oct 26, 2016)

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 (Oct 26, 2016)

AlanF said:


> 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)
> ...



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 (Oct 26, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



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 (Oct 26, 2016)

AlanF said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (Oct 26, 2016)

monkey44 said:


> 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. 



AlanF said:


> 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 (Oct 26, 2016)

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 (Oct 26, 2016)

NorbR said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Oct 26, 2016)

NorbR said:


> 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 (Oct 26, 2016)

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. 



monkey44 said:


> 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 (Oct 26, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Oct 26, 2016)

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.


----------



## langdonb (Oct 27, 2016)

Mick said:


> Hi all, just my observations. I own a 1DX and 7D2. I love the 7D when I really need reach but it does have one big problem and its an odd autofocus issue. Taking shots of motorcycle racing and it nailed them all, tack sharp, excellent images. But....I then go off two years running lay on the beach doing grey seal shots. Its awfull, virtually all mis focused. I had tried microadjustment which didn't cure anything. Took it again the next year and again the same problem. Then the light changes, the seals get darker and it worked. Small waders pass by and it nailed them. Hmmm I thought. High contrast bikes fine, birds fine, seals in poor light fine but seals in decent weather poor. Except the seals when I look at the pics that misfocused had poor contrast, all the others have lots, birds bikes etc. The 1DX nailed every shot but then again its 3 times the cost. Very weird!Still an excellent camera but mine just seems to like contrast. Very odd.



Mick,

Exactly what I have found with my 7dII experience in 8000 images over four months in Africa. Low contrast subjects have been soft focus, no front/back focus, just soft. It is a fault in auto focus sensor that many have recorded. I am returning my 7DII for replacement or at least a new AF system to be installed.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 27, 2016)

langdonb said:


> Low contrast subjects have been soft focus, no front/back focus, just soft. It is a fault in auto focus sensor that many have recorded.



How can the focus be soft but not front/back focus? It has to be focussed somewhere. That sounds like a lens issue (but probably not if you are happy in good conditions) or noise.


----------



## Otus (Oct 27, 2016)

From AF Issues to the reliability of wikipedia ... :-\

Look at the soccer players in this thread. There is also no front/backfocus. Just nothing in focus at all. And thats the issue i was talking about. 

http://www.dforum.net/showthread.php?660282-7DII-AF-bei-zu-viel-Licht-(bei-mir)-nicht-zu-gebrauchen/page5

Thats what the user here complains too. Nothing in the image is sharp ...

http://www.dforum.net/showthread.php?660282-7DII-AF-bei-zu-viel-Licht-(bei-mir)-nicht-zu-gebrauchen/page3


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 27, 2016)

Otus said:


> From AF Issues to the reliability of wikipedia ... :-\
> 
> Look at the soccer players in this thread. There is also no front/backfocus. Just nothing in focus at all. And thats the issue i was talking about.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately I don't speak or read German. 
But I ask again - how can it be a focus issue? If it is focused and not sharp surely it is not a focussing problem.


----------



## NorbR (Oct 27, 2016)

Otus said:


> From AF Issues to the reliability of wikipedia ... :-\
> 
> Look at the soccer players in this thread. There is also no front/backfocus. Just nothing in focus at all. And thats the issue i was talking about.
> 
> http://www.dforum.net/showthread.php?660282-7DII-AF-bei-zu-viel-Licht-(bei-mir)-nicht-zu-gebrauchen/page5



In both of these pictures there is visible ghosting around the players. Easily visible on the second picture, look at the head of the player with the striped jersey, or the white shoe on the other guy's left foot. It's more subtle on the first pic, but it's also there. This points to a movement issue. 

My first guess would have been an issue with IS, that's exactly how it would look like imho ... but you say it was turned off, so if you're sure it was, it must be something else. 

Camera movement is still possible, even at high shutter speeds (I'm guessing >1/1600 actually means _faster than_ 1/1600?), if you were moving the camera swiftly. 

In any case, whatever the cause, this is not a focussing problem imho (at least not _just_ a focusing problem).


----------



## Otus (Oct 27, 2016)

Those are not my own pictures. Its just from a german forum i was reading about this issue too.

I dont have any technical knowledge so i cant explain it. But the users in the linked forum are telling that they have these issues only with the 7d II. So the same lens on another body works perfect and on the 7d II it is at least very inconsistent. As you can see in the first post of the topic in the german forum the user does show the example with the flower. The flower was between 10-12 meters away with the 600 L II and the 1,4 TC and you can see that it is the inconsistence they are talking about. One image sharp and one just blurry. Of course, this could happen to everyone with every camera. But the flower should just be a example. He said that almost 99% of the images are blurry when taken in sunlight.


----------



## kklerikk (Nov 8, 2016)

I have the focus issue. I have the 40D, 7d mkI, the 5dmkII, 5dmkiii and 7dmkII from one year and alf. After a wedding season I see all the photos of my second using that camera. 50% are misfocused using Canon and sigma. At first I got angry with the second photographer. But then looking at the pictures with 7dmki not missed a shot. Then we realized that it was the fault of the camera. I also used I 7dmkii for an event and 50% of the photos were wrong. If shooting a burst to a few still subject are right and others are wrong. Unfortunately between taking pictures to see and understand the problem is the past year warranty.If I make a simple camera tests the problem is not known. If few click, under normal conditions hardly the problem arises or is attributed to a personal mistake. I also noticed that the pictures appear blurry than moves. I'm selling it.


----------



## hbr (Nov 8, 2016)

Just trying to be helpful here to potential purchasers of the 7D2 with a few random thoughts and observations. As I said earlier, I have owned two of these - the first one purchased right after the initial release and the second one about 8 months later as a replacement for the first one which was stolen. I love this camera and I have not experienced many auto focus problems that were not due to my poor techniques or as part of the learning curve. That being said,

I don't have the camera in front of me, so feel free to correct me on this point, but I believe there was a setting that allowed one to start shooting even if the camera was not in focus. I observed that when I saw a bird starting to fly towards me, if I raised the camera to my eye and fired off a burst, most - or at least the first several shots would be out of focus. But, if I rapidly tapped on the shutter a few times until my eyes clearly saw that the bird was in focus, almost every shot in the burst would be in perfect focus.

When shooting stationary perched birds from my back porch, subjects not in full sunlight would appear soft in DPP, especially when viewing at over 200%. In direct sunlight the subjects would be tack sharp.

Many of my "soft" action shots were due to poor lighting, too slow of a shutter speed or my poor panning techniques. (Operator Error). When looking at the soccer players on the German forum it appears to me by looking at the fence behind the players and the player's heads that the photographs suffered from a combination of all of these problems. (IMHO).

While I acknowledge that there defective cameras out there, both of my 7d2s have been wonderful cameras. I would recommend to someone considering purchasing on of these to pull the trigger and get one. If there are problems with the camera and it was purchased from a reputable dealer you can always return it.


----------



## tron (Nov 8, 2016)

Contrary to my (now returned) 5D4 banding issues in blacks my 7D2 is just fine. The issue with 7D2 is I have to use it on a sunny day to get top results. And even then the ISO should be modest. Apart from this which applies to all 7D2 units - and which is not an issue it is the current limit of the sensor.

There are some autofocus quirks similar to what hbr mentioned (I also press the shutter a few times ... sometimes) but nothing serious. Now where is my 7D3? ;D


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 8, 2016)

hbr said:


> I believe there was a setting that allowed one to start shooting even if the camera was not in focus.



Yep. You can choose shutter priority or focus priority in the AF options




hbr said:


> I observed that when I saw a bird starting to fly towards me, if I raised the camera to my eye and fired off a burst, most - or at least the first several shots would be out of focus. But, if I rapidly tapped on the shutter a few times until my eyes clearly saw that the bird was in focus, almost every shot in the burst would be in perfect focus.



That's a technique called (by some) 'pump focus'. The technique as I have read it is to follow the bird with the focus point on the bird, even though it is OOF then when you are steady tap the shutter button a couple of times then fire. 



hbr said:


> When shooting stationary perched birds from my back porch, subjects not in full sunlight would appear soft in DPP, especially when viewing at over 200%. In direct sunlight the subjects would be tack sharp.


The 7D2 can be a bit variable when focussing on a low-contrast target



hbr said:


> When looking at the soccer players on the German forum it appears to me by looking at the fence behind the players and the player's heads that the photographs suffered from a combination of all of these problems. (IMHO).



You need to be careful with the 7D2 because the AF area on the sensor is slightly larger than the square the viewfinder so if you are not careful it will hit on an area that is of higher contrast than the one you are trying to focus on. Some say that this is partly because of the higher density pixels give it more chance to pick up the wrong target and that sounds reasonable to me. 
But one you understand its limitations I agree that it is a great little camera.


----------



## kklerikk (Nov 9, 2016)

No no. If you don't Se the problem your body is OK. If you have a problematic body you can see the problem. I shoot Hundreds of thousands of photos at year...only with this camera I have the problem. The problem is random and frustrating.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 9, 2016)

What I said is not inconsistent with the issue you say you are having and several people have commented on these specific parts of using the 7Dii, and also say that once you recognise how to improve technique the hit rate increases dramatically. 
You also say you are having these issues with a Canon body and Sigma lens - maybe it is that combination? The AF algorithms change with each camera and there is a definite issue with matching third party lenses across generations of product development.

In my experience of products across different technologies, a 'fault' that is random is often down to how it is used. Genuine problems are often repeatable.

The 7Dii does have its quirks but I am not yet convinced from your description that the body is the issue.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 12, 2016)

kklerikk said:


> I have the focus issue. I have the 40D, 7d mkI, the 5dmkII, 5dmkiii and 7dmkII from one year and alf. After a wedding season I see all the photos of my second using that camera. 50% are misfocused using Canon and sigma. At first I got angry with the second photographer. But then looking at the pictures with 7dmki not missed a shot. Then we realized that it was the fault of the camera. I also used I 7dmkii for an event and 50% of the photos were wrong. If shooting a burst to a few still subject are right and others are wrong. Unfortunately between taking pictures to see and understand the problem is the past year warranty.If I make a simple camera tests the problem is not known. If few click, under normal conditions hardly the problem arises or is attributed to a personal mistake. I also noticed that the pictures appear blurry than moves. I'm selling it.



My copy now works flawlessly. Had an AF issue early on and canon determined a faulty mounted AF sensor. They replaced the mirror box and performed a complete factory recalibration. I would say the AF accuracy and repeatability is now on par with my 1dxii.

One symptom mine had was that it would not hold afma one day to the next....as if the AF sensor was loose. It would fluctuate 3-5 afma clicks which of course is quite a bit of variance with many lenses.

Rather than sell it, maybe have canon check out the AF sensor and do a factory recalibration. Might be worth paying for it if it's out of warranty than take the loss selling it. It is in fact a great camera and should work exactly as you expect it should.


----------

