# Backfocus with any 70-200 ( RF, EF 2/3) and canon R5 in Servo



## Dmitri_Kahm (Jan 22, 2021)

Hi everyone! I am a photographer for Russia, Moscow.
As many people here I initially had a lockup/freezing issue with my R5. I recently sent it to CPS-Russia (main office) and they replaced the circuit board under warranty and also updated the firmware. That helped.

BUT! After receiving my body back I encountered that now when using a servo-mode (any type) and a 70-200 ( I have RF 70-200, but also tested another RF, and EF 2/3 USM lenses) I have severe backfocus especially at a tele-end (200 mm) and for distant targets that are approaching me ( skiers, snowboarders, cars etc.).
Originally I found it out during skiing competition ( I am a sports shooter).
Then I ran several tests with different lenses shooting approaching cars and had the same bad results. There is clear backfocus( several meters!), whereas DPP in 99% of the time shows the focus point where it was intended to be.

The test were run outside during daylight and a temperature of around -10 Celsius with:
- latest firmware for both all lenses and body;
- R5 + two RF 70-200/ EF 70-200 USM 2, EF 70-200 USM 3 ( all lenses were tested for optical quality by CPS, an they all were provided by CPS for test except for the RF lens I originally own);
- Several different Sandisk Extreme Pro SD-cards,
- Several different original batteries;
- various FPS;
- servo spot af/1-point af/intelligent tracking with initial point af choice;
- at 200 mm 90% of time, sometimes around 150-175mm;
- ISO ranging from 100 to 1000;
- shutter-speeds from 1/1250 to 1/3200;
- IS on/off;
- lens focus distance limiter on/off;
- mechanical shutter/electronic 1st curtain;
- cars approaching me at the speed about 30-60 km/p/h;
around 50+ meters distance to cars ( at closer distances the backfocus is less severe)
- I even invited an engineer from CPS as well as independent photographer to run the tests with me and to shoot themselves.


Result: same backfocus in most of the cases whatever we did.

I attach an album with one of the series and a DPP printscreen. If needed I can upload more.





The yellow taxi in the photos is supposed to be in focus. However it is blurred whereas the truck behind it is much sharper! Look at the plates. DPP shows red square on taxi for the whole series. It is only one of the series but I have many. If you really want I can upload them but hope you will believe me.

After that we tested ANOTHER R5, that is owned by CPS and is given for tests/as a replacement - SAME RESULT!
Unlike mine CPS R5 is said not to have ANY service history except for the firmware updates.

When checked according to CPS procedures NO PROBLEMS are found with any of the bodies.

So, though the engineers clearly see that something is wrong they can do nothing concerning the repair or replacement. I was told that Servo AF can not be checked by their equipment and is considered to work fine out of the box as long as the 1-shot af works fine ( it does).

We are all at a complete loss. We filed a ticket to Canon Japan but the guys from CPS do not expect to receive a quick answer or any real resolution.
Actually it might be that CPS somehow messed up both cameras not knowing that, but they will never admit that...

I really need your help in further tests! I would appreciate if the owners of R5 and 70-200 tested their cams in similar conditions and reported the results.
( 200 mm of 70-200, servo, approaching cars, distance 50+ meters, actually the further you start shooting the car as it is approaching - the better).

Is there anyone with similar problems or maybe heard of someone?


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Jan 24, 2021)

Dmitri_Kahm said:


> Hi everyone! I am a photographer for Russia, Moscow.
> As many people here I initially had a lockup/freezing issue with my R5. I recently sent it to CPS-Russia (main office) and they replaced the circuit board under warranty and also updated the firmware. That helped.
> 
> BUT! After receiving my body back I encountered that now when using a servo-mode (any type) and a 70-200 ( I have RF 70-200, but also tested another RF, and EF 2/3 USM lenses) I have severe backfocus especially at a tele-end (200 mm) and for distant targets that are approaching me ( skiers, snowboarders, cars etc.).
> ...


I'd suggest that you post your concerns also to Michael the Maven's Canon R5/R6 forum on FaceBook. A number of the members have had issues with focus on the R5 and would appreciate your comments. I've never had an issue with focus but don't have the 70-200mm lens. My RF 100-500mm seems to work fine from my results.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Jan 25, 2021)

Aputure?


----------



## Dmitri_Kahm (Jan 25, 2021)

Ramage said:


> Aputure?


2.8


----------



## Dmitri_Kahm (Jan 25, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> I'd suggest that you post your concerns also to Michael the Maven's Canon R5/R6 forum on FaceBook. A number of the members have had issues with focus on the R5 and would appreciate your comments. I've never had an issue with focus but don't have the 70-200mm lens. My RF 100-500mm seems to work fine from my results.


Thank you! I'll post there. Tried another R5 today. Same results...


----------



## Dmitri_Kahm (Jan 27, 2021)

Many people asked about the full-sized pics/raws. Here they are.

In naming of the pics "owned" means my equipment, CPS means borrowed from CPS

I hope that admins will allow the link. Otherwise I have no option to attach original files.

I will also attach pics of people soon






Canon R5 +70-200 Backfocus - Google Drive







drive.google.com


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 27, 2021)

Same theme of lens and camera combos with backfocus? How many such threads have you started, OP?

Maybe time to consider technique? Maybe time to stop pulling legs?


----------



## Dmitri_Kahm (Jan 27, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Same theme of lens and camera combos with backfocus? How many such threads have you started, OP?
> 
> Maybe time to consider technique? Maybe time to stop pulling legs?


Maybe time to watch the attached pics, read the full description carefully and make an excuse?

For you I have no arguments already. For everyone else here are the pics RAWs, and Jpegs for reviewal as asked. I am very curious how when the pictures contain all the info including the AF point the camera thinks it has hit, you will continue saying that I am gaslighting here.

Just please go, check them and explain how flawed my technique is if that is so easy.
I would be really happy, if someone pointed me out technique flaws. No kidding
Regards


----------



## Dmitri_Kahm (Jan 27, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Same theme of lens and camera combos with backfocus? How many such threads have you started, OP?
> 
> Maybe time to consider technique? Maybe time to stop pulling legs?



Concerning the threads here, there are two of them. One is absolutely different case with 35 mm, which I said was resolved by switching to 35 mm EF lens instead of RF , and this one.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Jan 27, 2021)

Dmitri_Kahm said:


> Hi everyone! I am a photographer for Russia, Moscow.
> As many people here I initially had a lockup/freezing issue with my R5. I recently sent it to CPS-Russia (main office) and they replaced the circuit board under warranty and also updated the firmware. That helped.
> 
> BUT! After receiving my body back I encountered that now when using a servo-mode (any type) and a 70-200 ( I have RF 70-200, but also tested another RF, and EF 2/3 USM lenses) I have severe backfocus especially at a tele-end (200 mm) and for distant targets that are approaching me ( skiers, snowboarders, cars etc.).
> ...


Do you have examples of your back focus problems with things that are not moving? I agree with the other responder that moving objects could be difficult to properly focus. Also the temperature could be a factor. I'd suggest that you start with a basic simple scene to show that non-moving objects are back focused before tackling moving objects.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 27, 2021)

Dmitri_Kahm said:


> Maybe time to watch the attached pics, read the full description carefully and make an excuse?
> 
> For you I have no arguments already. For everyone else here are the pics RAWs, and Jpegs for reviewal as asked. I am very curious how when the pictures contain all the info including the AF point the camera thinks it has hit, you will continue saying that I am gaslighting here.
> 
> ...


You complained about back-focusing with the Nikon D850 on one thread. Then about the Rf 35mm 1.8 and the 5R on another thread. And in this thread you are complaining AGAIN ABOUT BACK-FOCUSING on the R5 and "any" Canon 70-200mm. And these are only the ones I know about under similar names on different forums.

And you say you have tried multiple copies of the bodies, etc.

Don't you see that your pattern would raise quite a bit of skepticism?

You also have the pattern of being vague, and of sharing test shots that are useless in helping others understand your issues. And, because, in my opinion, your back-focus troubles across brands and models seem to persist, there is some disingenuous posting involved. I don't know why, and I won't speculate, but it is odd!

Many members here sincerely try and help others who are having problems with equipment, or photographers who want to improve technique, or those who are curious about new gear. Time and thought and energy go into helping. That's why I am alerting others that you have a pattern of complaining about the same thing frequently with different combinations of gear, and why I think it is very fair to ask you to take a look at your technique.

You?


----------



## Dmitri_Kahm (Jan 27, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> You complained about back-focusing with the Nikon D850 on one thread. Then about the Rf 35mm 1.8 and the 5R on another thread. And in this thread you are complaining AGAIN ABOUT BACK-FOCUSING on the R5 and "any" Canon 70-200mm. And these are only the ones I know about under similar names on different forums.
> 
> And you say you have tried multiple copies of the bodies, etc.
> 
> ...



Well. I understand you to certain extent of course. Complaining about several cases does seem strange. But the cases are different. All you see in common is backfocus. Backfocus is in umbrella term almost like a plane crash or 404 error - numerous things can lead to it. All the rest is absolutely different. Even if we forget about major differences like brands, lenses, DSLR/mirorrles, the scenarios and , therefore, techniques are completely different!

I provided all kinds of details and finally many pics both in RAW and JPEG for the case with r5+70-200.Have you watched them? Have you tried to run the similar test yourself?
I provided all the necessary info for 35 mm case initially. have you tried to shoot charts yourself? I have said numerous times- ruler test is not really good, because you can barely asses sharpness in the point of intended focus on a ruler.

After all you are also somehow ignoring the fact that in each thread there is a person/people who is/are complaining about 99% similar issues.

I want no argument any more. I am sure that you a a good man and a skilled one and that you do care about the environment here. Just check out my recent posts, as I think they pretty much self-explanatory and remove the mistrust.

Regards


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 27, 2021)

@Dmitri_Kahm: Interesting comments. Can you recall which "Scenario" you used for focus with your shots? Another thought is to add the Focus Point Plug in if you use LightRoom. This will show you exactly where the camera focused and might help clarify a focusing point issue versus a back focusing lens or other problem.

Regards, JPAZ


----------



## Dmitri_Kahm (Jan 27, 2021)

JPAZ said:


> @Dmitri_Kahm: Interesting comments. Can you recall which "Scenario" you used for focus with you shots? Another thought is to add the Focus Point Pluginn if you use LightRoom. This will show you where the camera focused.
> 
> Regards, JPAZ



Hello and thanks for reply! Most of the time I am using a universal scenario №1. I tried using different scenarios but did not see much difference.
Thanks for the advice with Lightroom plugin. I was using DPP ( original Canon software) for checking the focus points. And in all cases I am reporting of, th focus point is on the target, whereas the focus plane is somewhat behind. It does not mean that the target is completely blurred, in most of the cases the photos are still somewhat usable, but targets at the back are sharper showing that focus is not spot on.


----------



## risto0 (Aug 14, 2021)

Hi, 
I got R5 a few months ago and recently tried it wity my EF 70-200 2.8 IS II. It is back-focusing. I've been photographing forest/trees and it misses focus when i press focusing button. But when i manually adjust focus, image becomes sharp. Has there been any solutions for that? Is Canon aware of the issue and working on a solution/FW update?
The title of the thread says this is the issue for several different generations of this lens (EF v2, v3, and even RF). From my point of view this is actually a good news meaning that my lens might be OK but R5 might need better FW.


----------

