Canon 1D MKIV Phenomena

[Richard Mc Donald]

Very brief history - pre sales conditions 3 weeks ago where the MKIV and the EF 800 f/5.6 are to be sent to Canon for calibration and checks, those were met with no hassle by PRA Imaging in Perth Australia and a week later the gear turned up on my doorstep.

Last Saturday I headed out bush for 4 days and came home with over 1300 exposures, most that I'm extremely happy with.

The phenomena I refer to is this ...




This young White- breasted Sea-Eagle landed, according to EXIF data, 33.3 meters away so I was stoked to fire off quite a number of shots before I checked the results in the rear screen. Not one of the shots was sharp.

The Eagle stayed long enough for me to go through some more shots using different aperture and exposure settings from f/5.6 - f/8.0 and 0 -1/3 -2/3 -1 -1.2/3 exposure comp.

Still no sharp shots so the I did some manual focusing with the same results even though the raptor was sharp in the viewfinder.

Camera and lens were mounted on a Wimberly head and Gitzo G - 1348 tripod with my arm layed along the top of the lens to eliminate shutter slap.

ISO speed were all at 400 and admittedly shutter speeds were down around the 250 - 600sec mark

Ironically other birds of similar colour returned the same result!

I'm stumped as to what could be causing the problem so any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Richard

[Lance Peters]

Hi Richard - have you used a long lens before???

I use the sigmonster and found when i first got it - it did need some refinement to my technique - 800MM is a lot of magnification and I would be cranking that ISO up to increase those shutter speeds - with much practice I can make sharp shots down to about 1/60th with the 800 and I dont have VR.
From the info you have given - it would not appear to be a AF issue (Manual focus returns same result) Lens should be calibrated after being at canon - Im tempted to say those slow shutter speeds have caused the problem - ID try with faster shutter speeds and see what the results are!

[Richard Mc Donald]

Cheers Lance.

I upgraded from a MKIII and EF 500 f/4.0 that I've had for 6 years so I'm quite familiar with long lenses. I would have thought being mounted on the gear I described above the slower shutter speeds wouldn't come into play but I'd be quite happy to admit I'm wrong.

Richard

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Richard I agree, the problem seems to be an issue of lens stability and low shutter speed. My 800 (My most expensive and least used lens and sold come Monday) has let me down many times whereas my 500 f/4 does not miss a beat.

I use my 500 with a 2X Kenko converter on my MKIII for BIFs on my Monopod with amazing results at times (I got rid of my Canon 2X) @ 1000mm f/8 with AF. My 800 (also Micro adjusted by Canon) gives me some superb images in still air with no heat haze and locked down hard on the Wimberley Gitzo Tripod and Mirror Locked up and wireless shutter release but I am not happy with it generally and consequently it spends most of the time at home so it goes to its new home come Monday.

My 500 with 1.4X and 2X will retain its position as my favorite long Tele.

[Lance Peters]

Think the 800 is a fine lens - but you have to polish up that long lens technique - as I said definetly can use it at slow shutter speeds - just takes some practice.

[John Chardine]

A couple of things- first I agree with previous that shutter speed could be an issue here. Just to say though that I've had a few occasions over the last few years where I'm positive I'm doing everything right but all images in a run or shoot are not sharp. In these instances I have tracked the problem down to unstable air/heat shimmer between the lens and subject. Certainly 33 feet is enough distance to show this problem up. And it can be very local so other images in a different place or at the same place at a different time could be great. A telltale sign of heat shimmer is weird shaped specular highlights- they tend to be blotchy and spiky, and sometimes not round. You have hints of this in the OOF highlights in the BG. Second, there seems to be a strong magenta colour cast on the image, on my calibrated monitor at least.

Oh and I'll add that you won't necessarily see heat shimmer through the view finder. In fact when it has affected me, I've never seen it. The viewfinder looks crisp. You will see it with Liveview set to max magnification and will show itself as the image on the LCD going in and out of focus like a yo-yo. It is a very nasty, insidious problem that has no solution IMO but to put your wide angle lens on or go home!

[Richard Mc Donald]

Thanks Chris, I'm starting to realize even after the very short time I've owned the 800 I may have been better off keeping my 500 especially for birds in flight but as Lance has said, it's going to take some practice.

It's nice to have goals in life, more so when it comes to your hobby.

An off topic question Chris if I may, was it much of a hassle selling the 800 and what sort of $'s did it go for if that's not too rude of me to ask?

Cheers
Richard

Richard I agree, the problem seems to be an issue of lens stability and low shutter speed. My 800 (My most expensive and least used lens and sold come Monday) has let me down many times whereas my 500 f/4 does not miss a beat.

I use my 500 with a 2X Kenko converter on my MKIII for BIFs on my Monopod with amazing results at times (I got rid of my Canon 2X) @ 1000mm f/8 with AF. My 800 (also Micro adjusted by Canon) gives me some superb images in still air with no heat haze and locked down hard on the Wimberley Gitzo Tripod and Mirror Locked up and wireless shutter release but I am not happy with it generally and consequently it spends most of the time at home so it goes to its new home come Monday.

My 500 with 1.4X and 2X will retain its position as my favorite long Tele.

[Richard Mc Donald]

Some very good points here John considering I live in the far Northern part of Australia, thanks for joining in.

After reading your post I realized there was a thick fog on that particular morning and even though I thought it had cleared (shot was taken at 0925) there may still have been remnants although not visible to the naked eye so, if that was in fact the case, combined with too slower shutter speeds may be the real reason for my results.

I must point out to anyone reading this thread that apart from the Sea Eagle shots every other exposure taken on the trip was spot on (apart from the obvious hand held camera shake) to the point where I'm quite comfortable in saying they are some of the sharpest shots I own.

Thanks again
Richard

Your

A couple of things- first I agree with previous that shutter speed could be an issue here. Just to say though that I've had a few occasions over the last few years where I'm positive I'm doing everything right but all images in a run or shoot are not sharp. In these instances I have tracked the problem down to unstable air/heat shimmer between the lens and subject. Certainly 33 feet is enough distance to show this problem up. And it can be very local so other images in a different place or at the same place at a different time could be great. A telltale sign of heat shimmer is weird shaped specular highlights- they tend to be blotchy and spiky, and sometimes not round. You have hints of this in the OOF highlights in the BG. Second, there seems to be a strong magenta colour cast on the image, on my calibrated monitor at least.

Oh and I'll add that you won't necessarily see heat shimmer through the view finder. In fact when it has affected me, I've never seen it. The viewfinder looks crisp. You will see it with Liveview set to max magnification and will show itself as the image on the LCD going in and out of focus like a yo-yo. It is a very nasty, insidious problem that has no solution IMO but to put your wide angle lens on or go home!

[Mike Tracy]

I am probably not adding much to this discussion but here is my limited experience. While at a bird festival CPS let me borrow the 800 for a couple hours. I don't have any wothwhile birds to share as it was raining and extremly overcast. I did photograph some static objects though to see if I could hand hold it like I do with my 500. This was the 3rd frame I took with the lens on my MKIII. Breezebrowser says it was from 54 yards and the crop is probably 20% of full frame @ 1/400 hand held. Converted for here with only +1 sharpening applied in DPP. I was extremely impressed with my results never having used this lens before and all were hand held with purposely slower shutter speeds.

[John Chardine]

Richard- Ah fog! As you no doubt know fog is created when the air temperature drops below the dew point and is therefore an indication of cooler air. Cool air has a different refractive index than warm air and if they are mixing between you and the subject, this could very definitely cause your problem.

[Robert Amoruso]

Richard- Ah fog! As you no doubt know fog is created when the air temperature drops below the dew point and is therefore an indication of cooler air. Cool air has a different refractive index than warm air and if they are mixing between you and the subject, this could very definitely cause your problem.

I think this is the possible cause as I had similar problems in Alaska.

[John Chardine]

This is exactly it Peter. When I use my back room as a hide in the winter I make sure the room equilibrates to outside temps before I start.

Here on the east coast I see this problem on warm days when you have cool air coming in off the sea. Also seen it shooting very low on sand beaches on hot days.

[Richard Mc Donald]

Many many thanks Peter for joining in and sharing your own experience!

Richard

Have a look at my own experience with cold/warm air mixes.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php?59342

[Rich Steel]

I agree with the above and think heat shimmer is a problem. We noticed this a great deal in arctic Norway with a shimmer rapidly appearing everytime the sun broke through. The worst I have seen was actually on a cold winter day on a bank of frost melting under the winter when I actually managed to get close to green woodpecker. I thought the camera had malfunctioned at first but on looking up from the camera the shimmer was so bad that the bird looked out of focus to the naked eye.

cheers

Rich

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Richard I bought the lens for $13,000 (Purchased for be by my son in the USA) and sold it for $12,800 to a friend of mine who as an Orthopedic Surgeon (Thinks he can give advice to God) and has much more money than he needs, he will probably be fed up with it in no time (No patience but must have the bigest and best, " he does not belong to any forums") and I will happily offer him $8000 later in the year and he will sell it when I threaten to tell his friends how useless he was with it. :)

It is a beautiful lens but much more worth $8000 that $13,000. It does not travel well on aircraft, can be seen from the Space Station and will be lucky to get an outing 10 times a year whereas the 500 goes out with me 3/5 days a week.

For $8000, I will be happy to have it and more so to make a profit from from him though he would not even notice (maybe I will offer him $5000) :)

[Dave Peters]

I think you probably determined the problem now as atmospheric but I thought I would offer my finding with the 800:

I purchased the 800mm f5.6 IS shortly after it was released having previously rented the 500. I think at those shutter speeds you can easily hand hold it for short periods so on a tripod and Wimberley they are no problem at all with the IS turned on. The IS is vastly superior to the 500 and a reasonable keeper rate is possible at 1/125th hand held and its almost a large point and shoot at 1/250th. For a lighter setup than the Wimberley, you can use it with the Mongoose M3.5 as long as you take care when mounting it.

For carrying on aircraft, I always hand carry using a bag I made to exact carry-on size - borrowing the harness from my lenstrecker 600. The bag is lined with about 1cm foam rubber and there is a solid baseplate made from kevlar (you could use fiberglass but I was playing with the material). The lens is protected at the front with the Canon supplied cap. The rear as far down as the handle is protected by a push on helmet that I made. I wrapped 1cm foam rubber around the rear of the lens and taped it so it could be removed and keep its shape. Then I put layers of kevlar and resin (again could use fiberglass or carbon fiber) to make a strong structure. I coated it in fabric for looks. The 800 then just fits in the required dimensions.

If you fly with the right airline, you can get the 800 plus 2 pro bodies and various other lenses and chargers within the limit. See www.dpsoftware.co.uk/airlines for various airlines limits.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Dave is right on the money with the IS on the 800 but I only use the IS on the 500 when I am using the 2X Con.

It all comes down to a matter of money and usage, it is a brilliant lens but I have rifles worth twice what the 800 cost me, however I use them in competition and as I am no Pro photographer the 800 was simply an expensive toy which, when I buy it back, will be a less expensive toy which I will be happy to have in my toy box :)

You have had great advice here from folk who know much more than I do about this lens, heed it and have fun. :)