40D and sharpness

[ChasMcRae]

I bought the 40D when price dropped to half and have shot my first group of images in the yard with the 600mm Canon IS.
Looking at the bird eyes at Raw100%does not show any tack sharp images. Some look sharper than others ,but none that look tack sharp as compared to images with the Mark II. Using same software to check so that is not a variable. They look pretty good on the monitor below 100%. So far a disappointment for me ,but then I may be doing something wrong.

Any thoughts on the 40D ? and sharpness. I hope it has something to do with my technique ,but shooting the same as with the MArk II.

Chas.

[Nikolay Staykov - shotlandetsa]

Hi Charles,

I have experience with 40D, now I even got a second 40D body for the 400/5.6

What I found almost immediately an year ago with my first 40D, when I put it to the test is that it literally destroys any fine detail compared even to the oldest 1Ds, not to mention the Mark II. I am not a native and will be difficult for me to back up my aguments in details but this is one of its wekest points, that none canon user want to speak of.

With my older mark ii n I can allow very tight crops, but with 40D it simply cannot stand against to the mark in a smallest matter.

Other thing that should speak for itself - I recently asked a professional to resample/upsize 40 of my best works for A3 prints and gave him a Mark ii n and 40D samples. He told me that the 40D samples allows little resampling with still keeping the details, while with the mark, it was quite a different story!

[Robert O'Toole]

I bought the 40D when price dropped to half and have shot my first group of images in the yard with the 600mm Canon IS.
Looking at the bird eyes at Raw100%does not show any tack sharp images. Some look sharper than others ,but none that look tack sharp as compared to images with the Mark II. Using same software to check so that is not a variable. They look pretty good on the monitor below 100%. So far a disappointment for me ,but then I may be doing something wrong.

Any thoughts on the 40D ? and sharpness. I hope it has something to do with my technique ,but shooting the same as with the MArk II.

Chas.

Hi Chas,

Check your Jpeg settings or picture styles, and set the sharpness up a couple of notches. You say you are viewing 100% "RAW" but chances are you are just looking at the JPEG embedded in the RAW file, not the actual converted RAW file.

So I think you are in fact comparing camera embedded JPEG settings and not the file output.

I did not have the same experience with my 40D and a 600/4. The opening image on my website RobertOToolePhotography.com was made with a EF600/4 handheld with a 40D and its nice and sharp 100% or downsized.

Robert

[John Chardine]

If there is something to this with the 40D is it possible that it is caused by a more aggressive low-pass filter?

[David Billingsley]

I too have been having difficulty in getting those tack-sharp images with the 40D and 500 F4. After having great success on my GT3530 and Mongoose 3.5a - my success level went way down from the auto using the BLUBB - even when using extreme long lens techniques (so I thought). I really wanted to blame the 40D AF and even talked to Artie several times since he had experienced similar problems.

Artie recommended taking a series of newspaper shots to confirm if the 40D and 500 F4 were focusing OK. The results put an end to my 40D concerns as all the shots (using GT3530/Mongoose 3.5a) were tack-sharp - even at 200% crop and including the ones using a 1.4 TC.

Taking this success into the field still remains a technique challenge (at least for me).

Hope this helps. Have a blessed day - dave b.

[John Chardine]

I too have been having difficulty in getting those tack-sharp images with the 40D and 500 F4. After having great success on my GT3530 and Mongoose 3.5a - my success level went way down from the auto using the BLUBB - even when using extreme long lens techniques (so I thought). I really wanted to blame the 40D AF and even talked to Artie several times since he had experienced similar problems.

Artie recommended taking a series of newspaper shots to confirm if the 40D and 500 F4 were focusing OK. The results put an end to my 40D concerns as all the shots (using GT3530/Mongoose 3.5a) were tack-sharp - even at 200% crop and including the ones using a 1.4 TC.

Taking this success into the field still remains a technique challenge (at least for me).

Hope this helps. Have a blessed day - dave b.

David- Not germane to this thread but following from your comment: a factor underestimated by me at least was the issue of subject movement. You can use all the long-lens technique in the world but if you are trying to photograph a jittery little sparrow who is worried about being eaten by a hawk, it is difficult to get a sharp image with low-moderate shutter speeds.

[ChasMcRae]

Thanks for all the input. Certainly a variety of opinions. One thing I think I have to consider is the Mark II seems heavier and may offset slightly poor technique. I will have to be super careful with technique, but I'm still bothered by comparing Mark II images with the 40D.
I will ratchet up the sharpness settings in JPG .

Also Robert what picture style do you recommend for max sharpness evaluation ?

Also will ck sharpness with the newspaper test and hopefully that will give me confidence. I guess over years of getting sharp images with the Mark II I just have high expectations from Canon.

Thank again for thoughts.

Chas.

[Robert O'Toole]

Also Robert what picture style do you recommend for max sharpness evaluation ?

I have used a custom settings, you can go into the menu and define your own. You can set sharpness at different levels and test. Dont worry the settings will not effect the RAW sharpness. Only the viewing JPEGS.

Also will ck sharpness with the newspaper test and hopefully that will give me confidence. I guess over years of getting sharp images with the Mark II I just have high expectations from Canon.

Yes I tend to use my 1DSMKII and 1DMKIIN images as a baseline also.

Robert

[Lana Hays]

Chas
It's funny but when I went from a MkI to the MkII I thought "Oh my.....how soft". The original 1D had a crispness that was outstanding. I'd be curious to know if there is that same "softness" with the new 50D. Also....any chance that the camera/lens might need an adjustment. I'd have to think that you've been photographing long enough to use good long lens technique.

[ChasMcRae]

I guess I have used long lens a LONG time. Don't make me count the years. HOWEVER looking at these first shots with the 40D has me scratching my head. I will be following OTooles suggestions and go from there.
Linda I'm not sure what you mean by a camera lens adjustment? And geez I didn't know there was a Mark I -I was still trying to shoot Velvia(I did love that film).
Thanks for the comment ,but please expand on answer.

Chas.

[ChasMcRae]

CORRECTION:

Please replace Linda with Lana- Its late here !

[Lana Hays]

Chas
There was a Canon 1D (I really shouldn't have called it a MkI as the "Mark" wasn't added to the name until the MkII) and then the Canon 1DMkII followed by the Canon 1DMkIIN. The latest is the Canon 1DMkIII. The original 1D was the sharpest that I've ever had. However, the battery didn't last long and I cringed if I had to shoot about ISO 320 due to the large amount of noise. I have a feeling that as the noise level improves at the higher ISO's the detail will somewhat disappear. The MkIII and the 50D have a way to calibrate your lenses with the camera.....a new feature. I had a MkII and was so disappointed at how soft the images were. A friend bought it and sent it off for adjustment. I got the MkIIN and it was much sharper. I guess I'm wondering if it's as much an issue with the camera instead of you. Before the models that allow you to calibrate yourself, photographers would send in their camera and lens to Canon and have it calibrated. That would probably be costly given the shipping on the 600mm L. I'm also wondering if your camera might be front/back focusing.....thus slightly OOF rather than soft? I had a 40D for a short time and all the images seemed a bit soft out of the camera but sharpened up just fine with about the same USM as my MkIIN. You might try some other lenses with the camera and see what you get.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Hello Charles,
Initially when i started using the 40D, I felt AF was the issue compared to the excellent AF of the 1D Mark II. However, I don't think there is any sharpness issue with the 40D. Occasionally, I have found some files are not sharp at 100%, but I would attribute that to user error.

Of course the crop factor of 40D is 1.6 compared to 1.3 of the 1DII. Your 500mm lens becomes equivalent to 500*1.3=650mm when used with the 1D Mark II.
The same 500mm becomes 500*1.6 = 800mm with the 40D. So the effective focal length with the 40D is 150mm more. When the focal length increases, the we have to focus more on the technique. Ofcourse, you are an old hand in photography, so technique is not an issue. Just that we have to be more careful.

You will find a lot of my recent postings are with the 40D. Even with a 400mm and 2x converter, there are no issues with sharpness when viewed at 100 %.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Doug Brown]

To what Sabyasachi said, I would add that there is a DOF 'penalty' that goes along with shooting at 800mm vs. 650mm; you get even less of it.

[John Chardine]

To what Sabyasachi said, I would add that there is a DOF 'penalty' that goes along with shooting at 800mm vs. 650mm; you get even less of it.

Not sure about this Doug. I think you "inherit" the DoF of the native or effective focal length of the lens, in this case 500mm. The higher crop factor body has better apparent DoF because the equivalent FL is 800mm but it is behaving DoF-wise as if it were a 500mm. Artie has talked about this effect before.

[Doug Brown]

I'll have to read up on that. Thanks for the info and correction John!

[Robert O'Toole]

Not sure about this Doug. I think you "inherit" the DoF of the native or effective focal length of the lens, in this case 500mm. The higher crop factor body has better apparent DoF because the equivalent FL is 800mm but it is behaving DoF-wise as if it were a 500mm. Artie has talked about this effect before.

John is correct, DOF is exactly the same, 500mm with a full frame camera or 500mm with an APS-C sensor camera. There is more apparent DOF with the APS-C sensor camera due to the fact that you can have more working distance, that is distance from the subject keeping the subject the same size.
The DOF looks greater with an APS-C camera since you are farther away from the subject. This is the same with a T/C extender.


Robert

[Roger Clark]

Not sure about this Doug. I think you "inherit" the DoF of the native or effective focal length of the lens, in this case 500mm. The higher crop factor body has better apparent DoF because the equivalent FL is 800mm but it is behaving DoF-wise as if it were a 500mm. Artie has talked about this effect before.

Hello John,
As this thread is starting down a confusing path, I thought I would chime in.

DOF with different digital sensors is a commonly confused subject. DOF is defined for a given final image size (like an 8x10-inch print). With a smaller sensor, one must magnify the focal plane image more with a smaller sensor to reach the target image size. It is a myth that smaller digital sensors have a greater depth of field than larger sensors. This effect is described at:

The depth of field myth and digital cameras: http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth

Adding another complication of changing perspective makes the situation more confusing, Then you are also changing magnification and magnification changes DOF.

Roger

[John Chardine]

Thanks Roger. Very informative. I suspect we may be saying the same thing in different ways but I'll have a look at the link and have a "think".