topic Re: 7D Mark II in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

7D Mark II

Fay — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:32:00 GMT

After a long wait my brother and I got our hands on a couple of Mark IIs. Problem is after a week of work we still feel like pictures are soft. I originally started trying to adjust with some of the methods on the web. I finally said @#$ with that and bought a LensAlign MKII and then the Focus Tune V3. Over the weekend we got the system set up and learned the basics of the software. Adjustments were made after doing 5 shots in steps of five. Then when we had the general area we shot 10 images in steps of 1 around the indicated best spot. Several times we did an even tighter refinement again using 10 shots for the software to scan. This was done with the 100-400 at both ends of the zoom and the 600 with and without the 1.4 extender. I think I got the 100-400 zeroed in, but brother is still frustrated. Neither of us like the results with the 600 after micro adjustments.

One thing we did notice is that when the lens was locked down on the tripod and we pushed the TC-80N3 remote controller button half way the focus point tended to drift down. The image stablization was on with all lens. I usually don't tripod my 100-400 and when using the 600 the tripod is typically not locked down so I was told the IS being on was okay.

So any suggestions or words of wisdom would be appreciated. To be truthful I am a very short way from taking the camera back and replacing it with a different body.

Thank you. Fay and Robert

Re: 7D Mark II

cicopo — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 01:38:13 GMT

IS should be OFF. That drift downward was the IS kicking in. How stable is the tripod? When I'm doing serious tests I mount to something that can't move like the one in the 2nd message here.

. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1330556/3

Or something like this

Re: 7D Mark II

Fay — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 01:43:21 GMT

Thanks cicopo I was afraid that may be the answer. All I can say is @#$%#$ and go back and do it all over again. What a frustration.

The cameras are on heavy duty fiber carbon tripods with a Whimbery head. Fay

Re: 7D Mark II

KeithR — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:54:02 GMT

The more stable the platform, the more likely you'll get problems from image stabilisation that isn't explicitly designed to work with a tripod.

Re: 7D Mark II

RobertTheFat — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:02:23 GMT

@KeithR wrote:
The more stable the platform, the more likely you'll get problems from image stabilisation that isn't explicitly designed to work with a tripod.

I know that's the conventional wisdom, but I wish someone would explain why it's true. What's the difference between mounting the camera on a tripod and holding it absolutely still? The latter doesn't represent a challenge to the IS system, does it? And if the tripod is buffeted by a breeze, why isn't that like holding the camera not quite steady, in which case the IS would presumably help?

Re: 7D Mark II

ebiggs1 — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:00:20 GMT

The IS operates by correcting shake and when there is no shake, or even when the shake is below the threshold of it's detection capability, the IS feature can actually add unwanted blur to the picture.

IS lenses look for vibrations in your camera in order and try to reduce it. When IS doesn't find any as you use a tripod, for instance, it can actually cause it.

You know ying and yang working against each other.

Re: 7D Mark II

ebiggs1 — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:02:07 GMT

Oh, BTW, if you look carefully sometimes you can see the image jump when it is on a tripod.

Turn it off.

Re: 7D Mark II

Skirball — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:06:58 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
The IS operates by correcting shake and when there is no shake, or even when the shake is below the threshold of it's detection capability, the IS feature can actually add unwanted blur to the picture.
IS lenses look for vibrations in your camera in order and try to reduce it. When IS doesn't find any as you use a tripod, for instance, it can actually cause it.

You know ying and yang working against each other.

Do you have anything to support this? Other than ying and yang. I've heard this story many times, but haven't seen an explanation more details than this. It may well be true, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. It would be an extremely poorly designed system if it couldn't detect that it wasn't moving.

Re: 7D Mark II

KeithR — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:30:03 GMT

Isn't it safe to assume that there's a reason why Canon explicitly recommends turning off IS on tripods; and that there's a reason why it has actually developed tripod-sensing IS on some of the big Whites?

But here's some reading on the subject from Canon - hopefully authorative enough (and ten seconds' work in Google to find):

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

When using certain early models of IS lenses with a tripod it was necessary to turn off the IS function. This is because of a phenomenon known as ‘Shake Return’. Shake Return occurs when the IS system tries to correct vibrations to which the system itself contributes. When the IS lens sits on a tripod, the IS detection gyros pick up any tiny vibrations or movement; these might be caused by the tripod being knocked, or the photographer adjusting a camera setting.

The IS system then swings into action to correct that movement. The movement of the IS lens group causes its own minute vibration, which is in turn detected by the movement sensor, which triggers another correction. This ‘feedback loop’ can continue endlessly, resulting in the addition of unwanted blur to images that would be sharper if the IS function was switched off.

Re: 7D Mark II

Skirball — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:21:11 GMT

@KeithR wrote:
Isn't it safe to assume that there's a reason why Canon explicitly recommends turning off IS on tripods; and that there's a reason why it has actually developed tripod-sensing IS on some of the big Whites?

Actually, no. Look through your owners manual, you'll see all kinds of things contraindicated that most of us do every day with our cameras. It's the nature of literature in a litigious world.

@KeithR wrote:
But here's some reading on the subject from Canon - hopefully authorative enough (and ten seconds' work in Google to find):
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/image_stabilization_lenses.do

When using certain early models of IS lenses with a tripod it was necessary to turn off the IS function. This is because of a phenomenon known as ‘Shake Return’. Shake Return occurs when the IS system tries to correct vibrations to which the system itself contributes. When the IS lens sits on a tripod, the IS detection gyros pick up any tiny vibrations or movement; these might be caused by the tripod being knocked, or the photographer adjusting a camera setting.

The IS system then swings into action to correct that movement. The movement of the IS lens group causes its own minute vibration, which is in turn detected by the movement sensor, which triggers another correction. This ‘feedback loop’ can continue endlessly, resulting in the addition of unwanted blur to images that would be sharper if the IS function was switched off.

Thanks, sarcasm aside. That's interesting. I trust that the Canon engineers are better engineers than I. But I'm surprised that something that seems like simple feedback isn't avoidable.

Re: 7D Mark II

RobertTheFat — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:26:20 GMT

@Skirball wrote:
@KeithR wrote:
Isn't it safe to assume that there's a reason why Canon explicitly recommends turning off IS on tripods; and that there's a reason why it has actually developed tripod-sensing IS on some of the big Whites?
Actually, no. Look through your owners manual, you'll see all kinds of things contraindicated that most of us do every day with our cameras. It's the nature of literature in a litigious world.

@KeithR wrote:
But here's some reading on the subject from Canon - hopefully authorative enough (and ten seconds' work in Google to find):
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/image_stabilization_lenses.do

When using certain early models of IS lenses with a tripod it was necessary to turn off the IS function. This is because of a phenomenon known as ‘Shake Return’. Shake Return occurs when the IS system tries to correct vibrations to which the system itself contributes. When the IS lens sits on a tripod, the IS detection gyros pick up any tiny vibrations or movement; these might be caused by the tripod being knocked, or the photographer adjusting a camera setting.

The IS system then swings into action to correct that movement. The movement of the IS lens group causes its own minute vibration, which is in turn detected by the movement sensor, which triggers another correction. This ‘feedback loop’ can continue endlessly, resulting in the addition of unwanted blur to images that would be sharper if the IS function was switched off.

Thanks, sarcasm aside. That's interesting. I trust that the Canon engineers are better engineers than I. But I'm surprised that something that seems like simple feedback isn't avoidable.

Well, I guess it is, since the problem seems confined to "certain early models of IS lenses". Now if we could just find out what those models are - and whether any of them are still in production.

Re: 7D Mark II

ebiggs1 — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:06:14 GMT

Easy!

Everything that does not have the tripod sensor.

Re: 7D Mark II

Skirball — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:04:32 GMT

@KeithR wrote:
Isn't it safe to assume that there's a reason why Canon explicitly recommends turning off IS on tripods; and that there's a reason why it has actually developed tripod-sensing IS on some of the big Whites?

Actually, I looked it up just for grins. For the 24-105L IS and 24-70 f/4 IS it recommends turning off IS while on a tripod to save battery. The 70-200 II, 300mm 2.8 II, 400mm 2.8 II, 200-400mm f/4 1.4x, 800mm 5.6, says "depending on the tripod and conditions sometimes it may be better to turn IS off". A non-commital statement if I've ever read one. Only the old 100-400 says not to use it; the new manual isn't up yet.

The link you provided was of course from Canon EU. I perused Canon USA's extensive webpage on IS and couldn't find any mention of it. My point simply: the situation isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be.

Re: 7D Mark II

Skirball — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:16:15 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:

Well, I guess it is, since the problem seems confined to "certain early models of IS lenses". Now if we could just find out what those models are - and whether any of them are still in production.

I couldn't find an official list, but the ones I saw were the 100-400 (assumed that the new one does not), original 75-300, and the 300 f/4 IS. I also saw some people mention that old versions of the 24-105. However, based on the experiences they report - which were quite significant - and my experience with my 24-105 I'd say they definately fixed it. Which is why I came to the same conclusion I did last time I looked into this: if you can't see an issue, then I doubt you have an issue.

Re: 7D Mark II

digital — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:23:35 GMT

You need to turn off first generation IS like my 300L F4 IS. You can actually see the image move around in the viewfinder. My 24-105 - second gen does not as it detects when it is on a tripod. I have taken many night shots and forgot to turn it off and got great resutls.

For what you are doing I'd shut it off no matter which generatiion IS you have, use mirror lock up and and remote if you can so there is no vibration. I purchase Focus Tune about a year ago but just used a flat target. Yesterday I ordered the MKII traget. How are you finding the system works?

Re: 7D Mark II

cicopo — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:35:51 GMT

If you are using a stable platform there is no need for IS so turning it off eleminates any potential problems it may introduce.

Re: 7D Mark II

Fay — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 20:26:39 GMT

Well let's just say I just took the camera body back and exchanged it for a new one. I think the system works, but my components didn't. Blaming camera at this point, since the lens works with other cameras.

Before using the system make sure you watch the videos. There is no instruction in the box on setting up your test. I found the software helps more than eyeballing the results.

Good luck.

Fay

Re: 7D Mark II

Fay — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:30:39 GMT

Okay it isn't the camera. In fact it was the lens that was the problerm. I talked to Canon Tech Support we attempted several things including manual focusing the equipment. One thing the tech asked is how long the lens was on the previous camera. Short answer was almost constantly for the last several years with occassional change. We were left with the suggestion that we send the lens and camera to the service center. His question regarding the length the lens was on the question brought the thought up about the condition of the contacts. After some research I bought Deoxit Gold and cleaned the lens contacts.

We also got a better system down working with the LensAlign target and the Focus Tune v3 software. While running these new test we made sure that the IS was off. The bottom line is that our problem is resolved. Yahoo! But, weather is crapping. Boo. So looking forward to some shooting weather.

Thank you for all of your comments and I am sorry it took me time to get back here to tell you "the rest of the story."

Fay

Re: 7D Mark II

cicopo — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:44:05 GMT

This is very useful information, and something most of would never think of.

Re: 7D Mark II

darmet — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:00:57 GMT

Hi,

Just to make sure I got the gist of your final results, did you find that all of the image softness issues were resolved by careful micro-adjustment with each lens?

I recently took my 7D Mark I to the camera store and did a side-by-side comparison with the store's 7D Mark II, using the same lens (18-135mm IS STM), the same memory card, and the same settings on both cameras. (By "same lens," I mean the exact same lens, transferred from one camera to the other.)

When I got home and compared the images, I was disappointed by the softness in the Mark II's images compared to what I saw from my Mark I. My Mark I's images were clearly noisier than the Mark II's at ISO 6400, but the lines and edges in the images were much sharper from my Mark I.

After that test, I started to think that maybe I didn't want to upgrade to the Mark II after all. I'm still not sure, after reading how much work you went to in fine-tuning the microadjustments of your lenses, so I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts now that you've done all of that.

Thanks!