# Getting sharp pictures with 7DII - need advice please



## picturefan (Jun 27, 2016)

Hi all!

I´m often reading posts in this forum concerning the newer 7D MkII. Decided to get this cam instead a FF because of some wildlife photography and the crop-factor. For me the cam is alright, also for other subjects that I do a lot, also for some semi-pro use.
My problem: for me it is not possible to get a single sharp picture at higher distances (e.g. 20 metres away, like birds etc.)  
But: at shorter distances it´s ok. ???

I tried many things to find out, what the problem is: different cams, lenses, adjustments...
Here´s my spec: Iso 200, back-button focus, raw, shutter-speed 1/250 +/-, tripod, 100-400II, liveview, is-off.
That is how to get super-sharp pics with other cams - but not here. There is always some kind of haze instead of sharpness in the pics, especially when magnifying.

How do you all manage to get these sharp pics I´ve seen?
I think afma is not needed because of liveview (contrast-detection) -> no back/frontfocus.
S.th. wrong with cam? Some kind of distorted technique? Send to Canon? Other ideas?

Thank you for your replies.



PS: Maybe others have the same problem with that pix-monster (effec. 50mpix) ?!


----------



## j-nord (Jun 27, 2016)

Can you post some examples of the pictures in question? There could be many things going on here.


----------



## picturefan (Jun 27, 2016)

Yes, sure. Will post soon.

To exclude some reasons in advance:
1) with liveview-setting it should not be back- or frontfocus.
2) with tripod or sandbag it should not be camera shake.
3) with other lens being tested and having the same problem, it should not be the lens.
4) with is-off, it should not be is 
5) with raw, it should not be jpg-settings etc.
6) the only things that stayed the same in the setting is me, so it should not be... 

Please tell me when thinking s.th. wrong in these points above (espc. point 1 is right, isn´t it?)


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Jun 27, 2016)

Hear friend,

i'm afraid you've been trapped in the very well known problem of 7D Mk2, called "soft images". It's been going on since the first day of it's launch and i've been a "victim" myself...3 times!!! I sent back the first and the replacenet camera after almost starting a fist fight with the local Canon "technical supervisor" (the official importer "Canon Greece" pretended they knew nothingabout the issue although already it had been allover the internet for weeks) and finally, sold the third one to someone who only wanted it for video for an extra loss of 650 Euros, two months of my lifetime and a permanent visit to the shrink or the mental health clinic (well...almost)! 
I believe the problem is generic, it's the AF system probably. I don't know how many of the 7D Mk2s have the issue (a lot i'm afraid); all you have to do is get rid of it and try your luck with the newer 80D (it's cheaper too). 

No matter what you decide, it was just my 2c; you can do whatever you like but, google it a little bit and you'll find tons of discussions referring to the problem.

Wishing you all the best.
Yiannis.


----------



## picturefan (Jun 27, 2016)

Dear Yannis, dear 7DII users,

thanks for your description. Yes, I found out (google etc.) that many have had these focus problems. Really sorry for that. Some said that with an firmware-update to 1.05, espc. with 70-200, the problems should be solved.
I did the update, but still have the sharpness-problems with the 70-200 ???

But anyway, as I can´t get sharp pics, whether by using liveview, "normal"-af nor MF, *I think that it is not the AF-system*. Don`t know if that´s better :-\


----------



## monsieur_elegante (Jun 27, 2016)

I'm a fellow 7DII user and I know exactly what you're talking about. I asked about the exact same issue on this forum about a year ago, when I got my 7DII. 

To this day, I still haven't fully figured out what exactly is wrong -- I've sent in my 7DII twice to Canon, both times it returned with the repair note "It was determined that the AF assembly was misaligned, electrical adjustments were carried out and full function confirmed," which I believe is Canon-speak for "We didn't find anything wrong, but did some stuff so you'll feel better."

The strange thing is, my 7DII *is* capable of getting really sharp pictures -- just not consistently: (1) I get extremely sharp pictures consistently with wider lenses such as the EF-s 24mm f/2.8 STM (Pancake); (2) The problem really shows up the most when I use telephoto lenses (including 100-400mm II and Sigma 150-600 C). HOWEVER, I consistently get sharp pictures with those lenses at closer distances (and I mean really close, especially near minimum focus distance -- see attached hummingbird example). I can't explain it, but at longer distances, the "haze" and smudged details start to show up regardless of lighting condition and camera settings -- even with extremely high shutter speed of 1/2000 and faster. That is not a problem I've noticed on my 6D using the same lenses -- and even with 6D's lackluster focus system, when it does report that it achieved focus, I can almost always trust that it actually did. My 7DII...not so much.

OP, I would love to hear if you notice the same things -- are you able to get any sharp pictures, especially in the situations I mentioned (really close shooting distance and/or with wider lenses)?


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Jun 27, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Yannis, dear 7DII users,
> ...



@Picturefan: i had all kind of problemas with apertures <5.6 (especially 3.5 downwards were complete hell on all 3 camera bodies i had), no matter which focus point i used (most users had problems with the center focus point). After almost fist fighting at the beginning (i just could not keep calm hearing them say "there is no problem that we're aware of"), threating to sue them afterwards and finally coming to a somehow peaceful conversation, Canon Greece told me that my bodies had electrical problems (???) that affected the already problematical AF system (how can this happen three times, i got completely puzzled...). 

Anyway, what was most frustrating dear friend was that, i woke up in the morning, took 100 pictures and i had around 60 keepers; i then switched off the camera and after 10 minutes i shot another let's say 100 pictures and had...5 keepers!!! This went on for about 3 1/2 month and three camera bodies in total until i got completely disgusted, the third one and bought a second 5D Mk3!

I had updated the firmware to 1.02 with no success regarding the AF issue (it was released somewhere between February and March 2015 i think because, immediately after the update "fiasco" i sold the 7D Mk2 and bought the second 5D Mk3 on April 2nd, 2015).

@YuengLinger: I'm a lifetime "enthousiast amateur" user of Canon cameras my friend so, when it comes to congrats or complaints, it's all from personal experience with no personal goals, no beef against Canon and no "googling" observations! I just found it very strange for 3 camera bodies to malfuction almost the exact same way and started thinking "either i'm crazy or we have a major issue here"! Then i started "googling" and ...voila; many others, including professionals like "Michael the Mentor" and "CameraRec Toby", had also some same kind of trouble with another model, the 70D!

All my best wishes, be strong be safe, live life with those you love the most.
Yiannis, Athens, Greece.


----------



## Travelintrevor (Jun 27, 2016)

There will be a number of 7D MK II users that will tell you that you don't know how to use the camera, that the AF system is complex, etc. I went through the same problem with the 7D; It worked great for some time and the the AF system went to crap but Canon said it was fine. It took an act of Congress for them to fix it and many harsh words were exchanged. Some engineer got involved and decided to fix it himself and the camera was fine after that. 

They won't shoot wide open with primes at the repair center and they shoot under controlled lighting so they can't always replicate a problem so you will need to continue to provide evidence.

The 7D MK II is a fine camera but it has its faults. I think the AF points are too large and this is why it has a more difficult time hitting critical focus under certain conditions. The AF point just covers too large of an area and then it pick the object that is closest to the camera. 


Imagine a situation where you are trying to focus on an eye but the AF point covers the eye and part of the nose (just the edge). The focus is then set at nose distance instead of eye and this can cause problems when shooting wide open. 

I would not give up on the 7D MK II-it is my favorite camera ever and I prefer it over the 5D MK III for everything except wedding/high ISO. 

Try using DPAF and see if it can nail the focus that way. If not, then it might be the lens.


----------



## EvvPhotog (Jun 27, 2016)

monsieur_elegante said:


> The strange thing is, my 7DII *is* capable of getting really sharp pictures -- just not consistently: (1) I get extremely sharp pictures consistently with wider lenses such as the EF-s 24mm f/2.8 STM (Pancake); (2) The problem really shows up the most when I use telephoto lenses (including 100-400mm II and Sigma 150-600 C). HOWEVER, I consistently get sharp pictures with those lenses at closer distances (and I mean really close, especially near minimum focus distance -- see attached hummingbird example). I can't explain it, but at longer distances, the "haze" and smudged details start to show up regardless of lighting condition and camera settings -- even with extremely high shutter speed of 1/2000 and faster. That is not a problem I've noticed on my 6D using the same lenses -- and even with 6D's lackluster focus system, when it does report that it achieved focus, I can almost always trust that it actually did. My 7DII...not so much.
> 
> OP, I would love to hear if you notice the same things -- are you able to get any sharp pictures, especially in the situations I mentioned (really close shooting distance and/or with wider lenses)?



I have owned the 7D Mark II since launch. Had a 60D prior to that (never had soft focus on it). From day one I had soft focus issues but wrote it off to user error for several months (because it would hit focus sometimes). After getting a 6D and NOT having any issues with same lenses, I finally got annoyed and sent it off to Canon. They did the same "fix" that you reported but things did seem a little better. When the 7D2 hits, it is super sharp. Problem for me is the inconsistency with it. I've since gotten a 5Dsr and even with it's high resolution I still get super sharp images under same conditions as I shoot the 7D (handheld, wildlife with a 500 f/4). Now the 7D is for sale. ;-)


----------



## Act444 (Jun 27, 2016)

Had this issue with my 7D2, sharp shots with telephoto lenses/tracking were infrequent if not rare altogether. So much so that for me, the extra reach (compared to my 5D) no longer mattered...

There are some serious AF consistency issues with the 7D series that I just haven't had with other cameras... :-\


----------



## Sabaki (Jun 27, 2016)

Your problem is real. 

I was an early adopter and went through 3 bodies in a few weeks, with each body being glitches enough for Canon to acknowledge and replace. 

The informal reasoning given me by Canon's people was a possible batch issue but I pointed them to various reviews (Fro Knows Photo etc) citing similar problems. But that being said, there are people with good bodies that are taking exceptional photographs, my 3rd body is great. 

Don't sit on your purchase, take it in to CPS and see what comes of it.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 27, 2016)

Act444 said:


> Had this issue with my 7D2, sharp shots with telephoto lenses/tracking were infrequent if not rare altogether. So much so that for me, the extra reach (compared to my 5D) no longer mattered...
> 
> There are some serious AF consistency issues with the 7D series that I just haven't had with other cameras... :-\



I absolutely concur with other responses here. Mine had a mis mounted AF sensor which required a mirror box replacement. They recalibrated everything and returned in about 3 days. It now tracks almost as good as my 1dx2 and ive been very happy with it. If you are not getting what you expect out of it, call them and explain that its been an issue from day one.


----------



## monsieur_elegante (Jun 27, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Had this issue with my 7D2, sharp shots with telephoto lenses/tracking were infrequent if not rare altogether. So much so that for me, the extra reach (compared to my 5D) no longer mattered...
> ...



Hi East Wind Photography - I remember reading your post in another thread regarding your success in getting your 7DII repaired -- it's actually what ultimately made me decide to send mine in to get it checked out. Unfortunately -- even after sending it in twice -- things have not improved with my 7DII. Each time I got the same "electrical adjustments were carried out and full function confirmed" note from Canon.

Any tips regarding what steps you took (if any) in getting Canon Service to take a closer look at your 7DII? 

Of course, I'm always open to the possibility that nothing is wrong with my 7DII -- but based on what you described regarding your post-service 7DII, and based on the disparity between my 7DII and my 6D (with respect to AF consistency), I am still inclined to think there is something not quite right with my 7DII.


----------



## PhotoGuy (Jun 27, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> Your problem is real.
> 
> I was an early adopter and went through 3 bodies in a few weeks, with each body being glitches enough for Canon to acknowledge and replace.
> 
> ...



Had the same problem with the original 7D and the 70D (dont ask about my opinion on the 19 point af). 
Canon does seem to have its problems regarding AF reliability. My 6D ist spot on perfect though. Good to know they learned their lesson and acknowledge the problem. 70D users were left in the rain - to this day ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 27, 2016)

If your camera is still in Warranty, send t or take it Canon for repair. Include photos as a example. The samples should be of stationary objects that are large enough so AF will lock on. A brick wall at 20m for example.


----------



## picturefan (Jun 27, 2016)

I´m away without my camera, so ´til now I could not post any picture yet, also the test-pics are not on my stick. 
So until I can post the pics, I can only describe: the results look blurry like from a very cheap lens with cheap resolution figures (not like 100-400II).

@ monsieur_elegante: Bonjour! What you described sounds a bit like the problem I have. When shooting portrait or close distance or macro, all seems fine. When I have some OOF here, than I´ve done s.th. wrong. 
But when it comes to distance shots, it all goes into "haze". Ap. 5.6/8.0, 1.4Conv. or not, makes nearly no difference. So yes, it is real! but I can´t explain.
When using normal zoom or wideangle, I also get sharp pics. Same thing as you told us. It´s just the telezooms at longer distances with problems. But that is the very reason for buying the 7DII.

@ Yiannis: I can´t tell any differece between the focus points I use. The "haze" appears also in MF-mode. Have you tried yours in MF and liveview? How were the results?

@ yuenglinger: Nice to meet you, even if I don´t know what you´re complaining about. Sorry for not have taken animal shoots in winter (distances far beyond 20m), so the problem was not evident that times. Problem with 70-200: failure is not consistent, so what to tell Canon? Please tell me your ideas! Thank you.

@ Travellintrevor: Yeah, but "complex AF" is a belittlement . Never read a manual so proper... But still trying to find my "allround-case" for 80% of all situations. I think it´s not a lens problem, as other lenses are also affected. Maybe it´s a lens-body-thing?

@ Sabaki: Yes, it is real  and maybe it´s a batch issue, some kind of mechanical displacement.

@ Eastwind: Gives me hope that it can be repaired. How you found out that s.th. was wrong? How did your pics look like?


*@ all:* Do you think it is a AF-problem - because unsharp results (haze) also appear in MF and liveview??


----------



## picturefan (Jun 27, 2016)

@ monsieur_elegante: Pictures like this were the reason for me to buy the 7DII. Head of the hummingbird is really sharp (colors and so on are very cute). But: my pics look more like the bird´s feet, one can see on the limb.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 27, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Had this issue with my 7D2, sharp shots with telephoto lenses/tracking were infrequent if not rare altogether. So much so that for me, the extra reach (compared to my 5D) no longer mattered...
> ...



Glad to hear you got yours fixed. Unfortunately at the end of the day I just couldn't be bothered and sold it (as a trade in). Seriously, the 5D3 shots were so much better and the AF, although far from perfect, is the best I've ever used - consistent and reliable, for the most part. 

It also troubles me a bit to hear AF issues with the new 1DX II as I may be in that market now...


----------



## picturefan (Jun 27, 2016)

By the way, I´m really satisfied with the overall quality of the 100-400II. Great lens.
Also with TC the IQ is great (unfortunately not on my 7DII), with 1.4 TC its also significantly sharper than 100-400I and still on par with 70-200.

So I´m looking forward to find the right explanation and maybe help others with that "hazy" results.


----------



## tron (Jun 28, 2016)

I have been using my 7DII for a little less than a year. I do not think my experience will be of help to you but there it is:

1. It works fine with my 500 4LISII. I had to set AFMA to +5. It works more or less OK with 1.4XIII too (again with +5) but only when I put the combination in tripod and focus at the target carefully. Even so not all shots are spot on. Still a tripod and an AFMA of +5 gives the best overall results. 

400DO: It behaves very nice. AFMA is not required.

100-400 I have used it once with BIF. It was OK but the birds were far away so it wasn't fair for the zoom to compete (still decent results)

Impression 1: In many cases when shooting BIF using all 65 points the camera many times seems lazy at first even with an easy target (even when set to automatic AF point selection and tinker case 6 for fast reaction)

Impression 2: I am not 100% sure that the AF points are aligned perfectly with what we see through the camera but I cannot prove it. Maybe it's a user error since a tripod improves AF considerably.

Fact: You have to shoot a well lit subject otherwise bring a FF camera.


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 28, 2016)

My 7D2 has also had inconsistent focusing issues. It has been to Canon service once and they found no problems. Some days it seems really good, other days it hardly hits. Mostly I've narrowed it down to a very "nervous" AI Servo drive. Even shooting a static subject in AI Servo you can visually see the focus racking back and forth by the smallest amounts and that seems to lead to a very inconsistent tack sharp hit rate.

Anyways, in the past 2 months I've found two excellent solutions to the 7D2 issues:

1) I bought a 5DSR....the focus system works (just like my 5D3 and 1DX)...only problem is the slow FPS for birds and wildlife action.

2) I bought a D500 and 200-500 lens. I've never experienced the focus consistency that I get from this camera in any Canon camera...only my 1DX is close. Having 20 shot bursts all in focus handholding from a kayak for BIF is something even the 1DX couldn't pull off. And this is with a fairly cheap Nikon lens compared to all the exotic Canon lenses I own and use regularly.

So those are my two newest solutions to my 7D2 headaches. My kit is now 5DSR, 1DX and D500. 7D2 will be sold soon.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 28, 2016)

arbitrage said:


> My 7D2 has also had inconsistent focusing issues. It has been to Canon service once and they found no problems. Some days it seems really good, other days it hardly hits. Mostly I've narrowed it down to a very "nervous" AI Servo drive. Even shooting a static subject in AI Servo you can visually see the focus racking back and forth by the smallest amounts and that seems to lead to a very inconsistent tack sharp hit rate.
> 
> Anyways, in the past 2 months I've found two excellent solutions to the 7D2 issues:
> 
> ...


What's the 200-500mm like? Some reviews have it very sharp from 200-500mm but I have met a guide whose lens was soft above 350mm and have found several reviews complaining that copies were soft. Also the AF is variously claimed to be fast or slow.


----------



## norb (Jun 28, 2016)

Same problem with soft pictures and the 7d II. In my case it looks like it is a vibration-problem specially at high-frame-rates. 

The 7dII has the same pixel-density as a 5Ds, so the 20 MP at APS are the same as 50 MP at fullframe. I think there is a reason, why they redesigned the mirror-box in the 5Ds.

If I shoot my 7D II in silent-mode , all my picures are sharp. It is annoying, but it helps.


----------



## pwp (Jun 28, 2016)

This makes me feel like one of the lucky ones, I consistently get absolutely cracking sharp shots with the 7DII which I mostly use with the 70-200 f/2.8isII with IS on and never using live view, mostly hand held and sometimes with monopod. If I'm not getting nice sharp shots either in one-shot or servo focus the likely reason tends to be that my shutter speed is too slow. OP you haven't mentioned what shutter speed at what focal length you're using. That will have a huge bearing on analyzing your issue.

-pw


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 28, 2016)

arbitrage said:


> My 7D2 has also had inconsistent focusing issues. It has been to Canon service once and they found no problems. Some days it seems really good, other days it hardly hits. Mostly I've narrowed it down to a very "nervous" AI Servo drive. Even shooting a static subject in AI Servo you can visually see the focus racking back and forth by the smallest amounts and that seems to lead to a very inconsistent tack sharp hit rate.
> 
> Anyways, in the past 2 months I've found two excellent solutions to the 7D2 issues:
> 
> ...



Why are you shooting STATIC subjects with AI Servo?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 28, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> arbitrage said:
> 
> 
> > My 7D2 has also had inconsistent focusing issues. It has been to Canon service once and they found no problems. Some days it seems really good, other days it hardly hits. Mostly I've narrowed it down to a very "nervous" AI Servo drive. Even shooting a static subject in AI Servo you can visually see the focus racking back and forth by the smallest amounts and that seems to lead to a very inconsistent tack sharp hit rate.
> ...



Exactly. I set the DOF preview button to toggle ai servo and one shot. Makes that transition seamless.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jun 28, 2016)

Hi Arbitrage. 
I'm no expert, but I'd say that would be expected behaviour from a tracking setting, trying to work out which way the target is moving (going to start moving). Despite your knowledge that it is a fixed static target, the camera doesn't know things, it has to calculate them. 
To me this is a bit like saying my camera is not tracking the leaves swaying in a gentle breeze when set to one shot, it is expected behaviour. 
I'm sorry you had issues, I find my 7DII focus system far more reliable than my 7D, however I'm finding that my improving technique and understanding have led to better shots from both cameras!  That is not meant to suggest that it is your technique causing your issues, just my technique was causing some of mine. 
Glad you have found a solution to your problem. 

Cheers, Graham. 



arbitrage said:


> Even shooting a static subject in AI Servo you can visually see the focus racking back and forth by the smallest amounts and that seems to lead to a very inconsistent tack sharp hit rate.


----------



## dpc (Jun 28, 2016)

Now I'm a bit nervous. I don't have a 7DMII, but I do have a 7D. I note some people have problems with soft images using that camera. I've had the 7D for four years and have had absolutely no auto focus issues with it. The only soft images it's produced have been the result of user error on my part. I was planning to buy a MII this summer. I bought a lens instead but was hoping to get the MII sometime within the coming year. Now I'm having second thoughts. I guess the question is how ubiquitous the soft picture problem is. You can't necessarily tell from internet forums. Still, I'm wondering what I should do. I don't think the 80D is quite the camera I want, although I remain open. I use my 7D for wildlife, including BIF and for macro work. I use a 5DMII for everything else. I certainly have no plans to look for a camera from another manufacturer, although the Nikon D500 looks interesting. I suppose I may just hang onto the 7D until it implodes. Why change horses while the original is running well?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 28, 2016)

One thing to note is that unless you are using a tripod, a hand held static shot will still move forward or backward a bit due to body movement. A similar shot in one shot mode will end up being OOF due to the same motion. Servo af still tries to compensate for that and will appear to be hunting.

My 7d2 on a tripod does not hunt on static subjects in servo mode.

One way to avoid such issues for hand held shots is to stop your lens down to increase dof.

I suspect that nikons af may not be as sensitive as canons and therefore the motion from body movement is ignored...but does little to improve the image quality.

Only dof can improve the error due to that.


----------



## picturefan (Jun 28, 2016)

Now I got some pics to show to you, it´s a bullfinch, not a polar bear, but it shows (imho) the same thing: some softness and it is nowhere sharp. It´s 100-400II at tele, f5.6, using a sandbag, liveview.

As another one wrote, for me this is not worth 1300bugs (cam) and 1900bugs (lens). Get the same quality when using the old 70-300 on 450D.

Looking forward to your expertise.


----------



## picturefan (Jun 28, 2016)

This is another *sample*-pic:
100-400II @ 400mm, f5.6, iso 400, *tripod*, is-off, liveview (10x magnify), shutterspeed 1/125-1/250 more or less
"Focus" on the fruit in the middle.


----------



## picturefan (Jun 28, 2016)

norb said:


> Same problem with soft pictures and the 7d II. In my case it looks like it is a vibration-problem specially at high-frame-rates.
> 
> The 7dII has the same pixel-density as a 5Ds, so the 20 MP at APS are the same as 50 MP at fullframe. I think there is a reason, why they redesigned the mirror-box in the 5Ds.
> 
> If I shoot my 7D II in silent-mode , all my picures are sharp. It is annoying, but it helps.



Will also try to shoot in silent mode to find out if it is a shaking because of shutter(speed). 
Do you have the softness in MF or liveview also?


----------



## monsieur_elegante (Jun 28, 2016)

picturefan said:


> norb said:
> 
> 
> > Same problem with soft pictures and the 7d II. In my case it looks like it is a vibration-problem specially at high-frame-rates.
> ...



I thought about this in the past and personally believes I get a higher percentage of sharp pictures with silent mode -- but have not tested this theory to a sufficient extent, so I will be testing this out more in the next couple of days as well. However, this still wouldn't explain why I get perfectly sharp pictures at close distances regardless of shooting mode (I usually leave it on high speed continuous @ 10fps).

If we document this well and arrive at some consensus as to the exact symptom of our 7DII problems, I wonder if people would be interested in drafting a group letter to Canon. Granted, I understand that not everyone here is CanonUSA/NorthAmerica. I just wonder if Canon Services will take 7DII service requests a bit more seriously when they see that there is some kind of trend exhibited among a large group of 7DII users.


----------



## picturefan (Jun 28, 2016)

monsieur_elegante said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > norb said:
> ...



My homework for the weekend will be: check 7DII with different optics and shutter modes to prove the thesis: picture softness - also in liveview (not only a af-problem) - in greater distances shots (more than 10m) - and affected lens-combos 100-400 and 70-200. 
Any supplements?
Aim should be to do a "diagnosis by exclusion" and then check with the service compartment.


----------



## monsieur_elegante (Jun 29, 2016)

picturefan said:


> monsieur_elegante said:
> 
> 
> > picturefan said:
> ...



Sounds good; I will been (and have been) testing the same.

I would also add the following:
- Make sure shutter release for one-shot and AI servo is set to "focus priority" instead of "shutter priority." In my experience, I have not seen any improvement to AF consistency even by setting shutter release to "focus priority," but I think it's still worth eliminating as a potential cause. 
- Play around with the different AF cases and AF modes (spot AF, single point, expanded single point, etc). Also play around with the different AF sensor points to see if all of them are affected by the inconsistency problem.


----------



## Travelintrevor (Jun 29, 2016)

dpc said:


> Now I'm a bit nervous. I don't have a 7DMII, but I do have a 7D. I note some people have problems with soft images using that camera. I've had the 7D for four years and have had absolutely no auto focus issues with it. The only soft images it's produced have been the result of user error on my part. I was planning to buy a MII this summer. I bought a lens instead but was hoping to get the MII sometime within the coming year. Now I'm having second thoughts. I guess the question is how ubiquitous the soft picture problem is. You can't necessarily tell from internet forums. Still, I'm wondering what I should do. I don't think the 80D is quite the camera I want, although I remain open. I use my 7D for wildlife, including BIF and for macro work. I use a 5DMII for everything else. I certainly have no plans to look for a camera from another manufacturer, although the Nikon D500 looks interesting. I suppose I may just hang onto the 7D until it implodes. Why change horses while the original is running well?



Jump on one. You are seeing some reports of soft photos but who knows why? Diffraction? Bad camera? Bad technique? 

Who knows but I can also tell you there are more people that don't have problems with the camera. 

I won't dismiss the reported problems because I have been there but I can also tell you that I LOVE my 7D MK II. It is easily the best camera I have ever used. Easily beats my 5D MK III in everything except high ISO and shallow DoF. 

I recently posted an example of how well the 7D MK II can track a high speed roller coaster and yet none of the happy 7D MK II owners chimed saying that they are happy with their results as well. Negative reports are more readily available....because it's in our nature to report the bad "stuff."


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 29, 2016)

AlanF said:


> arbitrage said:
> 
> 
> > My 7D2 has also had inconsistent focusing issues. It has been to Canon service once and they found no problems. Some days it seems really good, other days it hardly hits. Mostly I've narrowed it down to a very "nervous" AI Servo drive. Even shooting a static subject in AI Servo you can visually see the focus racking back and forth by the smallest amounts and that seems to lead to a very inconsistent tack sharp hit rate.
> ...



Sharpness is excellent. I shot some comparisons between 5DSR and 100-400II vs 7D2 and 100-400II vs D500 and 200-500 all at 400 at f/5.6 and really couldn't tell any difference. These were shot from same distance so pixels on subject were effectively equal. Yes my 7D2 can produce beautifully sharp images when it wants to.

If you want to see some of my pictures head over to FM Forums and check out this recent thread: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1437945
Also looking through the 200-500 thread over there http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1379476 will show you the lens is sharp even at 500 and wide open. Even with the 1.4TC on it it did very well. One of the oystercatcher shots is with the 1.4TC...look for the 700mm in the EXIF.
As for AF, the AF feels a bit slower than the snappy Canon AF I'm used to. It feels a little smoother and deliberate.
Most of my reading before purchase showed that people that owned the 200-500 before the D500 and D5 were released reported a fairly slow AF. Many of those users after trying the D500 noticed remarkable improvement in the Af speed. I don't own any other nikon bodies like D810 so can't say myself but many users reported the D500 and D5's new AF system made the lens shine.


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 29, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> arbitrage said:
> 
> 
> > My 7D2 has also had inconsistent focusing issues. It has been to Canon service once and they found no problems. Some days it seems really good, other days it hardly hits. Mostly I've narrowed it down to a very "nervous" AI Servo drive. Even shooting a static subject in AI Servo you can visually see the focus racking back and forth by the smallest amounts and that seems to lead to a very inconsistent tack sharp hit rate.
> ...



Always have, always will. I'm handholding 90% of the time, even static things like birds on a perch are always moving somewhat, trees are moving. I've never used one shot except for a few trials to prove to myself Servo always gave equal or better results.

I've owned 7D, 5D2, 5D3, 1D4, 1DX, 7D2, 5DSR and 80D. I know the Canon system inside and out. Out of all those bodies the 7D2 has been the only real headache with in-consistent AF. I've watched the AF response in the same way on the 1DX and 5DSR, there is no noticeable jitter in the AF system when focused on a fairly static subject. It is visible through the VF on the 7D2. I'm convinced this is the main reason on my 7D2 copy that I can't get a consistent in focus hit rate. 

My 7D2 however is not exactly as the OP describes his to be as I have 1000s of tack sharp shots at all different subject distances over the past 15 months. I just can't trust it to nail the shot I want.

Someday I may just purchase another 7D2 and try it again. But most likely will wait for the 7D3. I'm not selling off any of my Canon gear as I love my big lenses. The D500/200-500 is a stop gap to give me a high FPS crop body that produces the results I need.


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 29, 2016)

monsieur_elegante said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > monsieur_elegante said:
> ...



In my testing, using focus or shutter priority made no noticeable difference. Canon's "Focus priority" is unlike Nikons where with Nikon it literally won't fire the shutter till it gets a in focus confirmation....Canon fires when things are well out of focus. Nikon's can be used as a focus trap, Canon's not so.

In my testing the most inconsistent modes on my 7D2 were the 4 and 8 point expansion modes. I found that the small zone mode improved AF consistency by a noticeable amount but had to be used in certain situations where no foreground distractions would grab the focus. Single point was okay. In contrast on my 1DX the expansion modes worked amazingly.

I also have tried all sorts of fiddling with the AF case settings. I just can never quantify a noticeable difference. In the end I reset everything to default and do the same on my 1DX and 5DSR.


----------



## quod (Jun 29, 2016)

picturefan said:


> How do you all manage to get these sharp pics I´ve seen?


You are not alone. I've gotten a lot of sharp shots with my 7D2, but I have gotten a lot of clunkers too. Generally, I have had good results with the 100-400 version 2. I noticed that I could not get a sharp shot, no matter the circumstance, when the 7D2 was paired with my 500/4 version 1. With the 500/4 version 2, the shots are often sharp. If it matters, I have gotten consistently better results with my 5D3, and even better results with my Sony A7R2. You may be better served by changing out the camera for a different model.


----------



## picturefan (Jun 29, 2016)

arbitrage said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > arbitrage said:
> ...




In my opinion it should be the main advantage of a product family that every single element should have relatively same using characteristics, so 1Dx, 5DIII and 7DII should react the same. So same focus mode, picture sytle, cases etc.

What do you guess? Are some 7DII just "mal-manufactured"?


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 30, 2016)

picturefan said:


> arbitrage said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



The nice thing about Canon is ever since the 5D3/1DX release the outside packaging of the AF options has looked the same over all the high end bodies and even on the 80D that doesn't have the Case settings it still has the settings that the Cases are formed from.

However, I don't believe the behind the scenes AF processing is anywhere near the same on any of the recent cameras. The 1 series have more dedicated AF processors. The newer 5DS/R has a better metering system that can factor into the AF say compared to the 5D3.

I really think that the 7D2 may just have programming in it that is designed to create a very active AF response and that this hinders the consistency. I could be totally wrong. Possibly my camera is somewhat defective. Canon CPS Canada told me it functioned within spec but maybe if I sent it to one of the US service centres they may find something to adjust?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 30, 2016)

arbitrage said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > arbitrage said:
> ...



Maybe one of the things to consider here is that due to the smaller sensor, the af sensors may be smaller and therefore not have the spread to achieve the same accuracy and lock as on a full frame system. The af point may also be quite larger and therefore not as precise as one would expect.

I really dont know if there is a difference but it would make sense considering the aps-c size.

Before i sent my 7d2 in for service the af was very jittery and it was not able to hold afma adjustment. Once the mirror box and af sensor was replaced and system recalibrated, the AF is very stable and i may get 1 out of 20 that has missed its mark. Ive used it for stadium sports shooting with a 300 f2.8 wide open and rarely have a missed shot that wasnt my fault. i usually just leave it on case 1 and everything set for focus priority.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2016)

Keep in mind that subject distance has a significant impact, e.g. if you shoot similarly-sized subjects close vs. far and crop the more distant one, it's going to be softer. The haws shots below were with the same camera (7D) and same lens (100-400), the one on the right was about 1/3 the distance and the shot was downsampled to yield similar size images.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Keep in mind that subject distance has a significant impact, e.g. if you shoot similarly-sized subjects close vs. far and crop the more distant one, it's going to be softer. The haws shots below were with the same camera (7D) and same lens (100-400), the one on the right was about 1/3 the distance and the shot was downsampled to yield similar size images.



This is an impressive example of a different perfomance. If I did not knew, I´d think that you must have used my very own Camera to get the pic on the left. 
The peaches and bullfinch above were approx. 10-15m away from me. In most situations this is the closest you can get for most wild animal shots in central-europe. So there is no cropping on the pics I´ve posted. With unsatisfying results it´s even worse to crop.
Until now it isn´t possible to post new test-pics due to neverending rainfall  So no possibilty for low iso-high andshutter speeds. Will wait...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 2, 2016)

picturefan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind that subject distance has a significant impact, e.g. if you shoot similarly-sized subjects close vs. far and crop the more distant one, it's going to be softer. The haws shots below were with the same camera (7D) and same lens (100-400), the one on the right was about 1/3 the distance and the shot was downsampled to yield similar size images.
> ...


Also DOF causes sharpness problems. I have seen multiple cases where someone lets the camera choose the AF point (they like to choose the closest point) and the part of the image that they were interested in is far enough back that it appears to be out of focus...

For example, take a 600mm lens shot at F8 (typical for Tamron and Sigma 150-600's), and a subject 10 meters away..... the DOF is a surprisingly small 8 centimeters. The following image was shot under those conditions and cropped to show the point. The AF point was centered on the second duckling and the one behind with the wings out is embarrassingly fuzzy...... The one in front is also out of focus.

The camera nailed the shot. It did exactly what I told it to do. I told it to do the wrong thing


----------



## serendipidy (Jul 2, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> The camera nailed the shot. It did exactly what I told it to do. I told it to do the wrong thing



Don,
My camera rarely listens to me. I tell it to take perfect gorgeous photos every time I press the shutter button, but it mostly just ignores my request ;D


----------



## picturefan (Jul 3, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Something´s wrong with my nonexistent japanese - my canon isn`t listenig either 

But seriously, when shooting the examples, dof must have been around 20cm, with a 4cm peach or bird in the middle of the field, it shouldn´t become a problem. The ducks seem to be in a row of at last half a meter, so this eventuality can be excluded.

Still need to see some answers of you folks with similiar problems/similar pictures that are much more sharp.

Will post some other pics soon.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 3, 2016)

Today I went out testing in a little wildlife parc. Weather was cloudy - so again no low iso, high shutter speeds - but "normal conditions" for a semi-pro canon camera to get sharp pics.

Here are two more, a tomtit and a boar. Distances ca. 3m.
Tomtit: 400mm, f5.6, sandbag, 1/350, is (=ideal), but iso 6400. noise is ok, but sharpness not necessarily good.
Boar: 400mm, f8, sandbag, is, iso 320 (=ideal), time 1/20. that´s ok because of sandbag, is and none moving animal. Sharpness of the eye (focus point) imho bad.

Any comments appreciated.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2016)

picturefan said:


> Today I went out testing in a little wildlife parc. Weather was cloudy - so again no low iso, high shutter speeds - but "normal conditions" for a semi-pro canon camera to get sharp pics.
> 
> Here are two more, a tomtit and a boar. Distances ca. 3m.
> Tomtit: 400mm, f5.6, sandbag, 1/350, is (=ideal), but iso 6400. noise is ok, but sharpness not necessarily good.
> ...



400mm, f/5.6, 3 m distance...DoF = ~1 cm. 

The bird looks as sharp as one could expect at ISO 6400, although the plane of focus is slightly in front of the eye. Looks like the area of sharpest focus for the boar shot is behind the eye, although it's still not sharp. At 1/20 s, I'd expect subject motion blur even in an animal that appears still. 

I'm not saying there's not a problem, but I don't think your testing so far has been conclusive.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > Today I went out testing in a little wildlife parc. Weather was cloudy - so again no low iso, high shutter speeds - but "normal conditions" for a semi-pro canon camera to get sharp pics.
> ...



One the one hand, I guess the peach is. On the other, the animals, unfortunatly, have been under real world and not testing conditions, sure.
But for the next ones, I try to be more compelling. 

When taking a look at the following, I hope the softness can be shown better:
This one about a deer (ca 150m+ away) is not convincing me: 
Iso 400, f8, 1/250, 560mm (1.4Ex. III), sturdy tripod, remote release, liveview focus (10x)


----------



## picturefan (Jul 3, 2016)

Here is, from today, a pack of boars:
Iso 640, 300mm, f8, 1/125, IS, sandbag, liveview-focus, focus on the eyes

Feel free to magnify...


----------



## picturefan (Jul 3, 2016)

And out of this pack is another one, best shooting conditions (and a bit of summer feeling when sun comes out) 

Iso 320, f6.7, 1/250, 300mm, IS, sandbag, liveview-focus, focus on the eyes, distance ca. 30m

Softness comes out at magnifying...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2016)

picturefan said:


> And out of this pack is another one, best shooting conditions (and a bit of summer feeling when sun comes out)
> 
> Iso 320, f6.7, 1/250, 300mm, IS, sandbag, liveview-focus, focus on the eyes, distance ca. 30m
> 
> Softness comes out at magnifying...



Nope, the image is as sharp as you can expect with your technique (what sharpening technique sare you using in post?) and it shows no signs of equipment issues, same as the boar above shot at 1/20 sec.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 3, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > And out of this pack is another one, best shooting conditions (and a bit of summer feeling when sun comes out)
> ...



It is out of the cam, no sharpening or post so far.
While searching for these tack-sharp pics with a 7DII/100-400II combo, I found one very good example of an green parrot on a flickr-page of a girl called Annie or of a heron on Bryans site t-d-p.com. I don´t know if I´m allowed to post the link here to get a comparison. But that heron there, respectively the sharpness, is what I am dreaming of (and the reason for spending all that money in gear...)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2016)

picturefan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > picturefan said:
> ...



Yes you can post the links. 

You have the equipment to get the images you want, you need to learn a lot about how to get them. 

Post processing makes a massive difference to your output and cameras with AA filters (the 7D MkII) are designed to need sharpening in post, it is a given.

Beanbags at 1/20th sec are never going to get you pixel sharp images.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 4, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The link is:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2015-02-23_17-10-47

Reason for opening this thread is to find out, if all possible post-processing can wash away the softness I find, for example when you look at the deer - imho all field-technique for good primary-material is used here. Couldn´t do it sharper, also in post. That´s why I´m asking here. 

Beanbag-technique here (when tripod is impractical) is: 400mm -> 1/500 with 4-stop of IS -> 1/30 + beanbag (actually filled with rice) -> 1/20 should work out (if animal is not moving) 

Here I applied some sharpening/saturation (this time not in LR, only in a nice`n´easy freeware called irfan):


----------



## picturefan (Jul 4, 2016)

Bryan Carnathan, among others, stated that "EOS 7D II images are very sharp". For his posted blue heron this is true, as one can see. It´s made under perfect conditions. Probably a better Powershot-Model should have been able to get similar results here. But he´s not telling on his page if he means "very sharp" right out of the cam - no matter if raw or jpg - or only after post. With 7DII pixel´s density it is clear that there should be some reserves, especially if cropping is needed. But primar material very often is far away from very sharp, as many others also stated.


----------



## Corydoras (Jul 4, 2016)

A fast shutter speed is critical for getting sharp shots with the 7D Mark II. When I handhold the 400mm f/5.6 I tend to use at least 1/800 or faster shutter speed when lighting conditions allow it without having to use too high ISO. 

The IS in my 70-200 certainly helps when the target is not moving. In this example I used 1/320s at 200mm and IS was on. DOF is quite shallow at f/2.8 and 200mm and the plane of focus ended up being a bit too far back (eyes of the hedgehog were the target) and that was my error, but the sharpness is good where the plane of focus is.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 4, 2016)

Until now there have been very helpful comments, also about the testing modes. Thank you all.
In real life shooting it is, of course, often necessary to match adjustments adequate to the given conditions.

So I´ll be lucky - and all others, who posted - to see some satisfaying (tack sharp) results and some others, just to see, what the 7DII is capable to achieve in IQ in combination with the new MarkII-Telezooms.

For myself, I need any comments on the posted deer. Shooting technique there seems close to optimal to me, but the deer is so-so...


----------



## Kerry B (Jul 4, 2016)

picturefan said:


> Until now there have been very helpful comments, also about the testing modes. Thank you all.
> In real life shooting it is, of course, often necessary to match adjustments adequate to the given conditions.
> 
> So I´ll be lucky - and all others, who posted - to see some satisfaying (tack sharp) results and some others, just to see, what the 7DII is capable to achieve in IQ in combination with the new MarkII-Telezooms.
> ...


The deer is some distance away and air quality comes into play at that distance. I am not convinced about the 400 f5.6 with extender but I am prepared to be told otherwise. I never shoot hand held and will always use either a tripod or some other stable device. Many people complain about sharp images when it is technique to blame, if you expect to get a sharp image using the 7dii with a 300mm + lens at slowish shutter speeds forget it. In your situation you are shooting from a tripod using a cable release it will not be technique it will be the limitations of your equipment and environmental qualities.
Here is an image i took recently at approx 75 metres with 7dii and 100-400ii lens. Taken on a tripod with a little heat haze. Sharpness is not bad but could be better.


----------



## gregorywood (Jul 4, 2016)

I've been reading this thread with great interest, as well as other similar thread as I prepare to determine the upgrade path for my body (bodies). I bought my 7D in 2012 and struggled at first with the learning curve of how to get the best results from the tool. I wasn't very experienced at the time and I think that helped me greatly in my quest for understanding what was wrong (what "I" was doing wrong). I think for the APS-C format, shutter speed is critically important, whether the subject is in motion or not. Aperture and ISO are as well, but in my mind, it's the shutter speed that rules somewhat over the other two at least on the crop format.

A question that comes to mind is that when trying to achieve the optimal sharpness, where is the balance between ISO and shutter speed? When faced with less than desirable light, where is the optimal tradeoff between ISO and shutter speed? It is a noise vs sharpness tradeoff to a degree. Is it easier/better (better results) to remove noise, or to sharpen?

I'm considering a 7D2 upgrade, but the 80D reviews are certainly getting my attention. I like features of both.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 4, 2016)

picturefan said:


> For myself, I need any comments on the posted deer. *Shooting technique there seems close to optimal to me*, but the deer is so-so...



Sorry, but your shooting technique for the deer shot is far from optimal. Let's compare two images you stated you feel are soft and one image you say is tack sharp. Notice the main difference between your shots and Bryan's? For some reason, you are expecting a subject that covers only a tiny portion of your sensor to be 'tack sharp' – it doesn't work that way. Optimal technique is to fill your frame with your desired composition - that's what Bryan did, and he describes the process in detail with that GBH image. Cropping will decrease IQ, more cropping will decrease IQ to the point where the image isn't usable. 

As a general rule of thumb, if the image subject fits within the metering circle (which would have been the case for the peach and the deer), I don't even bother pressing the shutter button...period. If the subject fills at least 1/4 of the area of the frame, I'll probably take the image and hope I can generate a sufficiently good output. For me, that's starting with a FF camera so for the same final output size I need to enlarge the images less than with an APS-C sensor. Basically, I would see your shot of the deer as a non-starter if the goal was anything other than a toss-away shot or just low quality documentation of something rare.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > For myself, I need any comments on the posted deer. *Shooting technique there seems close to optimal to me*, but the deer is so-so...
> ...



That´s a very good argument, especially for FF (when we are taking about pixel size). The heron fills quite the whole frame, while the others don´t. 
Let´s say shooting technique is close to optimal (=every technique is used to high extend to get as much sharpness out of the shot), but *distance is too far for being a revealing shot*.

For me the problem with wildlife shooting and same time the solution is cropping, as animal distance in Europe often is very far. I can imagine that many wildlife/birders are finding themselves in the situation that the object distance is much further than the heron. So on a budget you go for 7DII and high-quality telezoom.

Coming back to technique: would you say that (for the given perspective) the deer is the maximum of sharpness one can get with this settings?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 4, 2016)

picturefan said:


> Coming back to technique: would you say that (for the given perspective) the deer is the maximum of sharpness one can get with this settings?



Yes.

Your expectations are entirely unrealistic.

1: Your image cropped with no sharpening at 100%.
2: Your image cropped with sharpening at 100%.
3: As above with red crop zone of blade of grass.
4: Screen shot of that rectangle, you are getting close to pixel level detail in this image, the blade of grass running diagonally across the crop bottom right to top left is not much more than 1 pixel wide yet is clearly visible in the bigger crop.

You need to reevaluate your expectations. You need to learn to post process. You need to learn optimal technique (1/20 sec on a beanbag is not going to give you pixel sharp images).


----------



## Otus (Jul 4, 2016)

Hi picturefan,

i started to do Birdphotography one year ago and what you experience now is what i learned in my first steps too. I am shooting with a 7d mkI and the Canon 400mm f5,6. Since i am from europe too i know what you mean with animals and their distance 

If you want to go deeper in wildlife photography then maybe you could check some books about this topic. For example the Handbook of Bird Photography by Mate, Varesvuo ...

To get sharp images you have to be closer to your subject. You can try to sneak closer. But i have read a lot from well know wildlife photographers and i also talked to some here in my area. Almost all of them using hides/blinds to get as close as possible. This works for birds as well as for other animals. Learn about their behaviour, try to lure them in the position you want them etc.

As i said i am using the old 400mm prime from canon with the 7d mkI and this combo is capable of shooting even small birds almost full frame without cropping the image. I am mostly abround 5-6 meters away. So if you using a hide you dont necessary need a zoom or a 800mm + 2x teleconverter. Sure there are situations where you could need more focal length. But in that cases there is a larger distance to your subject and then heatwaves, fuzzy air etc. could spoil your image. You need good climate air conditions when shooting over higher distances. You will find them often in the early morning or just before sunset. Dont try to make such pictures on a warm and sunny afternoon.

Also shooting in full sunlight is not always the best situation. If the sky is slightly covered with clouds its better - of course i dont mean dark grey rainclouds ;D

If you wish i could upload a few images so that you can see that it is fairly possible to get close and good results with a combination that is almost equivalent to yours.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 4, 2016)

Otus, you are right, getting really close always wins, and you don't need fancy equipment. But, a decent lens, camera and good technique gets you shots you would never get in a hide. And there are countries where there are few hides. I carry my gear on hikes, when I am cycling around, and when I get out of a car, and find an amazing number of opportunistic shots.
This afternoon I got a juvenile Greenfinch, a tiny dot at the top of a tree, while cycling home, yesterday a Robin close up and a Peregrine Falcon a couple of days ago on a building, all at 400-600mm on my 5DS R, which is somewhat sharper than my 7DII, but not greatly so.


----------



## fegari (Jul 4, 2016)

My 2cents here.

First some background info: Have owned 7D, 5D3 and now own 7DII and 5DSR.

I've also had the issues described. Remember the first time with the 7D2 had this - not sharp at all pics with my long teles, 300 or 500mm- shooting flamingos over the water at long distance. Almost no matter how fast the shutter was could not do sharp frames. Next days problem magically went away and in some other cases back. Also thought I had a problematic unit. Until I realized problem was me and well, planet earth :=)

1- hand held the 1/focal shutter rule goes out the window: for hand held you need at leat x2 (I'd even say minimun x3) the focal length as shutter sped. For tripod, with a 500, anything below 1/500 is a lottery

2- Realized that invariable the "blurry" shots were always shooting through a "thick" chunck or air between me and the subject, specially mid morning when humidity from the ground evaporated.

How did I find out?

a) brought along the 5D3 (before buying the 5DSR) in one of those shootings and guess what, the 5D3 appeared to have the same issue. Suspecting it was indeed "real" athmospheric haze tried the folowing

- shot with both cameras and same lens a subject near the ground => hazy
-right away shot a higher subject at the same distance (mountain, hill or high electrical tower) and the hazy either went away or gratly diminished


Even more, acouple of weeks ago went to a hide to shoot vultures, brough th 7d2 and the 5DSR (had sold the 5D3 by then) and the whole morning I got crappy "hazy" photos with both cameras, tripod mounted (Gitzo carbon 3 series and wimberley gimbal) with both the 300, 500 with or without extenders. A couple of hours later in that damp morning, after the sun kinda evaporated the grass "humidity" everything back to normal...

So, to me, the cameras are fine, it's largelly due to nature conspiring against high density sensors paired with long lenses and when shooting towards subjects close to the ground.

The rest are the usual suspects: you need _very_ fast shutther speeds with those cameras and the DoF is tricky for them with long lenses so small AFMA diferrences count too.

Invariably as well, shooting very close range (and sufficient speed) or wider angles never shows any problem, regardless of atmospheric conditions.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 4, 2016)

Otus said:


> As i said i am using the old 400mm prime from canon with the 7d mkI and this combo is capable of shooting even small birds almost full frame without cropping the image. I am mostly abround 5-6 meters away. So if you using a hide you dont necessary need a zoom or a 800mm + 2x teleconverter. Sure there are situations where you could need more focal length. But in that cases there is a larger distance to your subject and then heatwaves, fuzzy air etc. could spoil your image. You need good climate air conditions when shooting over higher distances. You will find them often in the early morning or just before sunset. Dont try to make such pictures on a warm and sunny afternoon.
> 
> Also shooting in full sunlight is not always the best situation. If the sky is slightly covered with clouds its better - of course i dont mean dark grey rainclouds ;D
> 
> If you wish i could upload a few images so that you can see that it is fairly possible to get close and good results with a combination that is almost equivalent to yours.



Hi Otus!
Would be a great pleasure to see some of your examples. Please show, if you don`t mind, closer and further distant shots to compare. Doesn´t need to be birds...


----------



## picturefan (Jul 4, 2016)

Thanks for sharing. This is very interesting for me.

And also: here we are - at the beginning of the thread, when we found out that many of the people in the thread have no problems at all with close distance shots. Is it because the subjects are more filling the frame?

I´m really surprised, because it would mean that all of these tack-sharpo images I have seen has been made under closer distances, let´s say around 10m. But does it mean in consequence that, for example, animal shots from farther away with smaller subjects are only some kind of "finger exercise" - when the subjects only covers the metering circle... Can´t imagine all of you come so close / are using camouflage. I guess most of you are depending on cropping. What does that mean for wildlife-photography? It´s the key-skill of the 7DII...

For some of you this may sound like a beginner question but I am photographing for more than 20 years now and never had this kind of problems before getting the new 7DII.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 4, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > Coming back to technique: would you say that (for the given perspective) the deer is the maximum of sharpness one can get with this settings?
> ...



Thank you for your efforts. Very helpful, especially when looking at the pixel-size red-frame. #4 demonstrates what is possible.

It shows me that without post, the out-of-the-cam pictures often are dingy, sometimes "crappy" (not really depending on format - jpg or raw). It also shows that my expectations were wrong - not entirely unrealistic - but just to high.

It seems you don`t like beans - respectively bean-bags. Disagree here, very often a good technique


----------



## Otus (Jul 4, 2016)

Picturefan, i will show you a few pictures tomorrow. But i have "only" birds from closer distances. But you dont need to be that clos to your subject. Even more, it always looks more interesting if the animal does not fill the frame almost completely. But if you shoot your deer from 150 meters away you cant crop it down as if it was 20 meters away and expect a perfect quality.

Alan, i dont know if hide is the right word. Is that the fixed cabin like those from (example) Bence Mate? I mean a camouflage tent or a comouflage cloth etc. Sure it would work with other ways too. I dont want to deny that. I made the long eared owl, plovers etc without camo. But i guess i wont have gotten the kingfisher that way too. But i guess that differs from area to area and what the animals are used too.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 4, 2016)

AlanF said:


> This afternoon I got a juvenile Greenfinch, a tiny dot at the top of a tree, while cycling home, yesterday a Robin close up and a Peregrine Falcon a couple of days ago on a building, all at 400-600mm on my 5DS R, which is somewhat sharper than my 7DII, but not greatly so.



Making me jealous of your "amazing number of opportunistic shots" . In my area it´s only the robins and the redstarts, sometimes sparrows, which allow closer distances (10m or less).
What have been the distances in your examples?
When you compare your robin with my titmouse at iso 3200 - is it posible to compare to the effect that softness there is only result of high-iso?


----------



## Otus (Jul 4, 2016)

By the way Alan, the greenfinch looks a lot like a corn bunting. Are you sure its a green finch?


----------



## picturefan (Jul 4, 2016)

fegari said:


> My 2cents here.
> 
> First some background info: Have owned 7D, 5D3 and now own 7DII and 5DSR.
> 
> ...



Fegari, some analogue findings to mine.

1) ye olde rule of thumb for handheld-photography became obsolete. With the new cams a new generation of image stabilisation will be essential (more than 3-4stops). In earlier times of slide-photography I used to handheld 200mm @ 1/90 without seeing any shakes under magnifying glass.
2) some dust in the air often leads to blurry landscapes, also currents of warm air
3) "small AFMA diferrences count" - especially when it´s hard to reproduce
4) "shooting very close range (and sufficient speed) or wider angles never shows any problem" 

+1


----------



## picturefan (Jul 4, 2016)

Otus said:


> By the way Alan, the greenfinch looks a lot like a corn bunting. Are you sure its a green finch?



Not sure either, could be a grey-bunting (?) (Emberiza calandra)...
But more of interest (at the moment  ) is it sharpened in post or out of cam?


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 4, 2016)

fegari said:


> My 2cents here.
> 
> First some background info: Have owned 7D, 5D3 and now own 7DII and 5DSR.
> 
> I've also had the issues described. Remember the first time with the 7D2 had this - not sharp at all pics with my long teles, 300 or 500mm- shooting flamingos over the water at long distance. Almost no matter how fast the shutter was could not do sharp frames. Next days problem magically went away and in some other cases back. Also thought I had a problematic unit. Until I realized problem was me and well, planet earth :=)



Here is a blog by Aresh Hazhegi who specialises in raptors in flight and shows how atmospherics can affect image quality. 

http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/focus-micro-adjustment-is-it-always-needed/

Reading enough forums it is surprising how often people mention shooting form inside a car and the residual heat of the car causing convection currents.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 4, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> fegari said:
> 
> 
> > My 2cents here.
> ...



Another example is when shooting out of your room in wintertime, in general when temperature between two areas differs strongly or when athmospheric layering is unstable. The latest often comes into play when doing BIF...


----------



## AlanF (Jul 4, 2016)

picturefan said:


> Otus said:
> 
> 
> > By the way Alan, the greenfinch looks a lot like a corn bunting. Are you sure its a green finch?
> ...



Probably corn bunting. Thanks. 
I thought I wrote you to keep the ISO to 640 or below. You won't get sharp bird photos at ISO 3200 and cropping. I do absolutely minimal sharpening in post processing of RAW. I used USM of 0.9 px at 100%, which is standard for my work flow. More sharpening can look unnatural unless you really know what you are doing.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 5, 2016)

AlanF said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > Otus said:
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 5, 2016)

AlanF said:


> I thought I wrote you to keep the ISO to 640 or below. You won't get sharp bird photos at ISO 3200 and cropping. I do absolutely minimal sharpening in post processing of RAW. I used USM of 0.9 px at 100%, which is standard for my work flow. More sharpening can look unnatural unless you really know what you are doing.



I have the 7D2 with the MkII 100-400 and even though it is a significant combo over the MkI versions I still find that I am limited by choosing one of the the same old three variables:
I can get decent images at 1600 (maybe even 3200) if I can get I good light or expose to the right. But I am rapidly limited on cropping options or shadow recovery
I can crop decently (up to 50% each side) if the image is well exposed
Shadow recovery is difficult above ISO 1200


Once I go above 800 I tend more towards 'environmental' portraits rather than trying to get close-ups by cropping. 
With birds in lowering light, I used to go for quicker shutter speeds by using Av and underexposing by a stop but too often exposure recovery was limited. I now tend towards using higher ISOs and getting more exposure, even slight overexposure, to reduce noise impact. This also helps sharpening.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2016)

picturefan said:


> It seems you don`t like beans - respectively bean-bags. Disagree here, very often a good technique



The problem isn't the bean bag per se – it's the bean bag + 1/20 s exposure + living subject + expectation of a tack sharp shot.




picturefan said:


> For me the problem with wildlife shooting and same time the solution is cropping, as animal distance in Europe often is very far. I can imagine that many wildlife/birders are finding themselves in the situation that the object distance is much further than the heron. So on a budget you go for 7DII and high-quality telezoom.



There are three possible solutions:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Move closer
[*]Get a longer lens
[*]Accept that there are shots you simply will not be able to get
[/list]

#1 is mainly about fieldcraft, which can be learned and practiced.

#2 is somewhat about money, unfortunately. In the Canon world, there's a threshold at APS-C + 400mm (or 560mm with the f/8 AF on the 7DII and 80D, but limited to center point selection only). Going longer requires a substantial investment. The Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm zooms are an option, although there's probably little difference between those at the long end and cropping a shot with the Canon 100-400 II, due to the better optical performance of the latter.

#3 is free, at least.  

Another consideration is APS-C vs. FF. On a budget, there's generally only one choice. But a FF sensor allows use of a higher ISO, which allows one to shoot in lower light while keeping a fast enough shutter speed. FF sensors also maintain IQ better with more cropping than APS-C (because relative to an equal outout size, the APS-C is already cropped by 1.6x relative to FF). But again, to get good AF along with that FF sensor means higher cost.

Post processing is also very important, using a RAW converter with good NR (I use DxO Optics Pro), and appropriate sharpening for your final output size.

Although I usually use a 1D X and 600/4L IS II for birds, frequently with a 1.4x TC, that's not always the case as you can see below with a shot at 200mm on APS-C. For this shot, I approached the heron very slowly over a period of several minutes until I was close enough to get the shot without too much cropping.. Fast shutter speed, ISO as low as feasible (I prefer not to go much higher than ISO 800 on APS-C).

_"Down the Hatch"_



EOS M2, EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM @ 200mm, 1/1600 s, f/6.3, ISO 800

Below is the original version, no edits to the RAW file, just converted with DPP using the Standard picture style and at the same pixel dimensions as the image above (although you can click the pic above for a larger image). Hopefully that illustrates the importance of post-processing.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm zooms are an option, although there's probably little difference between those at the long end and cropping a shot with the Canon 100-400 II, due to the better optical performance of the latter.



I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post - very good advice. But, the comment about the Sigma/Tamrons vs the 100-400mm II may apply to some copies of the lenses but not all, the best copies are very good. My Sigma 150-600mm II is slightly better at 400mm than either of my 100-400mm IIs and as good at 600mm as my 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III. The Tamron 150-600mm I sold was not nearly as good - the opposite of lenstip's conclusions. Test sites usually test one copy only and base their conclusions on that - the antithesis of good science where you do multiple experiments rather than take one isolated point.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 5, 2016)

picturefan said:


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



I always post 100% crops (1px posted = 1 px in original) with the exif data included. Download them and and you can see how large or small they are. For example, the corn bunting is occupying only about 1000x1000 px^2 out of a 8688x5792 (50mpx) sensor. That is 2% of the area, which still provides a worthwhile print in my album. The robin was the closest, at 2100x1700, which is about 7% of the sensor area or roughly 1/4 of the height or width (it's at 400mm on the Sigma 150-600mm C on the 5DS R).


----------



## picturefan (Jul 5, 2016)

AlanF said:


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



And how much is that in USD, horse power or knots?? Haha... :

Come on, you see I have absolutely no clue how to translate from a count size pixel into linear dimension in metres. Didactics usually start with an example...


----------



## AlanF (Jul 5, 2016)

1. Go back to the post where I posted 3 photos of birds.
2. Click on each one til it goes to full size.
3. Download each of them.
4. Open in a program such as Preview on a Mac.
5. Click on "Show inspector" or the equivalent on a PC.
6. Go to EXIF.
7. Read off the value it has for "Distance"


----------



## picturefan (Jul 5, 2016)

AlanF said:


> 1. Go back to the post where I posted 3 photos of birds.
> 2. Click on each one til it goes to full size.
> 3. Download each of them.
> 4. Open in a program such as Preview on a Mac.
> ...



Your talking about focal lenght, aren`t you? I´m asking about the *distance* between you and your target. How should exif know?
Reason: on closer distances there are no softness-issues (because there is no enlargement needed), that´s why I´m asking...


----------



## AlanF (Jul 5, 2016)

EXIF has the subject distance recorded from the AF.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 5, 2016)

AlanF said:


> EXIF has the subject distance recorded from the AF.



I see, thank you. Seems exif knows all 

Yours do, mine not. Checked the exif of my pics, they never show distance information


----------



## kaihp (Jul 5, 2016)

picturefan said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > EXIF has the subject distance recorded from the AF.
> ...



If you use "exiftool", there are two tags: "Focus Distance Upper" and "Focus Distance Lower".
exiftool is a 'perl' module, but is also available as a standalone program on Windows.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 5, 2016)

Adobe Photoshop also reads subject distance in File -> File Info -> Exif Properties


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2016)

AlanF said:


> EXIF has the subject distance recorded from the AF.





AlanF said:


> Adobe Photoshop also reads subject distance in File -> File Info -> Exif Properties



What is your impression of the reliability of that value? Are you certain it comes from the AF data? I'm not sure that's true – here's a distance value for a processed jpg image (0.24 in Apple's Preview, Photoshop reports '6/25' as the value for that field, and exitfool reports 0.24 m). As you can tell from the lens, it's clearly not coming from the AF information. Moreover, while there is a Subject Distance value reported for the processed jpg image, the Subject Distance field is completely lacking from the corresponding RAW file EXIF data when viewed with any of the three methods above.

(As a side note, 'Image Stabilization' is noted as 'panning' yet like AF, that capability is lacking in the lens used...leading to yet another question about the reliability of certain EXIF data fields.)


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2016)

It seemed accurate enough from what I recalled - I didn't measure the distances with a tape measure but the distances were consistent with what I would have guessed. FoCal also records distances to the target and they appear spot on as I do measure them. What information does FoCal use?

PS I seem to recall the data become less reproducible for very long distances, as you would expect as depth of field increases. 

PPS DxO, which I use as RAW converter, appears to pull out the EXIF data from RAW.

PPPS The on-line exif viewer http://regex.info/exif.cgi pulls out even more data, e.g. on the cornbunting:

Focus:	At 12m, with a depth of field of about 16cm, (from about 7.8cm before the focus point to about 7.9cm after)

And, it pulls out focus distances from .CR2 files (on my 5DIII but not on my 5DS as it accepts files only up to 40 Mb).

So, Neuro, the subject distance does really appear to be in EXIF.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 6, 2016)

AlanF said:


> FoCal also records distances to the target and they appear spot on as I do measure them. What information does FoCal use?



FoCal knows the width of the target. I believe it uses that information along with the focal length to calculate the distance.



neuroanatomist said:


> What is your impression of the reliability of that value? Are you certain it comes from the AF data? I'm not sure that's true – here's a distance value for a processed jpg image (0.24 in Apple's Preview, Photoshop reports '6/25' as the value for that field, and exitfool reports 0.24 m).



Exit-fool ?? 

I looked at a couple of (RAW) images that I recently took, where I have a good idea of the subject distance. TL;DR is that the FocalDistanceLower/FocalDistanceUpper _is not_ (always) reliable. 
I have a photo where I'm between 10 and 15meters from the subject, and FDL/FDU is reported as 31.93m / 42.34m (IrfanView reported 12.34m).

I checked with IrfanView and it returns weird numbers such as 0 (zero), 12.34 or 655.35 (0xFFFF) for 'Subject Distance' - all of which are definitely wrong.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2016)

kaihp said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > FoCal also records distances to the target and they appear spot on as I do measure them. What information does FoCal use?
> ...



FoCal states: "Standard Target – Vector PDF (can be scaled to any size and keep highest quality)"

So FoCal doesn't specify size of target and therefore cannot use target size in its calculations. It also sells two different sizes of printed target.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 6, 2016)

Hi Alan. 
I'm fairly certain that the last time I used FoCal pro there was a field to enter the width of non standard targets so that it could work out distance, which always seems quite inaccurate as it reports distances longer than the room I'm working in! Wondering if that is a crop camera issue, I'd have thought that as FoCal identifies the camera and lens accurately by model (and manufacturer) it should take crop in to account automatically. 
Target measured to within 0.25mm or less, toolmaker OCD at work. 

Cheers, Graham. 



AlanF said:


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


----------



## kaihp (Jul 6, 2016)

AlanF said:


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



You did see that place in the Settings where you are supposed to type in the width of the target, right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2016)

kaihp said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > FoCal also records distances to the target and they appear spot on as I do measure them. What information does FoCal use?
> ...



LOL at my typo. 

My impression is similar to yours - the subject distance is not reliably accurate. Sometimes it's not horrible – shots with the MP-E 65mm are generally reporting <0.25m, a shot of a sheet of paper (US letter, so the size is known) reports 1.7 m in the EXIF but was shot at 1.4m distance based on geometry. Other times, it's pretty far off – for example, the GBH shot below reports a distance of 427 m, which if correct means the heron is about the size of a pteranodon. The shot was actually at ~70 m.


----------



## Mario (Jul 6, 2016)

Photoshop>File>File info does not seem to give me distance info, so I downloaded Exiftool. Exiftool gives me Focus distance Upper and Lower for CR2 files and Approximate focus distance for the resulting jpg files after processing the CR2 file with Photoshop CC.

For the picture below I get the following results:

CR2:
Focus distance upper: 3.15 m
Focus distance lower: 2.85 m

JPG:
Approximate focus distance: 2.95 m

The pictures is taken from my garden hide, so I just went and measured the distance from the branch to the sensor: I got 2.94 m. Given that I focussed on the eye of the greenfinch which is a bit further out than the branch, I'd say the approximate focus distance is bang on, at least for this picture.

Mario


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2016)

I took last month a series of shots with the 5DS R and the 100-400mm II, 300 f2.8 II, Sigma 150-600mm, plus extenders, all from the same spot on a tripod of a chart for optimising AF. The distance, I recall was 19.7 m (metres, Neuro, not miles). There was a spread of about ± 10%, but each lens was incredibly consistent at different focal lengths and with or without extenders. I also did repeat runs over the course of a week or two and the distances were identical. As I mentioned earlier, the data are reproducible over shorter distances but for far they are not good because of huge DoF. Fortunately, I kept the DxO output for the shots that were spot on sharp.
(Note how good my AFMAs are with liveview absolutely identical).

Distances in metres, focal lengths in mm

*Canon 100-400mm II*
mm m
Canon 400	18.77
Canon 560	18.79

*Canon 300mm f/2.8*
Canon 300	21.47
Canon 420	21.5
Canon 600	21.52
Canon 600	21.52 (Live view)

*Sigma 150-600mm C*
Sigma 300	18.03
Sigma 400	18.03
Sigma 500	18.03
Sigma 600	18.03 (Live view)
Sigma 600	18.03
Sigma 840	18.05


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2016)

AlanF said:


> As I mentioned earlier, the data are reproducible over shorter distances but for far they are not good because of huge DoF.



Shooting 840mm f/6.3, a distance of ~70 m gives a DoF of ~2.6 m. That's not a 'huge DoF' and I think a reported EXIF distance of 472 m is well beyond 'not good'.

How long is the tongue of a great blue heron? In this uncropped GBH shot which EXIF shows was taken at a distance of 466 m, his tongue length is apparently 4.5 meters. Someone call Guinness Book, quick!


----------



## Mario (Jul 6, 2016)

Neuro,

I see in your screenshot that the "Focal plane resolution unit" states inches as the unit. What is the unit of the subject distance, I don't see it mentioned in this screenshot) ? Meter would be strange as it would mix metric and imperial units. Could it be "feet" (I know, still about 140 m) ?

Mario


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2016)

Mario said:


> Neuro,
> 
> I see in your screenshot that the "Focal plane resolution unit" states inches as the unit. What is the unit of the subject distance, I don't see it mentioned in this screenshot) ? Meter would be strange as it would mix metric and imperial units. Could it be "feet" (I know, still about 140 m) ?



I presume it's meters. Exiftool reports that shot as 'Subject Distance: 465.92 m' (and reports the Focal plane resolution unit as inches, as does Preview). But it's a bit annoying – as my wife's physics teacher said, "No units, no answer."


----------



## Mario (Jul 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... as my wife's physics teacher said, "No units, no answer."



That's what I have been told by my teachers and that's what I tell everyone who drops numbers without units on my desk .

I just did a quick and dirty test. I dug up my range finder from my airgun shooting days to determine the distance and shot a few test shots (with the camera, not the airgun ;-)) at 75m, 245 m and a plane that was passing in the far distance (a few kilometres I guess, my range finder only goes to about 500 m) on its way to Brussels Airport.

75 m subject
CR2:
Focus distance upper: 77.3 m
Focus distance lower: 55.12 m

JPG:
Approximate focus distance: 65.1 m

So it's 10 m off.

245 m subject
CR2:
Focus distance upper: 435.58 m
Focus distance lower: 81.91 m

JPG:
Approximate focus distance: 254 m

Surprisingly close, didn't test repeatability

The plane in the far distance
CR2:
Focus distance upper: inf
Focus distance lower: 81.91 m

JPG:
Approximate focus distance: 4 294 967 295 m

Nope, it was not that far as Brussels Airport is about 20 km (as the crow flies) from here .

Mario


----------



## picturefan (Jul 6, 2016)

So there a some different, but not always accurate methods to get the distance of the targets.

Is there a possibility to get an evidence how far a target has been away while shooting, when following facts are given: focal lenght, sensor size, picture size and size of the target? Is anything else needed?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 6, 2016)

picturefan said:


> So there a some different, but not always accurate methods to get the distance of the targets.
> 
> Is there a possibility to get an evidence how far a target has been away while shooting, when following facts are given: focal lenght, sensor size, picture size and size of the target? Is anything else needed?


Yes. To a good approximation (image size)/(object size) = (focal length)/(target distance) if far away.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 7, 2016)

There was this discussion of an "ISO--shutter-speed tradeoff" when shooting wildlife with unperfected conditions, i.e. cloudy, dim light, in a forest or some distance between you and your target.
Got a test that day with opposite settings (yes, not laboratory conditions) but I think it´s worth a look for those that are interested in:
left: iso 320, 1/20 vs. right: iso 3200/180
all 7DII @ 400mm, f5.6, beanbag on a tree trunk, IS, liveview focus and out of the cam, distance approx. 40m

Imho it´s allright with the high iso, not so with sharpness of the tree trunk, but remember, the shown is not sharpened nor denoised...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are three possible solutions:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Move closer
> ...


My 3 best pieces of gear for bird photography are a portable hunting blind, a comfy folding chair, and a tripod. If you want a sharp bird image, get close. Heavy cropping, no matter how great your skill and gear is, just won't compare.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 7, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There are three possible solutions:
> ...



Yes, here it´s not so much about the bird, it´s more about iso and shutterspeed. Hard which way to choose.

(But, for my personal preference, the trunk is not cropped that much, isn`t it?)


----------



## picturefan (Jul 7, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There are three possible solutions:
> ...



Folding chairs are always best! 

Since years I´m trying to get usable raptor shots in mountain regions. That´s when, in my case, cropping comes into play.
I rarely ever was able to approach closer than 50m. This was one strong reason to buy 7DII + 100-400 + Conv. But inbetween 50-100m distances there never were fully satisfying results. Is that s.th. you would confirm?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 7, 2016)

picturefan said:


> There was this discussion of an "ISO--shutter-speed tradeoff" when shooting wildlife with unperfected conditions, i.e. cloudy, dim light, in a forest or some distance between you and your target.
> Got a test that day with opposite settings (yes, not laboratory conditions) but I think it´s worth a look for those that are interested in:
> left: iso 320, 1/20 vs. right: iso 3200/180
> all 7DII @ 400mm, f5.6, beanbag on a tree trunk, IS, liveview focus and out of the cam, distance approx. 40m
> ...



It's horrible at iso 3200. Look at the tail feathers each side. If you denoise then it will lose details. If you sharpen without denoising it will exacerbate the noise.


----------



## Mario (Jul 7, 2016)

AlanF said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > There was this discussion of an "ISO--shutter-speed tradeoff" when shooting wildlife with unperfected conditions, i.e. cloudy, dim light, in a forest or some distance between you and your target.
> ...



Indeed it is, Alan. And it's horrible at 1/20 too (motion blur). He has got very good advice here, but doesn't seem to do much with it.

Mario


----------



## COBRASoft (Jul 7, 2016)

Hi,

Interesting to read this topic. I just send mu 7DII back for the second time. Sharpness was not a problem after AFMA, but AutoISO got corrupt after a while.
It got stuck on 6400 (or whatever the highest setting was in the menu system). After turning the camera off for a while, it got reset and was working normal again. In liveview, the AutoISO worked perfect, always.

Anybody else had a problem like this before?

Both images are handheld, using the 100-400 II and TC 1.4x III.
You'll see in the second image that the ISO went up to 6400 while it should have been 800 or so. It's pretty amazing actually how much detail I could recover from this image considering how much it was blown out.

Images are processed using DxO Optics Pro.

Greetings,
Sigurd


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2016)

picturefan said:


> There was this discussion of an "ISO--shutter-speed tradeoff" when shooting wildlife with unperfected conditions, i.e. cloudy, dim light, in a forest or some distance between you and your target.
> Got a test that day with opposite settings (yes, not laboratory conditions) but I think it´s worth a look for those that are interested in:
> left: iso 320, 1/20 vs. right: iso 3200/180
> all 7DII @ 400mm, f5.6, beanbag on a tree trunk, IS, liveview focus and out of the cam, distance approx. 40m



I choose neither. I suspect the ISO 3200 shot could be processed into a satisfactory image from a noise/detail standpoint, but I'd have deleted it at triage for composition reasons (the bird is looking away). As Mario points out, the 1/20 s shot has subject motion blur – as I stated previously, 1/20 s exposure + living subject just doesn't cut it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > There was this discussion of an "ISO--shutter-speed tradeoff" when shooting wildlife with unperfected conditions, i.e. cloudy, dim light, in a forest or some distance between you and your target.
> ...



Oh get over yourself Neuro, the guy is using a beanbag and a tree stump, 1/20 should be fine, DOH! 

As Mario says, great advice so far, but it goes against his personal beliefs and expectations so is reluctant to let his brain acknowledge what his eyes confirm. It must be a fault of the camera, it can't be my fault.................


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> picturefan said:
> 
> 
> > There was this discussion of an "ISO--shutter-speed tradeoff" when shooting wildlife with unperfected conditions, i.e. cloudy, dim light, in a forest or some distance between you and your target.
> ...



At minimum, it doesn't provide good evidence. I suggest picturefan try a static subject at similar distance. Use artificial lighting if needed to get the shutter speed to 1/320 or faster. I.e., eliminate all other possibilities before claiming something inherent in the camera.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 7, 2016)

I checked out more the EXIF subject distances for longer distances as I have been taking photos of a peregrine falcon at about 40-45m up the library tower from similar spots with different cameras and lenses over the years. As I recalled, these readings are very variable, unlike those for the shorter distancea of a few metres to 20-30m. I would guess it's the physical calibration of the lens at longer distances. As we all know, looking at the distance scale, the further away, the closer the distance markings get, and the EXIFs are reporting back on the mechanical readings. Maybe?


----------



## picturefan (Jul 7, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > picturefan said:
> ...




As I stated, these are testing pictures, so no claim to send them to competitions. Please do not evaluate the artisitc outcome. Do not evaluate the dove.
Just have a look at the tree trunk. 

PBD, I´ll be curious if you find motion blur. You´ll probably argue about beanbag on tree trunk technique, which is in fact a really good DIY technique. But have you ever tried by yourself? 

Please find attached a test picture (late night test. Again: no artistic claim), target ca. 7m away: 
400mm, 5.6, *1s exposure, beanbag over arm of a chair* - less stable than a tree trunk!).

Maybe here we can agree about sharpness (no motion blur, that´s for sure). Only to defend all the beanbags out there on this planet!


----------



## picturefan (Jul 7, 2016)

After we find agreement, that beanbags are fine and it´s not all about the dove in this "only used for testing"-pictures, we could continue in finding answers.

We all know that fast shutter speeds (1/500 or faster), low iso (640 and less) and close distances (around 10m) are the best options to achieve great pictures with high sharpness.

Anyway, some like *PBD* and Mario think that they need to explain this commonplaces, in a kind of direct wording. No, thank you!

If you want to help, what is really appreciated, please help to find out how to improve sharpness if conditions are far from optimum.

I wrote about the example of raptor-shooting in the mountains. Here we find real-life conditions!
Less or more cloudy days or dim light to avoid harsh shadows, but the need to shoot at high shutter speeds to gain sharpness with moving subjects. That is the case you find the most.
What to do?

1) stay at home, because you never get sharp pictures with your 7DII and 100-400 combo
2) be happy with mediocre sharpness and keep putting all your money in expensive photo-gear
3) find out about how others/professionals achieve higher sharpness - with this very combo (not with FF and the big whites, I don´t have them right now.)
( 4) if all requirements for sharp pictures are fullfilled, but results are not as good as they should be, get your equipment inspected)

Maybe some real pros or enthusiasts, knowing the situation, might help please.

Thank you.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 7, 2016)

picturefan said:


> Less or more cloudy days or dim light to avoid harsh shadows, but the need to shoot at high shutter speeds to gain sharpness with moving subjects. That is the case you find the most.
> What to do?
> 
> 1) stay at home, because you never get sharp pictures with your 7DII and 100-400 combo
> ...



All three are perfectly viable and it depends on what you are trying to achieve and why
Many people want a record shot of what they saw and quality is irrelevant, but will try to get as good a shot as they can. So onto your options:
1) this option is likely to be taken by detail freaks as a matter of principle
2) this suits those who are happy with record shots. Many will have 'consumer grade' lenses such as the 70-300 USM and crop where they need to and still be happy with the results knowing it is the best they could do under the circumstances
3) Professionals would probably have FF and 'big whites' so that is a sort of non-argument. I guesstimate that amateurs, who do not need to count the cost-benefit in cash terms the way the pros need to, constitute a huge part of the 'FF and big white' market, buying the combo because their pay packet means they can afford it. 

If you need to use high ISOs and have images that are worthy of a centre spread then the 1D series (especially the new 1Dx2) is likely your only option. 

So what you really want to know is how to make best use of what you have. If you bear in mind that even for human portraits, the recommendation is for shutter speeds above 1/60 or 1/100 sec to counteract the slight movements of even a model trying to stay still, then as has been said many times above, assessing a camera's sharpness at even lower shutter speeds is dodgy to say the least.
Capra's quote “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.” is especially true for wildlife where it is tempting to subsitute cropping for field craft - and getting close also offsets some element of camera shake which gives you more latitude on shutter speed.
And if you can't get closer aim to get behavioural shots that rely less on super-duper-zoom-in-and-crop t have impact. 

As for ISO, when I look at these camera comparisons it is surprising how one camera can have more noise yet show more detail. So my recently developed take on this is to use ISO get higher shutter speed, and if possible use high ISO to 'expose to the right' so that the noise is reduced in darker areas (though this is more practical where the background is consistent regards lighting). 

All this pointless of course if the camera ain't focussing and I think man y comments on this thread are along the lines of we have not yet seen any photos where the picture would be unambiguously sharp, nor any rigorous testing. And your picture of the little yellow fella suggests it is focusing OK. 

But you have missed a 4th option which is to be outside anyway but not bother taking the photo because it will not meet their standards in the first place and without the camera to your eye just enjoy the scenery and the wildlife as nature intended.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2016)

picturefan said:


> After we find agreement, that beanbags are fine



I don't think anyone is arguing that beanbags are a problem. The problem is you've stated several times this sort of belief:



picturefan said:


> Beanbag-technique here (when tripod is impractical) is: 400mm -> 1/500 with 4-stop of IS -> 1/30 + beanbag (actually filled with rice) -> 1/20 should work out (*if animal is not moving*)



The problem with animals is that unless you're photographing them after they've visited the taxidermist, they're never not moving. Your group boar shot at 1/125 s, the boar on who's eyes you focused is flipping his tail around, that means movement for the whole animal including the head, and at 1/125 s you're seeing motion blur. If you're shooting trees, the slightest whif of a breeze will result in motion blur. If you're looking at 1:1 (100% pixel peeping), the smaller the pixels the greater the apparent motion blur – and the 7DII has very small pixels.

Basically, the original problem you described (soft images with your gear) really seems to boil down to a combination of using shutter speeds that are too slow, subjects that are too small in the frame, and gaps in post processing.




picturefan said:


> 3) find out about how others/professionals achieve higher sharpness - with this very combo (not with FF and the big whites, I don´t have them right now.)



As suggested above, better post processing. Consider when capturing the image that, claims by Adobe notwithstanding, noise will be easier to deal with in post than motion blur. Thus, I generally choose a high enough shutter speed to stop subject motion (unless I want wing blur, for example) and let the ISO go up accordingly. 

I use DxO Optics Pro's Prime NR, and it does a great job of reducing noise while maintaining detail at higher ISOs. But it's not perfect, and sharpening (usually done at the end of the workflow since it's dependent on output size) always accentuates noise. DxO is global, no masks. Since backgrounds often show more noise (there's not necessarily more noise, but the lack of features means noise is easier to perceive), you can mask and selectively sharpen only the subject.




picturefan said:


> ( 4) if all requirements for sharp pictures are fullfilled, but results are not as good as they should be, get your equipment inspected)



That depends on how you define 'as good as they should be'. If you're expecting results from a 7DII + 100-400 II that are equivalent to a 1D X II + 600mm f/4L IS II, then the problem isn't the gear...it's your expectations.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 7, 2016)

_"I don't think anyone is arguing that beanbags are a problem. The problem is you've stated several times this sort of belief:..."_

No. That is also not so much the problem (I know about the possibility of a boar moving, especially if it happens that you find one behind you in the forests...), * problem is more here*:

_"Oh get over yourself Neuro, the guy is using a beanbag and a tree stump, 1/20 should be fine, DOH! 
As Mario says, great advice so far, but it goes against his personal beliefs and expectations so is reluctant to let his brain acknowledge what his eyes confirm. It must be a fault of the camera, it can't be my fault................."_

Beanbag on a tree trunk and 1/20 *is fine*, because, as i stated several times, it´s not about the dove. It is also the tre trunk in the picture with iso 320 that looks crappy - without motion blur of the tree. No _"DOH´s"_ at all please!
I´m using beanbags for a long long time now. But why turns the trunk out to be so crappy? Because _"it goes against his personal beliefs "_. Aha! I see.
_
"Basically, the original problem you described (soft images with your gear) really seems to boil down to a combination of using shutter speeds that are too slow, subjects that are too small in the frame, and gaps in post processing."_

That´s the very core of it. 
a) Not easy to avoid slow shutters
b) never came closer to raptors than 50-100m
c) the test pics I posted are not post-processed.

This c) is intented, because I really thought that it should be possible - with such an expensive gear - to use the results for everyday use. For sure, if I need the pics for prints or s.th. else, I do post-process. 

*My resume is (and this made me very curious)  : you can´t really use the picture-data without post. Also with 7DII. Difference is too massive. Anyone with other findings please?
*
_"As suggested above, better post processing. Consider when capturing the image that, claims by Adobe notwithstanding, noise will be easier to deal with in post than motion blur. Thus, I generally choose a high enough shutter speed to stop subject motion (unless I want wing blur, for example) and let the ISO go up accordingly. "_

This leads to the strategy that i will try to prefer the higher iso, and, as also mikehit posted, expose to the right.

The example of a frog by cobrasoft shows, that with some post, the high-iso of 7DII is just ok. That is my finding with the 3200iso dove as well - but this one hasn´t been post processed, so one needs to imagine how it would look like. Not so horrible. Maybe in comparison to FF, but that is not what we are talking about. 

_"That depends on how you define 'as good as they should be'. If you're expecting results from a 7DII + 100-400 II that are equivalent to a 1D X II + 600mm f/4L IS II, then the problem isn't the gear...it's your expectations. "_

This is the hardest .
Because on some internet sources, like on "Ari Hazeghi", as mikehit also posted, you can see comparison between FF (here 1DX) and Crop. It is a difference, for sure, but in many discussions they come to the result, that the difference is not so striking, there are also people stating that you can´t tell any difference between the results of FF and crop.
Until now, this also has been my opinion, prooved by some comparisons. But *new* to me: it seems to depend on the target, if you will see any bigger difference.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 7, 2016)

My experience: the dimmer the light, and/or the higher the ISO, the larger the gap between FF and crop. Bright sunny day, base ISO, you have to view at 100% to tell a difference.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 7, 2016)

Act444 said:


> My experience: the dimmer the light, and/or the higher the ISO, the larger the gap between FF and crop. Bright sunny day, base ISO, you have to view at 100% to tell a difference.



Yes, before, when thinking about dim lights, some evening or nighttime situations came to my mind. But now I find myself like "pushing the borders" of my expectations (some might say "lowering") towards even "daytime inside forests" situations etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2016)

picturefan said:


> _"I don't think anyone is arguing that beanbags are a problem. The problem is you've stated several times this sort of belief:..."_
> 
> No. That is also not so much the problem (I know about the possibility of a boar moving, especially if it happens that you find one behind you in the forests...), * problem is more here*:
> 
> ...



Sure, but you also stated, 



 picturefan said:


> Boar: 400mm, f8, sandbag, is, iso 320 (=ideal), time 1/20. that´s ok because of sandbag, is and none moving animal. Sharpness of the eye (focus point) imho bad.



So that's two mentions of 1/20 s is fine with an animal, one example of motion blur of an animal even at 1/125 s, and a tree trunk. The problem with the tree trunk is post processing (or lack thereof), IMO.




picturefan said:


> c) the test pics I posted are not post-processed.
> 
> This c) is intented, because I really thought that it should be possible - with such an expensive gear - to use the results for everyday use.



You asked..."how others/professionals achieve higher sharpness - with this very combo," and the answer is they process their images properly. You're pixel peeping for sharpness, and expecting OOC results to deliver. What separates you from those others achieving higher sharpness is that they understand what PBD pointed out several pages ago, although you may have missed it in your ire over the beanbag 'issue':



privatebydesign said:


> Post processing makes a massive difference to your output and cameras with AA filters (the 7D MkII) are designed to need sharpening in post, it is a given.



There's a bit of a dichotomy here – you want 'tack sharp' results and you want them without work. Using 'expensive gear' doesn't preclude the fact that you need to work to get the best from it (or be willing to settle for just 'ok' images). This isn't new...Ansel Adams spent as much if not more time in the darkroom than he did out taking pictures.

As for APS-C vs. FF...



picturefan said:


> ...there are also people stating that you can´t tell any difference between the results of FF and crop.
> Until now, this also has been my opinion, prooved by some comparisons.



Act444 is correct - if you compare them in lighting that's strong enough to support using low ISOs (at high shutter speeds if needed for moving subjects), and you are filling a good portion of the frame with your subject (which means you need a longer lens or to be closer with FF), then there's very little difference. But for the 'real world' conditions which you describe for yourself – needing high shutter speeds in dim lighting – FF will be meaningfully better than APS-C.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 7, 2016)

Another big factor in getting sharp pictures is stability. Movement kills sharpness.

Your first problem is to hold your camera steady, and this is something you have control over..... You can use a tripod, bean bag, rest it against something solid, or have a rock solid stance and no muscle tremors.... If you can hold the camera steady (enough) turn the IS on the lens off. IS robs you of stability, unless you are not stable in the first place and then it helps give you stability. This is why it is recommended that you turn off IS when on a tripod! Personally, if I am handholding, particularly in an awkward position, turning IS ON improves stability. When I am on a tripod (make sure it is a good and solid tripod and head) I turn IS OFF and improve stability. The same goes for when I can brace the camera against a tree, post, or whatever....

Your next factor is out of your control, it is target motion. Obviously, the faster your target is moving, the harder it is to be sharp. You either need high shutter speed (usually at the expense of DOF and ISO), or if you are really really really lucky, you can pan the subject. Cameras with smaller pixels ( crop and 5Ds ) need even faster shutter speeds.

Then you have atmospheric distortion. If it is a long shot, it will degrade your image and there is nothing you can do about it except try to get closer.

Then you have mirror shake (try to use "silent" mode if your camera supports it, less vibration) and camera motion caused by pressing the shutter.

Look for sources of motion and eliminate them. Then worry about gear....


----------



## picturefan (Jul 7, 2016)

Originally I wanted to discuss about a camera´s sharpness or some issues with that.
That´s the reason for me for checking into the highly apprecicated CR site.

I found so many helpful inputs, that it is great fun being here. But some comments, sorry, I find are "close to the edge":

_"Oh get over yourself Neuro, the guy is using a beanbag and a tree stump, 1/20 should be fine, DOH! 
As Mario says, great advice so far, but it goes against his personal beliefs and expectations so is reluctant to let his brain acknowledge what his eyes confirm. It must be a fault of the camera, it can't be my fault................."

"You asked..."how others/professionals achieve higher sharpness - with this very combo," and the answer is they process their images properly. * You're pixel peeping for sharpness, and expecting OOC results to deliver. What separates you from those others achieving higher sharpness is that they understand what PBD pointed out several pages ago, although you may have missed it in your ire over the beanbag 'issue*':

There's a bit of a dichotomy here – you want 'tack sharp' results and *you want them without work*. Using 'expensive gear' doesn't preclude the fact that you need to work to get the best from it (or be willing to settle for just 'ok' images). "_

How you know about other one´s expectations, understanding or willingness? Points like these are not taking any further in improoving sharpness. But that´s why I´m here on the forum.

Pixelpeeping, neuro, as you say is not my hobby, hobby is getting high quality pics under real-life conditions.

Expecting usable OOC results* is what I expect *from expensive gear. Yes! I never read in any manual: _After making your pictures you have to to a lot of post, if you will ever use them._ Never read that.
But now I understand better why you put so many efforts in post! 

I often stated that I´m curious about that big difference *between OOC and results of post-processing*. So, as you can follow,* it should be allowed to ask, if others also find this big difference?* Or if others were also curious about "the difference a post made" once in their lifetime (as I am now) or if it is an issue of the body-lens-combo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2016)

picturefan said:


> Expecting usable OOC results* is what I expect *from expensive gear. Yes! I never read in any manual: _After making your pictures you have to to a lot of post, if you will ever use them._ Never read that.
> But now I understand better why you put so many efforts in post!
> 
> I often stated that I´m curious about that big difference *between OOC and results of post-processing*. So, as you can follow,* it should be allowed to ask, if others also find this big difference?* Or were also curious about that thing once in their lifetime (as I am now) or if it is an issue of the body-lens-combo.
> ...



Certainly, it's about expectations. What is 'usable' to you? A 500 pixel wide post on Facebook? A 2x3 meter wall mural? Something in between? Does a usable image require technical perfection, for you? My reaction to the peach pic you posted early in this thread was that it wasn't particularly soft. 

I believe that the 'typical' user with a 7DII and 100-400 II feels they get usable images straight from the camera. 

Going back to your original post:



picturefan said:


> My problem: for me it is not possible to get a single sharp picture at higher distances (e.g. 20 metres away, like birds etc.)
> But: at shorter distances it´s ok. ???
> 
> I tried many things to find out, what the problem is: different cams, lenses, adjustments...
> ...



I'd say it boils down to your technique.

[list type=decimal]
[*]Get closer – in your example, a bird at 20 m distance, the 7DII at 400mm is framing a 1.1 x 0.75 m area; if that bird is a passerine, it's likely fitting within the metering circle and you're not close enough, or you need a longer lens
[*]Use a faster shutter speed – 1/250 s is almost never fast enough for birds, certainly not for raptors in flight
[*]Post-process your images – it makes a big difference[/list]

While I can't be certain, I suspect there is nothing wrong with your camera or lens.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 7, 2016)

Picturefan, how are you using liveview?


----------



## Kerry B (Jul 7, 2016)

I'd say it boils down to your technique.

[list type=decimal]
[*]Get closer – in your example, a bird at 20 m distance, the 7DII at 400mm is framing a 1.1 x 0.75 m area; if that bird is a passerine, it's likely fitting within the metering circle and you're not close enough, or you need a longer lens
[*]Use a faster shutter speed – 1/250 s is almost never fast enough for birds, certainly not for raptors in flight
[*]Post-process your images – it makes a big difference[/list]

While I can't be certain, I suspect there is nothing wrong with your camera or lens.
[/quote]

Spot on totally agree. There are to many people blaming faulty equipment on their own failings. Hand holding a 7dii with lets say a 500mm lens will give you 800mm taking into consideration the so called crop factor. In my mind anything less than 1000th sec will fall to render a sharp image. Have you tried holding a large telephoto lens stable, the bloody thing is jumping around everywhere. Even the best IF system will fail to help.

For small birds you will perhaps need higher shutter speeds they never stop moving. I will always use a tripod or bean bag to get stable shots and the effort is generally worth the small inconvenience. 

There are many people using the 7dii and loving it, Professionals and amateurs alike, not all can be wrong.


----------



## Otara (Jul 7, 2016)

I found it very helpful to do a lot of experiments with my longest lens to see the difference between mirror lockup, live view, manual live view, normal, flash and non-flash and see what shutter speeds did what vs a high detail target, at a few ISO's as well, and IS on and off. Simply seeing how even the tiniest air movement was visible on the liveview screen at full mag gives a better idea of just how static you need to be. 

It also showed how amazing the detail can be if you can isolate everything as well as possible.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 7, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Picturefan, how are you using liveview?



That is an interesting question. Using it for all static targets. But today, for the first time, I was taking pictures of a test-chart. It took all of my attention and so I found out s.th. new about my liveview:
a) liveview-af *without* magnifying - most of the time - led to some unsharp results. When magnifying to 5x, I recognised (because with test charts it is more noticeable) small differences in sharpness - 10x is even sharper, sure.
b) the sharpness-differences inbetween a series of 10x magnified pics (burst or single shot) is *not to be neglected*. Until now it made no difference in real life as you always choose the sharpest pics, but with the test-chart one can see that the differences do not result of any moving of the target/handshake or s.th. else, the reason is camera-technique.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 7, 2016)

> *There are to many people blaming faulty equipment on their own failings.*
> There are many people using the 7dii and loving it, Professionals and amateurs alike, not all can be wrong.



Let me say: no one here blamed the gear. Gear is holy. 
Just asking and evaluating to find out what´s wrong with all the soft pictures taken from longer distances. Some people call this open discussion - which means it is led without a predetermined conclusion. Some error sources could have been banned due to this thread.

My reality before the thread was a pic of a rapture @ 1/250, iso 1600 and 75 m distance with crop camera. Result: doubtful.
My next picture of an eagle will be @ 1/1000, iso 100 and 10 m distance - all done with FF. Result: outstanding.  

Better have sunshine with your 7DII: You know, *always take the weather with you. If not, take full frame! * 

Summary: *Thank you all* for finding / helping me to find factors that boost softness issues. Thank you for clearly underlining possible problems. This enables to avoid them.
All the discussed factors are not new. But, and this is what made me curious, is the big effect, when many of these factors are summing up. Especially the soft OOC + the even softer outcome caused by the necessity of cropping smaler targets to make them fill the frame.

Until I find myself having FF (hopefully soon), maybe someone post a tack-sharp OOC picture of a 7DII @ 400-600mm under "sub-optimal" or "everyday" conditions (slower iso and shutter, further distance) and describe its technique. 
This will be the ultimate comparison of technique skills or, ongoing, the possibilities of post-process to make a tack-sharp image even better.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2016)

The test charts I suggested to you are very informative for not only checking focussing but also consistency. FoCal software measures consistency of focus, and the variations in the quality of repeat points in the calibration runs tells you about consistency. For birds, I use centre spot only and take several shots to find the sharpest.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 8, 2016)

AlanF said:


> The test charts I suggested to you are very informative for not only checking focussing but also consistency. FoCal software measures consistency of focus, and the variations in the quality of repeat points in the calibration runs tells you about consistency. For birds, I use centre spot only and take several shots to find the sharpest.


Another very good point!

At the level of sharpness that you are after, a well calibrated camera and multiple images is the way to go. AF is not an exact process and the lens will not focus exactly the same each time, so this is where a statistical approach like Focal comes in. Trust me, it will do a much better job of calibrating your lenses than trial/error or Dot-tune.


----------



## jmeyer (Jul 8, 2016)

Here is an example of a picture, taken on an overcast day. This was taken with the 7D mkii / EF 500 F4 / 1.4xiii, so 700mm. It's at ISO400, 1/400, 7.1, and was roughly 130' away.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 8, 2016)

overcast day, a sequence of different shutter speeds and ISO, all handheld with IS turned on. The first part of the file name is the shutter speed and the second part is the ISO. The target was 20 meters (60 feet) away.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 8, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> overcast day, a sequence of different shutter speeds and ISO, all handheld with IS turned on. The first part of the file name is the shutter speed and the second part is the ISO



As above, but the camera resting against the car roof.... notice how they are sharper than the free-held images..... stability is your friend!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 8, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > overcast day, a sequence of different shutter speeds and ISO, all handheld with IS turned on. The first part of the file name is the shutter speed and the second part is the ISO
> ...



And now resting against the roof with IS turned off. Note how they are sharper than with IS turned on.

There was a fourth set, which I am not going to post because they are pathetic, with IS turned off and freeheld. With my steadiness (or lack thereof) and 600mm, it wasn't a good idea....

EXPERIMENT!

See what works for you! Go with what works for you! Just because one person says "X works best for me" it does not follow that "X" will work best for you. EXPERIMENT!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 8, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


and never underestimate the value of post-processing.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2016)

I know it's the Internet, but...

Too. 

Many. 

Cat. 

Pictures.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know it's the Internet, but...
> 
> Too.
> 
> ...


I could have used a can of tuna, but the cats ate it


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2016)

Don
You are absolutely right that you have to practice and test your own particular equipment and learn its quirks. My lenses have different degrees of shutter vibration effects at about 1/60 - 1/160s. But, they are not affected by IS as is yours. Was it the Tamron 150-600 mm you were using? Are other of your lenses affected by IS?


----------



## hne (Jul 8, 2016)

AlanF said:


> I checked out more the EXIF subject distances for longer distances as I have been taking photos of a peregrine falcon at about 40-45m up the library tower from similar spots with different cameras and lenses over the years. As I recalled, these readings are very variable, unlike those for the shorter distancea of a few metres to 20-30m. I would guess it's the physical calibration of the lens at longer distances. As we all know, looking at the distance scale, the further away, the closer the distance markings get, and the EXIFs are reporting back on the mechanical readings. Maybe?



Pretty much, yes. The distance is reported back to the camera primarily to allow the ETTL-II flash system to use lens-reported focus distance to set the preflash level (and choosing which metering zones to emphasize) when your flash is on-camera and aimed at the subject.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/E-TTL_II.do

For this, the ETTL-II system needs to know the distance with enough precision to do a guestimate of the guide number needed for the subject (together with ISO and aperture number). Knowning if the subject is at 0.5m or 1.0m distance is more important than knowing if the subject is at 50m or 55m distance. Above 100m, you'll hardly need any precision at all for flash purposes, as the flash output difference between 100m and 200m is just two stops and this is only used for the preflash to judge subject reflectivity anyway.


----------



## picturefan (Jul 8, 2016)

*Don*, interesting testing as well (once had the same cat as seen on your can).  I only switch IS off when using tripod (manfrotto 055). I can see the differences between IS on and off but can´t tell why. 
But I´m sure you know about that "first-second IS-thing". The first second, with some lenses, stabilising is just like centering and not reliable, and after that it is ready to shoot. It means that results differ, depending on the lead time of the IS. 

At weekend I´ll test birds to compare with jmeyer´s example.
*@jmeyer*: 130´is feet, not meter? Is it OOC? 

*@ AlanF*: my testing with the chart you linked to me led to following result:

@400mm, f5.6, 1/4000, iso100, tripod, remote release, liveview. No post. Upper one ca. 1/3 of a letter size. Distance 20m. (Remark: results with af differed from shot to shot. the pic shown is one of the sharpest).
How do you rate sharpness?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2016)

AlanF said:


> You are absolutely right that you have to practice and test your own particular equipment and learn its quirks. My lenses have different degrees of shutter vibration effects at about 1/60 - 1/160s. But, they are not affected by IS as is yours. Was it the Tamron 150-600 mm you were using? Are other of your lenses affected by IS?



Agreed – I've tested my 600/4 II and my 100L, and neither are negatively impacted by IS (unless I just mash down the shutter release without allowing the ~0.5 s that the IS system needs to fully activate).


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > You are absolutely right that you have to practice and test your own particular equipment and learn its quirks. My lenses have different degrees of shutter vibration effects at about 1/60 - 1/160s. But, they are not affected by IS as is yours. Was it the Tamron 150-600 mm you were using? Are other of your lenses affected by IS?
> ...



And even professionals who earn a living from portrait photography sometimes forget this and get frustrated. Really good point.


----------



## Kerry B (Jul 8, 2016)

Don't know if the attached helps. A humble Pigeon taken at a distance of approx 35 metres on a cloudy dark and windy day. Canon 7dii with 100-400ii at 400mm. ISO 400 and shutter speed 500th sec. Mounted on solid tripod in AV servo continuous mode. Plenty of mirror slap up.

Two images the first no crop the second significant crop. Whilst not the best of images does show what the camera can produce at distance albeit not a huge distance.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2016)

picturefan said:


> *@ AlanF*: my testing with the chart you linked to me led to following result:
> 
> @400mm, f5.6, 1/4000, iso100, tripod, remote release, liveview. No post. Upper one ca. 1/3 of a letter size. Distance 20m. (Remark: results with af differed from shot to shot. the pic shown is one of the sharpest).
> How do you rate sharpness?


Here is your chart, followed by mine at iso 640, hand held, centre spot AF. Mine have absolutely no sharpening being just converted from RAW by DxO with PRIME noise reduction. Yours have quite a bit of sharpening in camera as you can see from the halos around the lines. Yours are also 14% bigger, possibly you printed larger, which should give you 14% more apparent resolution from the chart.
In order: yours, my 7DII + 100-400 II at 400mm; 5DS R + 100-400 II at 400mm; 5DS R + Sigma150-600mm C at 390mm; 5DS R + 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4xTC at 420mm; 5DS R + 150-600mm at 600mm.

The target has got wet and dried out for some of them. The winners in order 600mm, 420mm, 390mm.

ps
The numbers on the chart have units of line pairs per mm: e.g 2.8 = 2.8 lp/mm. At a distance of 20m with a 400mm lens and a sensor with 4.14 micron pixels (as on 7DII or 5DS), 1 lp/mm would cover just under 5 pixels. So the, maximum possible resolution would be just under 2.5 lp/mm, if each black line and each white line fell exactly on a pixel. The Sigma at 390mm is getting close to 2.2. At 600mm, the max poss resolution is about 3.6 lp/mm and the Sigma is reaching 2.8, without sharpening.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 8, 2016)

Thanks for taking the time to run this experiment and post the pictures Don! Good information.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2016)

For amusement, the Sigma at 840mm with the 1.4xTC and f/9 (it still AFs). You get an extra 15% of resolution, hardly worth it, but the quality is good.

I checked again using these charts whether IS lowers IQ. IS actually increased the resolution of my 100-400mm II on the the 5DS R. The 150-600mm set at the standard OS (Sigma's IS) has lower resolution but "Dynamic" IS retains IQ.


----------



## langdonb (Aug 3, 2016)

Hi all,

I was having the same problem with my 7Dii and 100-400 L II. I had gone on a two month safari to three countries in Africa and came back with a keeper rate of 20% in many cases. I live in Panama, but have CPS is USA, so I sent the camera body to Canonin New Jersey. The result was that they could not identify the cause, but did see front focusing from time to time. "Electrical adjustments were made, functions were confirmed, firmware updates to 1.05"

When I got it back I made 100's of test shots in one shot mode, on a sturdy tripod and had many OOF images. Prior to doing that I adjusted AFMA using Focal. I was very frustrated as I am returning to Africa in two weeks! I started paying close attention through the VF and then I saw the problem. I could actually see the target moving, or rather the lens/body vibrating during the capture (using remote). 

I was using normal single shot, not single shot silent because I had read somewhere that using silent mode could cause focus problems. But I did try it and now am getting consistent sharp images at 75-100 meters. To prove the point, I just did a test with and without silent mode and sure enough, those captures in standard mode were soft!

I don't know if that will help others, but it seemed to help me.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 3, 2016)

I always use silent mode for 1/200s or slower as there is mirror-shutter slap, depending on the lens. Above that, the usual mode is absolutely fine. Most cameras have problems at the lower shutter speeds, and that includes Nikon. in particular, and mirrorless as well.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 3, 2016)

Hi langdonb. 
Thank you for this, I shall try this out at some point, see if it makes a difference at lower shutter speeds where a good number of shots seem to be missing that last little bit, thought it was technique, still might be! 

Cheers, Graham. 



langdonb said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I was having the same problem with my 7Dii and 100-400 L II. I had gone on a two month safari to three countries in Africa and came back with a keeper rate of 20% in many cases. I live in Panama, but have CPS is USA, so I sent the camera body to Canonin New Jersey. The result was that they could not identify the cause, but did see front focusing from time to time. "Electrical adjustments were made, functions were confirmed, firmware updates to 1.05"
> 
> ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 3, 2016)

AlanF said:


> For amusement, the Sigma at 840mm with the 1.4xTC and f/9 (it still AFs). You get an extra 15% of resolution, hardly worth it, but the quality is good.
> 
> I checked again using these charts whether IS lowers IQ. IS actually increased the resolution of my 100-400mm II on the the 5DS R. The 150-600mm set at the standard OS (Sigma's IS) has lower resolution but "Dynamic" IS retains IQ.



IS can help with mirror slap even on a tripod. I recall an article that tested several new models on a tripod at various shutter speeds with and without IS and in different drive modes including silent mode. The point was to show that IS and silent mode can help reduce camera movement due to mirror and shutter slap. But the interesting thing about the test is that it showed how much of an impact it can have on the resulting image even at moderate shutter speeds.


----------

