Issues with my DSLR focusing and obtaining sharpness?

[NedM]

Hey PF Members!

Okay, so I own two Canon 5D Mark III bodies. For the purposes of this post, we'll name each of bodies Camera A and B respectively. I also own a brand new Sigma 50A f1.4 lens.

I took my new Sigma lens and my two bodies to a brick wall in my backyard to test out the sharpness of the lens on each of my camera bodies. During my testing, I noticed that Camera A paired with my Sigma lens was extremely sharp at f/1.4 and f/2.8. To be expected, right? However, Camera B paired with my Sigma lens exhibited poor sharpness at both apertures.

I used a tripod, kept the same distance (about 6 feet), used One Shot mode and used one single auto focus point to focus.

I don't understand why my Sigma lens paired with Camera B is not as sharp as it was paired with Camera A? You'll also noticed that my Sigma lens when paired with Camera A the images are more contrasted and saturated whereas Camera B shots are not.

After taking a look at the results, what do you guys think? It can't be an optical problem since the lens performs extremely well when paired with Camera A. Could this be an internal issue with Camera B?

*Please note I have not calibrated my Sigma lens with either of my bodies. These are straight out camera and box images.

Here are the results:

Camera A @ f/1.4 - Extremely sharp

Camera B @ f/1.4 - Not as sharp as Camera A, sort of soft.

Camera A @ f/2.8 - My focus was slightly off but still pretty darn sharp!

Camera B @ f/2.8 - Again, showing signs of poor sharpness.

 

[Cortian]

Camera B is front- or back-focusing? There's an easy test:



Then again: If you haven't experienced it with other lenses... Dunno. (N.B.: I am not a photography/camera/lens expert, nor do I play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.)

 

[NedM]

Camera B is front- or back-focusing? There's an easy test:



Then again: If you haven't experienced it with other lenses... Dunno. (N.B.: I am not a photography/camera/lens expert, nor do I play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.)

You see, that's what I thought too. I actually performed this test and I noticed that Camera B is not front or back focusing. I did adjust the AFM on Camera B by -15 and it yielded better results but still the sharpness was not as "tac-sharp" as it should be.

 

[NedM]

**UPDATE**

I believe the issue might lie within Camera B's body itself. I did another test where I focused on the same subject using live view mode. Camera A again showed extremely sharp results whereas Camera B did not. It seemed a bit blurry or hazy. I have tried calibrating the Sigma lens in Camera B but yielded very little change.

At this point, I'm sure what to make of it. How can it be an optical issue if the Sigma lens performs well on Camera A but not Camera B?

 

[photoflyer]

Does "calibrate" mean use Aufofocus Microadjustment?

 

[Braineack]

there's a big difference in the color/saturation as well -- im assuming jpg? seems like A and B have different post-processing settings.

 

[Derrel]

there's a big difference in the color/saturation as well -- im assuming jpg? seems like A and B have different post-processing settings.

How, exactly, did the images we're being shown come to be created? Are the two cameras, A and B, perhaps set up slightly differently? The images from the B camera body less-saturated to me than what's coming from camera A, which makes me wonder about the sharpening and contrast settings, and the color picture style or "look" that's been applied to the images we've been shown. Did you shoot in raw mode and convert the image data to make .JPEG images, or are these SOOC images?

Okay-now, re-reading your OP, it says these are out of box images; but...the color and contrast look different to me, and not just the degree of sharpness. I'd be interested to see if the two bodies are shooting in different picture styles, or whatever it is that Canon calls the set-up parameters regarding sharpness,saturation,tone curve, and overall "look".

 

[NedM]

there's a big difference in the color/saturation as well -- im assuming jpg? seems like A and B have different post-processing settings.

How, exactly, did the images we're being shown come to be created? Are the two cameras, A and B, perhaps set up slightly differently? The images from the B camera body less-saturated to me than what's coming from camera A, which makes me wonder about the sharpening and contrast settings, and the color picture style or "look" that's been applied to the images we've been shown. Did you shoot in raw mode and convert the image data to make .JPEG images, or are these SOOC images?

Okay-now, re-reading your OP, it says these are out of box images; but...the color and contrast look different to me, and not just the degree of sharpness. I'd be interested to see if the two bodies are shooting in different picture styles, or whatever it is that Canon calls the set-up parameters regarding sharpness,saturation,tone curve, and overall "look".

Come to think of it, both Cameras A and B may have been shooting in two different pictures styles which might be why the images from each camera look entirely different. I'll need to check when I get home later tonight and update you on my findings. However, this does not explain why Camera B is not as sharp as Camera A?

Update:
Camera A was shooting Auto Picture Style while Camera B was shooting in Neutral Picture Style, so that would explain why Camera's B shots were less contrasted and saturated.

 

[NedM]

PROBLEM FIXED!

As Derrel mentioned, each of my camera bodies A and B respectively were shooting on different picture styles. Camera A was shooting on Auto picture style while Camera B was shooting on Nuetral.

I did a quick re-test and changed Camera's B picture style to Auto and completely noticed a huge change in contrast, color and sharpness! I will do further testing tomorrow with natural daylight but I believe this might have solved the issue! Thank you, Derrel!

 

[Derrel]

I used to have a nice Canon 5D + 20D system with multiple lenses...I'm familiar with the way two similar cameras can produce different results depending on the set-up parameters, either in JPEG straight out of camera mode, or when using differing "As-Shot" conversion from RAW settings. I do think this was the issue you were having. I sure hope so!

By the way, I really,really,really used to like the look that was what Canon called "Faithful", which created just gorgeous images, and was not what I would call "faithful to reality", but more of what I always thought of as being, "idealized reality".

 

[Braineack]

@Derrel el was just piggybacking off my genius! I need credit too!

 

[Derrel]

@Derrel el was just piggybacking off my genius! I need credit too!

Okay, we'll give you credit, braineack!

Let me explain my thinking about the OP's post.

Well, he wrote, "These are straight out camera and box images." Once I realized they were SOOC photos, I figured it was the picture control parameters that were causing the differences. As with all camera or picture fault diagnosis questions, one has to evaluate the user's shooting methodology on sample images. So...if the sample pics were SOOC images, then there was not post-processing applied to the images, as you had wondered about.

I shoot almost ALL RAW+JPEG, and that's where the camera's set-up as far as saturation,tone curve,sharpness, and "Look", or "Picture Style" can really mess with the straight out of camera .JPG files. Nikon's Vivid for example, is way,way too clown-color-ish, for my tastes. I figured the OP simply had Camera A and Camera B set up differently, and that was why his images looked crisp in one case, softer in the other case.

So, no, I wasn't really piggybacking off of your suggestion as much as I was recalling an incident I had about ten years ago, when I was shooting several different cameras for one whole week, all in RAW file format, and then I was batch-processing them using several different RAW converter software applications: MacBibble, Canon DPP, Adobe Camera RAW, and Nikon Capture 4.1,and SilkyPIX. I noticed that my 20D and 5D had been set to different Picture Styles (or whatever Canon calls that), and that my As-Shot, basic, RAW conversions from DPP and Adobe were pretty different on the same scenes, shot the same day, between the 20D and the 5D, and also the D2x.

The things I learned from my week of testing were several, but the biggest take-away was this: at times, perhaps 15 percent of the time or so, one of the RAW converter apps would take a scene, and make a simply exquisite rendering of the colors and the lighting and the subject matter. Not often. Usually, the images were fairly close. But, at times, SilkyPIX, or Canon DPP, or Nikon Capture 4.1, would take raw file, and crank out a simply _astounding_ conversion, which was far,far,far better and more beautiful than the other apps delivered, using the As-Shot-in-Camera settings, in a simple, un-guided-by-me, batch conversion to JPEG.

"Settings matter. A LOT!"

The Japanese-designed and oddly verbally-based SilkyPIX converter was slow, but yielded some incredibly delicate, gorgeous conversions of Canon files. And MacBibble could at times, deliver great conversions. Nikon Capture was, at times, utterly superior to anything on Nikon RAWs, due to the D2x .NEF files having an encrypted white balance value, one that Adobe and SilkyPIX and MacBibble had to guess at, but which Nikon Capture 4.1 could discern with absolute certainty.

Anyway...I thought that Canon's "Faithful" color rendering was really gorgeous. During this week-long experiment, I also shot some of my Nikon primes on the Canon 5D body, checking Nikon 135mm f/2 DC against the Canon 135mm f/2-L lens, mixing them up, and shooting the same scenes with both lenses on the 5D, to see how those two lenses stacked up against one another.

 

[Braineack]

and when i said post-processing, i should have used in-camera processing...

 

[OldManJim]

This has been a really interesting thread. Thanks to all for posting, I learned a few things - which at my age is an accomplishment all by itself!

 

[photoflyer]

the way, I really,really,really used to like the look that was what Canon called "Faithful", which created just gorgeous images, and was not what I would call "faithful to reality", but more of what I always thought of as being, "idealized reality".

Do you no longer like Faithful or no longer shoot Canon?