[Mychael]

Sorry for not putting the photo up as I know it would have made it easier to diagnose. Got deleted by mistake.

Anyway, taking that exposure was correct, the aperture was not set in such a way as to give a shallow dof, if I've set the focus to spot, confirmed the red dot was on the bit I wanted but later when the image was viewed on the computer I see that something else forward of what I'd focused on was sharper then where I'd focused would you say this is FF problem or operator error?

Thanks.

---

Last edited by Mychael; 11-19-2011 at 06:07 PM.

[Adam]

Depends on whether or not the camera focused where you thought it did. The easiest way to test it would be to try taking a few more photos, or using a test chart; you can't draw much of a conclusion from a single bad photo.

[Mychael]

Adam,
If say I put something large and bright (say unlit candles) in a retreating line (offset), then tried focusing the same way as I did before. Then would I be correct in assuming that if focusing was in tolerance I'd have the sharpest being the one I focused on.?
This is with auto focus lens, not one of my old primes. I'd set it to spot focus and clearly had the focus dot lit on the bit I wanted but it was the front that was sharp.

[ChrisA]

The red dot tells you which AF point the camera is using. It doesn't tell you whether the camera thinks it's focused there.

Did you also get the green hexagon that confirms a focus lock?

[Mychael]

The red dot tells you which AF point the camera is using. It doesn't tell you whether the camera thinks it's focused there.

Did you also get the green hexagon that confirms a focus lock?

Affirmative, positive lock was obtained lol. Steady green.

[sterretje]

It depends on how big your candles are in the viewfinder. Marc Sabatella has pointed out at a couple of occasions that the actual area that the camera uses is about the size (slightly smaller) of the rounded brackets in the viewfinder. So if only the square of the focus indicator covered the candle, there is a good chance that the camera focused on something in front (in your case) or behind that had more contrast.

[Mychael]

Ok, that's handy to know. I mentioned candles as perhaps a way to test but the actual photo I had issue with was a moss covered piece of wood. I was not in Macro but I was close.
What happened was that instead of the object I wanted sharp I got the immediate ground in front of it sharp but the subject was soft.

[ChrisA]

There's no alternative to a test chart and tripod (under different lighting conditions if necessary) for being certain of this kind of thing. I use the one at the bottom of this page, but anything would do that indicated unequivocally where the focus actually is, compared with where the camera thinks it is.

Ideally it needs to be done with a different body, too, to isolate the problem to the lens or the camera.

I have a DA 17-70 that's just gone in for repair (out of warranty, sadly, since I acquired it used), since it back-focuses more than the K-5 adjustment allows. It's gone in with printed test shots, showing the results on two bodies (K-5 and K10D) and also the result with a lens that's perfect.

[calicojack]

Ok, that's handy to know. I mentioned candles as perhaps a way to test but the actual photo I had issue with was a moss covered piece of wood. I was not in Macro but I was close.
What happened was that instead of the object I wanted sharp I got the immediate ground in front of it sharp but the subject was soft.

Can you reproduce the results and post them here? If not, try the test chart set up and either evaluate it yourself or post it and ask for opinions.

[Mychael]

Can you reproduce the results and post them here? If not, try the test chart set up and either evaluate it yourself or post it and ask for opinions.

Yes, Next weekend (It's Monday here now). When I'm free again I'll do some more tests and put up some images.
Thanks.