-= 5D Mark IV owners unite! Post photos and discuss.

Canon 5D Mark IV with 70-200 L USM II

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Armando LaO Sr wrote in post #18251815
Canon 5D Mark IV with 70-200 L USM II

Hosted photo: posted by Armando LaO Sr in
./showthread.php?p=182​51815&i=i141486248
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

Welcome to POTN

Hey ... nobody ever welcomed me to POTN! Shouldn't I be aggrieved by this? Did it really count for so very much that I had nothing to present that was anywhere close as handsome as this particularly fine looking dog?

I will take advice and consider my position.

Thank you. I'm also a newbie on Canon. I switched over from Sony A 700

DaviSto wrote in post #18251835
Hey ... nobody ever welcomed me to POTN! Shouldn't I be aggrieved by this? Did it really count for so very much that I had nothing to present that was anywhere close as handsome as this particularly fine looking dog?

I will take advice and consider my position.

Welcome to POTN

You have picked an exceptionally nice Canon camera to start off with. I think you are going to enjoy it a lot.

No brand wars ... Sony make nice cameras too (I'm sure).

Welcome aboard!

ETS wrote in post #18251854
Welcome to POTN

LOL

What are you guys using to microadjust your lenses? Programs or DotTune? I tried the DotTune method for the first time and thought it was great until I actually used the camera/lens combos and saw how far off they were when shooting. Put one of my lenses back to 0,0 and the shots came out 10x better with that specific setup. Thinking about just buying Focal Pro to let the program do all of the work this next go around since I have two bodies and 7 lenses that take forever to mess around with.

Also, microadjusting is 100% worth it. I microadjusted my 5D3 with a couple of my lenses a few months after I got it and it was almost impossible to miss focus shooting split second shots of motocross riders which was surprising because it wasn't even a body build specifically for sports. Hoping I can get my 5DIV set up the same way soon.

I shoot mainly manual focus, but i still do mfa on those lenses, if for no other reason than the rate occasions i use the focus confirmation on the camera.

I havent use the auto programs, i just ise a chart i downloaded somewhere, focus with live view in line with the center point, shoot a few shots and adjust tille i get the sharpest image (along with the focus confirmation activating).

PJJ205 wrote in post #18252220
What are you guys using to microadjust your lenses? Programs or DotTune? I tried the DotTune method for the first time and thought it was great until I actually used the camera/lens combos and saw how far off they were when shooting. Put one of my lenses back to 0,0 and the shots came out 10x better with that specific setup. Thinking about just buying Focal Pro to let the program do all of the work this next go around since I have two bodies and 7 lenses that take forever to mess around with.

Also, microadjusting is 100% worth it. I microadjusted my 5D3 with a couple of my lenses a few months after I got it and it was almost impossible to miss focus shooting split second shots of motocross riders which was surprising because it wasn't even a body build specifically for sports. Hoping I can get my 5DIV set up the same way soon.

I hate doing MFA. I'm always second guessing my own results so I purchased FoCal. A couple of things. You should get Pro because Plus will not let you MFA past 400mm. Secondly you won't get full auto. It is not FoCal's fault. Canon won't release the SDK for the newer cameras. It is no big deal. You just have to enter manually enter MFA values 4 times when it asks you during the process. If you have Mac Sierra FoCal won't work with Canon.

From FoCal's blog page on December 2016.

After much effort trying to work-round the problem with Sierra and Canon it has come back to waiting for to update their interface libraries. Canon’s basic position is they aren’t yet ready to support Sierra, through various channels we think this will happen later this month or early next.

I have found found FoCal to be accurate and it will provided repeatable results. It did surprise me. I had the first version and had read mixed reviews about inaccurate results. At that time I had a lens that was out to lunch and I just wanted to verify it. On FoCal's blog it said they put a lot of effort into accuracy in version 2 and I can back that.

I just entered my 5D3 values into my 5D4. Lens and camera combos need little or none. My 1.4 III throws it off quite a bit which was the primary reason for me getting version 2.

I also purchased the hard target. FoCal warns about laser printers because the ink tends to reflect too much. They suggest to use ink jet. Mine is pretty cheap. I wanted to get the target printed at a local quick print place but they are all laser. I have to admit that I did get good results from my cheap printer but the hard target has crisp edges, it is thick plastic and will last forever. It is ready to go when I need it.

Lighting is important too. Can't use fluorescent because it flickers. The manual explains what to use. Since I shoot in daylight most of the time I decided to get a few daylight balanced studio CFL's. The don't flicker. Well they do but so fast the camera can't detect them. Incandescent light yielded good results but I figure I'k working with very expensive precision equipment thus decided to remove any possible variables. My MFA kit is in a tote and it is all there when I need it.

I think FoCal warns about CFL's as well. I went to Home Depot and tried to find suitable daylight balanced lighting but was not sure which prompted me to come up with the studio CFL's which were not expensive. Later I found this.

https://www.scientific​american.com …llacy-cfl-bulb-headaches/

PJJ205 wrote in post #18252220
What are you guys using to microadjust your lenses?

I use Spyder Lenscal. I got it free with a Spyder monitor calibrator a few years ago. It seems to work well. I use it indoors and then take outdoor shots of various static objects at a few different distances. Of all the bodies I've had, a 7D2 was the most finicky. The two bodies I have now (5D4 and 1DX2) have been spot on without needing any adjustment. Those are the first bodies I've had where that was the case.

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18252269
I use Spyder Lenscal. I got it free with a Spyder monitor calibrator a few years ago. It seems to work well. I use it indoors and then take outdoor shots of various static objects at a few different distances. Of all the bodies I've had, a 7D2 was the most finicky. The two bodies I have now (5D4 and 1DX2) have been spot on without needing any adjustment. Those are the first bodies I've had where that was the case.

Those types work well. I have lens align and I think TeamSpeed has a home made one. I have not used it in years. My problem is I have to think. I don't want to think when it comes to MFA. I want something to do that for me and I just plug in the numbers.

Before deciding to get FoCal version 2 I taped a bill to the wall and took a series of shots at different MFA values and analyzed them for hours. Then I did it again the next day just to be sure. I got +13 with my 100-400 II and 1.4 III. Then I used Focal and it told me that in about a minute.

It may have cost up front but I have blown that amount in weekend curling with the boys in Bonspiels. Are motto is Our Drinking Team Has A Curling Problem. We got t-shirts made up one year.

Taping a bill to the wall is how Liquidstone, a well respected birder from the Philippines does it. He also does it at MFD which breaks all the rules. You can't argue with his results.

A few years ago one of the members here said some company in Sweden (I think) that MFA's the long primes at around 21 ft. I inquired further but the person never responded.