6d Focusing Problems

[perklax]

Hello,

I've recently purchased a 6d. It's a great camera and I love the look it has, but I'm having all sorts of troubles focusing. I mainly do portraits, and that requires me to consitently hit sharp focus on the eyes. For the life of me I can't do that. I'll focus on the eye using the middle autofocus point and then will recompose and take the picture, but it still won't work. It works half the time, but that's not good enough at all. It's been driving me crazy and I can't confidently go into a shoot. I'm getting paid for shoots also, so this isn't acceptable. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@perklax wrote:

Yeah I jacked up the iso because I thought that the wide aperture was the problem, so maybe that's another thing to focus on. And yeah the bricks are an issue. I straightened them after the fact. But this was using the 50mm at around 8-10ft. 

---

According to the DoF calculator at the link I posted, you should have had at least two feet of DoF at 50mm, f/5 at a distance of 8-10 feet, which should have been sufficient DoF to nail the shot.

I agree with the opiinon that the shutter speed should have been sufficient, although faster is always better for portraits, IMHO.  You may be in need of an AFMA, Auto Focus Micro-Adjustment, with the lens to really nail the focus.  Google " Dot Tune ".

[perklax]

I've been thinking that I might need to fine tune the autofocus. It's not a brand new camera, so that might have something to do with it also. That might be the route to take/look into. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@perklax wrote:

I've been thinking that I might need to fine tune the autofocus. It's not a brand new camera, so that might have something to do with it also. That might be the route to take/look into. 

---

I like the second shot better.  It must be the ISO difference.  You could eliminate Auto Focus as an issue by taking some test shots, and manually focusing using Live View magnified to 10x.  Experiment at different ISO values to observe noise levels.

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2015/tips-for-getting-sharp-images.shtml

I don't think the age of the camera is an issue.  Except for the shutter and mirror, it's a digital device.  It will basically either work properly, or it won't work at all.  I would say that your camera is fine.  Open up the aperture, and drop the ISO.

[Peter]

The first picture is not in focus anywhere. That is why I think of camera shake.

The second picture seems good to me on my laptop screen. I can see the details around the eye.

The both pictures are processed through Ps, and that erased some EXIF data. For example I can´t check what AF point you have used, but I suppose the center point because you wrote that before.

About Canon ISO, check this out http://community.usa.canon.com/t5/General-Camera-Discussion/ISO-Expansion-ISO-50-Good-or-Bad/m-p/173...

[perklax]

thanks everyone!

[perklax]

[perklax]

This is at 1/250th at f/3.5 and iso 500. It's not bad and is usable, but just not super sharp. Is that just the nature of the light or is that an issue with me?

[perklax]

that's also the unedited image

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

"So if you need PRECISE focus, you need to use an alternative method. There is a reason Pro cameras have over 60 AF points instead of just one. You can use the closest AF point to where you need the focus to be. " 

Somehow, I don't think that is the primary way how the extra AF points are used.  Sure you can use them that way.  But who does it that way looking through the viewfinder, anyway?  ...

---

I do, usually.

[Peter]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

"So if you need PRECISE focus, you need to use an alternative method. There is a reason Pro cameras have over 60 AF points instead of just one. You can use the closest AF point to where you need the focus to be. " 

Somehow, I don't think that is the primary way how the extra AF points are used.  Sure you can use them that way.  But who does it that way looking through the viewfinder, anyway?  ...

---

I do, usually.

---

Me too.