Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 11, 2011, 10:42 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default E3 Auto focusing issues .. some further thoughts

Hey Guys...

Apologies for not being so active on the forum lately.. been up to my eyeballs with work, planning shoots and then been without a reliable internet connection at home for the last 2 weeks (feels like Im back in the stone age!)

I was back in studio last Monday for another shoot and as usual shot 5-6 different looks with approx 450+ images from the 8 hours. Now usually, I've always come across approx. 5-10% of the pics to be front focusing - usually on the shoulder or hands if their up close to the face even if the focus point was set to the eyes (any focus point inc centre focus). Its been a major bug bear and one that's spoilt some pretty nice pics. However, for this shoot I left the E3 + 35-100F2 with Adrian while I was helping to set things up and he did two things - removed the lens hood and the Hoya UV filter (its the super thin pro version) before I started to shoot.

The results... out of all the pics that I've looked at so far and in detail ( approx 110+) none of them have any FF issue what so ever. Where the AF is on the eyes its bang on the eyes which has surpised me a fair bit. I'm planning on checking each pic over the next few days to see if there are any FF pics.

I've had the lens and the E3 for nearly 3 years now and thats the first time I have ever used the 35-100 F2 without the filter or the lens hood. I'm now wondering if some of the AF issues that we've seen with the E3 and now possibly with some E5's be down to filters on the lens? However, I have used the F2 (inc the same filter) with the E1 and never had any FF issues with that combo.

On another note, another prob that I've had with the E3 esp in studio is that the LCD and the jpeg's were always way too warm even with the correct WB being set, so I changed the setup on the camera from Natural to Portrait. Instantly - not only did the LCD preview pics look as accurrate as the 1D KII but the jpegs out of the camera too.


Cheers

Harj

PS

I got to play with Adrian's EOS 1D MKII and I've got to agree with rovingtim over at DPR that the E3 is a mini 1D. I never really noticed how close they are until I picked up the 1D last Monday - from grip layout, on/off buttons, the eye cup, the various other buttons on the back their practically the same and in hand the 1D feels a lot like the E3 to hold although it does feel a lot heavier.

Last edited by HarjTT; Jul 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM.
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 11, 2011, 1:31 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarjTT View Post
I've had the lens and the E3 for nearly 3 years now and thats the first time I have ever used the 35-100 F2 without the filter or the lens hood.
Cheers

Harj
Wow - that's the first time I've ever heard someone trace a quirky AF to a filter and hood. Can you test to see of it's actually both - the hood would really surprise me. If I owned that lens (wait, I do) I'd be real nervous without at least the protection of the lens hood.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2011, 6:17 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi Harj,

thanks for pointing out your experiences with the lens hood and filter. Something that I wouldn't have thought to check.

I don't generally use any filter opting, instead to protect my lenses by having the lens hood on at all times. Seems to work as I've yet to damage or scratch a lens even though, I've managed to drop the camera- lens and all a couple of times.

You made reference to a comment made by Roving Tim @ Dpreview.com
i've not been able to find it at that site. Any guesses as to when that thread was
first posted?

Thanks,
Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2011, 8:39 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,901
Default

That is interesting. I tend to agree with Ted, I can believe that the glass/air boundary of the filter could impact the focus, but would not think that a hood could do it. Would definitely be interested in a comparison with the filer only, and the hood only.
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2011, 12:04 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Hi Guys

So far I've checked another 30+ and no FF or OF issues on any of them. I think I need to take into account whether the models been moving etc when the shots been taken as well but I have pics of Liz from previous shoots and she's just stationary and theyre clearly FF.

Ted/Steve/Zig -With the E1 + 35-100F2+filter+hood I don't ever remember getting a FF image, so I still think its Oly's AF and specifically the E3's thats suspect but I've been taken by surprise that I've yet to see a pic thats not out of focus. I don't think its the hood but the filter may be ? I need to do some further testing and keep on checking the pics.

This isn't the original post by Tim at dpr but this one does have a pic of the E3 and 1D side by side:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...4433115&page=3

Copyright of [email protected]

HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17, 2011, 10:27 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

1/ filters were common for AF issues at the beginning of the AF era in film, I really think they are more of a hindrance to us than anything else. Sure Polarisers have benefits but I question anything else. Especially given that crop formats are more hurt by optical inefficiencies that FF format, any incongruence caused by a filter will cost 2x what it would on FF.

2/ another cause for concern with E3 AF is very bright light on the AF sensor, potentially a poor hood fit could contribute there, but no hood, not so sure.....

3/ On DPR its become 'trendy' for some people to take offence at any suggestion to investigate AF issues, so be careful what you wish for if you take this over there

4/ for warm images, I 3x duplicate the image into 3 layers, and convert each layer into one blue, one red and one green. You can heavily de-noise the blue channel, and a bit less on red, but lightly does it on green channel, delete all settings for colour noise you should only be interested in luminance noise. Now merge the three together using 30% opacity for red and blue, and 40% for green. My script lightly sharpens each layer (in separate settings) too but you might prefer to do this later. Colours for me are often very natural, but then I don't shoot what you shoot. Sometimes this is the only escape for me to preserve very fine detail from being obliterated by NR (even at the lightest settings) needed for somewhere else on the image, rebalancing the colour and contrast are just a sideshow for that but it werks....

Last edited by Rriley; Jul 17, 2011 at 10:46 AM.
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2011, 7:15 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rriley View Post
1/ filters were common for AF issues at the beginning of the AF era in film, I really think they are more of a hindrance to us than anything else.
I wonder about the ratio of those that put on a filter and those that do not?

I debated this with a colleague who swears by them in order to protect the lens. I figure, the cap and hood should be adequate?
__________________
________________________
AKA Dan

Last edited by TekiusFanatikus; Jul 19, 2011 at 7:16 PM. Reason: clarification
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2011, 3:42 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

As for protection, lenses most at risk are long lenses due to size, and wides like 7-14 due to bulbous front element, and the distortion of reality when looking through it means you can bump into stuff pretty easy, but then 7-14 has the blessing that you cant screw a filter on it anyway.

To my knowledge this issue of filters has come up around 4x on DPR before all things AF became really nasty in discussion, where just asking about settings (for which there did seem to be some worthwhile provenance) would descend into complete nonsense and catfights. There were specific examples of 35-100's with filters misfocussing, and I became so convinced by that I ditched using all filters excepting polarisers and Grad ND. Certainly for the main, using filters for protection is out unless shooting around salt water. I might add this is also true to other marques, and there are plenty of conversations about filters (mostly on longer lenses) in the canon forum as well.

One other factor for E3 AF came into play with SHG glass, the matter of battery crank. Hawiigeek (now a Nikon FF user) discovered that using the additional power of a grip resolved his AF issues convincingly. He had an attended issue with his 35-100 of repeated misfocus, he had experimented with settings and various phenomena to no avail, and his misfocussing would come and go ad hock, until one day he noticed that with a grip, much less failures.

And that makes sense, in the pro circumstance the proclivities of multiple battery management you lose track of how old various batteries are, and where we should realise that aged batteries have rather less power. Myself I have 5 BLM1's and attempt to manage around 50 AA's for flash. I find it particularly difficult just managing the AA's, being always aware that there are more than a few of these cells that are now quite old.

That might be another thing Harj has to consider, that is unless he's using a grip already ....

Last edited by Rriley; Jul 20, 2011 at 3:48 AM. Reason: additions ..
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2011, 5:45 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekiusFanatikus View Post
I wonder about the ratio of those that put on a filter and those that do not?

I debated this with a colleague who swears by them in order to protect the lens. I figure, the cap and hood should be adequate?
Dan, this is one of two questions that gets debated at least annually over at DPR, and often at Fourthirdsphoto. (The other is, I lost the hot shoe cover - do I really need to replace it?) There are, as you noted, two camps.

One is those that use a protective filter because:
a) It saved one of their lenses from damage, or someone they know, or read about in a number of posts in forums; and/or
b) they need to clean their lenses a lot because they're shooting outdoors, and would rather repeatedly clean a filter than the front element of an expensive lens.

The other camp comprises folks who feel the lens hood offers enough protection and they are convinced that a filter degrades the image.

I must say that I've never before heard that a filter affects the autofocus of a DSLR lens.

Ted

Edit: When I wrote this I hadn't seen Rriley's post, where he says there have been folks state that a filter causes misfocusing. I believe him, I just haven't seen those posts. But no one can keep track of all the posts at DPR if they have a day job.

Last edited by tkurkowski; Jul 20, 2011 at 5:49 AM.
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2011, 6:38 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rriley View Post
As for protection, lenses most at risk are long lenses due to size, and wides like 7-14 due to bulbous front element, and the distortion of reality when looking through it means you can bump into stuff pretty easy, but then 7-14 has the blessing that you cant screw a filter on it anyway.

To my knowledge this issue of filters has come up around 4x on DPR before all things AF became really nasty in discussion, where just asking about settings (for which there did seem to be some worthwhile provenance) would descend into complete nonsense and catfights. There were specific examples of 35-100's with filters misfocussing, and I became so convinced by that I ditched using all filters excepting polarisers and Grad ND. Certainly for the main, using filters for protection is out unless shooting around salt water. I might add this is also true to other marques, and there are plenty of conversations about filters (mostly on longer lenses) in the canon forum as well.

One other factor for E3 AF came into play with SHG glass, the matter of battery crank. Hawiigeek (now a Nikon FF user) discovered that using the additional power of a grip resolved his AF issues convincingly. He had an attended issue with his 35-100 of repeated misfocus, he had experimented with settings and various phenomena to no avail, and his misfocussing would come and go ad hock, until one day he noticed that with a grip, much less failures.

And that makes sense, in the pro circumstance the proclivities of multiple battery management you lose track of how old various batteries are, and where we should realise that aged batteries have rather less power. Myself I have 5 BLM1's and attempt to manage around 50 AA's for flash. I find it particularly difficult just managing the AA's, being always aware that there are more than a few of these cells that are now quite old.

That might be another thing Harj has to consider, that is unless he's using a grip already ....
I've never really thought about the power requirements necessary to move lenses, especially the telephoto zooms, to their af point quickly. It does stand to reason that a grip with fresh batteries might make the difference.

Thanks for posting

Zig
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 AM.