Tripod Detection System

[Kayaker72]

Does anyone know why the "tripod detection system" would stop working?

As you can see from my other posts, I went to shot Garwin Falls yesterday. I forgot to turn off my IS on the 5DIII + 24-105 combination. I usually do turn off my IS while shooting from a tripod, but I occasionally forget and I've never had a problem.

Until yesterday. About 90% of the shots from a tripod have incredible amounts of blur in them. I wish I would have taken the time to review my shots in the field, but I didn't. After seeing this last night, I thought it could be my tripod slipping on the ice or the IS issue, so I did several test shots around the house. About half the time, with IS on while mounted to a tripod, I had significant blur whereas with IS off, the pictures had no blur each time. I've been through the 5DIII manual and it indicates that there shouldn't be a problem because of the "tripod detection system," which was my understanding

I've tested my 70-200 f/2.8 II, and did not see the same issue. So, it could just be the 24-105 lens.

And, for the back story, I did slip on ice with the 24-105 about 3 weeks ago trying to get a shot for the "Near/Far" assignment. It seemed that the hood protected the lens, but I am wondering if perhaps this is the first sign that something internal is out of alignment.

Any thoughts?

[conropl]

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0807/tech-tips.html

Chuck Westfall recommends turning IS off when on a tripod for the 24-105L.

I have always turned IS off on my 24-105L because I have seen a noticeable difference when I do not. Not sure that is you problem or if something is broken... just my experience. The only way you are going to know for sure is to send it in to canon service.

[HDNitehawk]

I didn't look this up, but I thought the tripod detection thing was a lens by lens thing not a body thing. Some have it and some do not.
Is that not the case?

[peety3]

And, for the back story, I did slip on ice with the 24-105 about 3 weeks ago trying to get a shot for the "Near/Far" assignment. It seemed that the hood protected the lens, but I am wondering if perhaps this is the first sign that something internal is out of alignment.

Any thoughts?

I think it's time for the 24-105 to visit your friends at Canon.

[conropl]

I didn't look this up, but I thought the tripod detection thing was a lens by lens thing not a body thing. Some have it and some do not.
Is that not the case?

It is a lens thing... the camera should not matter. Westfall says all modern lenses since the 90's should have tripod detection. He even mentioned he 24-105mm specifically as having it. But tripod detection does not stabilize for mirror slap, and it does move some prior to locking in position after the shutter button is first pushed (can take up to a second to settle in). So do not push the shutter button to fast. However, the big whites also have a nice feature where the IS goes a step further when on a tripod, and will help to eliminate the effects of mirror slap... so in the case of those lenses, it is recommended that IS be left on (this includes your 500mm).

[HDNitehawk]

It is a lens thing... the camera should not matter. Westfall says all modern lenses since the 90's should have tripod detection. He even mentioned he 24-105mm specifically as having it. But tripod detection does not stabilize for mirror slap, and it does move some prior to locking in position after the shutter button is first pushed (can take up to a second to settle in). So do not push the shutter button to fast. However, the big whites also have a nice feature where the IS goes a step further when on a tripod, and will help to eliminate the effects of mirror slap... so in the case of those lenses, it is recommended that IS be left on (this includes your 500mm).

Thanks, I haven't seen where Westfall said this. I have seen where they talked about the big whites having it.

Brant; Speaking of service I am sure your this lens is one of your older lenses. Maybe check the contacts to make sure they are not dirty?

[conropl]

Thanks, I haven't seen where Westfall said this. I have seen where they talked about the big whites having it.

The link below is my source where he talks about IS and tripod detection... he was responding to a pretty lame question, but his answer dove in a little deeper (which was nice). It is a little dated, so his list of lenses does not include the version II of the 500mm and 600mm, but they would be included if it was updated.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0807/tech-tips.html

[ahab1372]

Brant, did you shoot with a remote? I had visible shake in long time exposures with my EF-S 15-85 on a tripod using the remote. I'm not sure if the EF-S lens simply doesn't have that feature, or if it still activates first (causing an upward shake in bright light sources) before it stabilized, as if it needs a split second to recognize that it is on a tripod. Actuating the shutter button maybe would have allowed that split second before exposure started, but with the remote it somehow did not. Just a theory though, I haven't really tested.


Arnt

[Kayaker72]

Thanks Everyone. I think the bottom line question is has anyone else experience significant (photo ruining) blurring with the IS On while mounted on a tripod? I suspect the answer is no. It could be that this has been the case all along and I've been much better than I recall at turning IS Off when on the tripod. But I doubt it.

@Arnt---I was using the 2 second time delay on Saturday and in my subsequent test shots. This morning I listened and I could hear the IS whirling during those two seconds, so it should have had enough time to settle in.

Everyone else, thanks for you input. I will be contacting Canon and probably sending it in as I suspect there is a problem. I updated to the recent firmware, cleaned the contacts (both lens and body are ~1 year old) and ran a series of optical tests. Fortunately, it checks out optically. My AFMA are essentially the same (0 adjustment at 105 mm from previous and -1 at 24 mm from previous), aperture sharpness test looks great, and the AF consistency test was ~98%. I also tested the IS and it seems to be giving me the ~2-2.5 stops of IS it typically had (I have never been too pleased with the IS on the 24-105. IS is much better on my other lenses, but it is an older generation of IS). I also took a bunch of random shots around the house and they all turned out as expected.

But right after my FoCal tests this morning, I tested the tripod detection system again and instantly saw the problem. First shot with IS Off was sharp. The next four shots with ISO On while mounted on the tripod ranged from minor, but visible, impact to image ruining effect. I'll try to post the pics soon.

Thanks again...seems like it is time to send the 24-105 home for a bit.

[conropl]

Thanks Everyone. I think the bottom line question is has anyone else experience significant (photo ruining) blurring with the IS On while mounted on a tripod? I suspect the answer is no. It could be that this has been the case all along and I've been much better than I recall at turning IS Off when on the tripod. But I doubt it.

The answer for me is: Yes I do see a difference with IS on... so I always turn it off. And that is with the 24-105mm L.

I have always turned IS off on my 24-105L because I have seen a noticeable difference when I do not. Not sure that is you problem or if something is broken... just my experience.