# Calibrating Focus on 5D Mark III?



## dorian7

So I was shooting a newborn today with the 85mm 1.8 and I was using the point focusing and it the majority of my shots were out of focus or just not quite right. It seems to tend to front focus. Does anyone know how to correct for this? (without doing manual mode obviously)


----------



## Light Guru

Check out http://focuspyramid.com


----------



## MLeeK

Are you sure or were you shooting at f/1.8?


----------



## Big Mike

Tutorial - lens micro adjustment


----------



## dorian7

MLeeK said:


> Are you sure or were you shooting at f/1.8?



I am sure that most of them were out of focus. But yes I was shooting at 1.8. The reason I say I think it is front focusing is because nothing in the image appears to be in focus, so I am assuming it doesn't focus far enough out.


----------



## TCampbell

If you're focusing on the eyes then normally a front focus will give you a sharp nose with soft eyes.  It's usually not off by so much that nothing on a person's face is in focus.

When shooting a portrait, you'd normally focus specifically on the eyes.  f/1.8 is provides very thin DoF.  If the camera had focused on the nose and the focus was off, then at f/1.8 it's possible that nothing was in focus.

A focus target can let you test the lens.  I use a Spyder Lenscal, but you can actually download and print out your own focus targets.

Test the camera/lens combination against the focus target multiple times.  Each time, manually rotate the focus ring in to the minimum focus distance and test it several times to force the auto-focus to work to find focus.  Then manually rotate the focus ring out the maximum focus distance and repeat several more times.  The 5D III will let you program the camera to compensate for the focus error on the lens.

Unless you really want the paper-thin DoF, I'd consider increasing the f-stop slightly.


----------



## Derrel

You've seemingly been trying to find an excuse to return that camera since the day you bought it.


----------



## dorian7

Thanks for the suggestion! I will try that out. After reviewing my pictures I am wondering if I am just not using a fast enough shutter... Most were 1/80, 1/60 or some 1/100 so could that be part of the problem? I was always told 1/60 and above should be good. The other thing I am wondering is if I pressed the autofocus down and it locked then I moved a little without realizing it. Just doing some more test shots around the house makes it seem like the lens is pretty much spot on...


----------



## dorian7

Here is an example. It's not bad but it's not great.



ISO200, 1/80, f1.8


----------



## Derrel

With an 85mm lens, at that range, shot at f/1.8, you have about an inch or so of depth of field....only one plane will be in truly sharp focus, and things even slightly in front of and things located even a short distance behind that plane *will be out of focus*...

For example, look at the baby's eyes...they seem to be the sharpest part of the face....the nose, perhaps one inch in front of the plane of the eyes is...out of focus...this is simply...the way an 85mm lens renders its scenes when shot close, and shot wide-open...look at how totally OUT of focus the baby-blanket is, some four or so inches behind the eyes...the depth of field at this distance is very shallow...


----------



## gsgary

sound like a new driver has bought a supercar as their first car, the problem is behind the veiwfinder and not the camera at fault


----------



## dorian7

I get the DOF and how thin it is but if you look at that pic the eyes are not as sharp as a perfectly focused picture would have.


----------



## gsgary

dorian7 said:
			
		

> I get the DOF and how thin it is but if you look at that pic the eyes are not as sharp as a perfectly focused picture would have.



You only have to move a bit at F1.8 for it to be out of focus


----------



## Dao

Besides the razor thin DoF, shooting at 1/80 may causing a little motion blur.  Of course, it depends on how good your technique on taking photo without camera shake.

Personally, I prefer not just the eyes are in focus anyway.  I believe the photo will look better with a little deeper DoF.


----------



## dorian7

Thanks for the tips here is one that I am very happy with the focus:



ISO160, 1/100, f1.8

see how much better the eye on here looks than the earlier one I posted.


----------



## fjrabon

dorian7 said:


> Thanks for the tips here is one that I am very happy with the focus:
> 
> View attachment 24424View attachment 24425
> 
> ISO160, 1/100, f1.8
> 
> see how much better the eye on here looks than the earlier one I posted.



You're likely seeing the difference between an 85mm handheld shot with 1/80 sec v. 1/100 sec.  1/80 with an 85mm is starting to get to the territory where you will need good technique to really get tack sharp photos, where 1/100 is fast enough with an 85mm that you'd have to have bad technique to get unsharp photos.


----------



## JustinL

why is your shutter speed so slow at 1.8? It would seem like you're shooting in a dark room, use a flash get the shutter up more.


----------



## gsgary

Put your iso up 400 or 800 and close your aperture so both eyes are in focus


----------



## imagemaker46

That camera has a great iso range, use it.


----------



## MLeeK

Your problem has nothing to do with back or front focusing. It's the aperture, distance to the subject and the low shutter speed. 
Some people can hand hold as low as 1/50 of a second as long as your subject is a still life, however it's not very often. I always teach no slower than 1/80 if you are rock steady and your subject is not alive. 1/125 for the average steady person and a stationary not moving subject. 1/250 for a live child.


----------



## dorian7

Thanks for all the help everyone! I have been told in the past that you should be fine anything above 1/60, so I didn't give it a second thought until now. Next time I will turn the iso up and the shutter speed. I should work on my holding methods as well since there may be a time where turning up the iso is less of an option.


I love the wealth of knowledge on this forum. Thanks again.


----------



## MLeeK

dorian7 said:


> Thanks for all the help everyone! I have been told in the past that you should be fine anything above 1/60, so I didn't give it a second thought until now. Next time I will turn the iso up and the shutter speed. I should work on my holding methods as well since there may be a time where turning up the iso is less of an option.
> 
> 
> I love the wealth of knowledge on this forum. Thanks again.



In the meantime check out a DOF calculator and get a feel of how VERY shallow DOF will be at f/1.8 Online Depth of Field Calculator
At 5 feet from your subjects you had about 4 inches of REASONABLE sharpness front to back. The Circle of confusion is only .03MM. That's your sharpest point. Keith can explain DOF better than I can


----------



## DiskoJoe

What is the minimum focusing distance recommended for this lens?


----------



## MLeeK

DiskoJoe said:


> What is the minimum focusing distance recommended for this lens?


2.8 feet


----------



## dorian7

Thanks again for the tips guys. Here is another try ISO:1600, f1.8, 1/250. WAY SHARPER!!


----------



## MLeeK

dorian7 said:


> Thanks again for the tips guys. Here is another try ISO:1600, f1.8, 1/250. WAY SHARPER!!
> 
> View attachment 24607View attachment 24608


Congrat's! You are on the right path! It's a lot to learn, but you're getting the first steps in quick order!


----------



## panblue

still at f1.8 ;-))

yawn...Europe bids you all good night!


----------



## MLeeK

panblue said:


> still at f1.8 ;-))
> 
> yawn...Europe bids you all good night!


Translation: Get above f/1.8 until you have a FULL grasp of using depth of field and it will be even sharper.


----------

