looking for better way to adjust microfocus

hollis_f wrote in post #15495300
Er, has anybody mentioned FoCal yet?

No but i think he should try FoCal. But not if you have a 5d3.

dexy101 wrote in post #15495451
No but i think he should try FoCal. But not if you have a 5d3.

lol.. definitely not with a 5D3. Smoke will billow out of the camera and your toilet will probably stop working.

Thats no good for me then ill need my toilet. And my camera, but not in combination.

On a lighter note, i have a mk3 and FoCal so i shall be using it sooner or later.

Ehhhh.... if you have the tool go ahead and use it.

But if not, you can get repeatable and excellent results using your LCD monitor, any of the many Googlable test charts (E.g. the old "TV test pattern" ones work just fine) and EOS Utility to tether, one-shot focus and make the adjustment.

It's fast, easy, accurate, repeatable and you don't have to buy anything.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk …s3_af_micoadjus​tment.html

I used the method outlined above to calibrate a 24-105 and a 70-200 f4 on a 5Dii. It is manual, but straightforward and precise. Very simple to do using live view. Showed me pretty clearly that -1 adjustment was better than zero on the 70-200 @ 200.
And it's 100% Free!

stevet20 wrote in post #15492901
Hi

I have used a piece of software called FoCal to automatically micro adjust and find it fairly easy and paint less. Take a look at http://www.reikan.co.u​k

Regards
Steve

DItto... and you'll notice I use it with a 5D3... works great.

scrane wrote in post #15495982
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk …s3_af_micoadjus​tment.html

I used the method outlined above to calibrate a 24-105 and a 70-200 f4 on a 5Dii. It is manual, but straightforward and precise. Very simple to do using live view. Showed me pretty clearly that -1 adjustment was better than zero on the 70-200 @ 200.
And it's 100% Free!

I've tried that method several times and have had no luck what so ever. I know others have had success so I must be doing something wrong I guess.

gjl711 wrote in post #15496086
I've tried that method several times and have had no luck what so ever. I know others have had success so I must be doing something wrong I guess.

Dunno. When the interference patterns emerge they are not as well defined as is shown in one of the illustrations. They also develop and dissolve within just a few calibration steps. You can get an idea of what you're looking for by simply adjusting focus manually before trying calibration values. I was lucky because the 70-200 only needed a correction of +1 and the 24-105@105 was dead on.
Once a value is determined it is very repeatable on the test target using live view. Then you can verify by actually snapping the shutter.
One thing I did not check is if an aperture change will shift the focal plane but this would be outside the control of the test.
Adjustments were verified only by not seeing mis focus on actual subjects.
Being free and relatively easy it might be something people might want to check out.
Sandy.

Wow . . . I am simply blown away at all of the responses and the extreme degree of helpfulness you all have shown - THANK YOU!

You've all given me a lot to look into, and it's going to take me some time to go thru the responses and, one by one, follow up on each of the suggestions given.

One thing I've seen mentioned several times in the responses is "tethered" and "untethered". I don't know what that means . . . guess I've got some hard-core learning to do!

stevet20 wrote in post #15492901
. . . and I find it is fairly easy and paint less.
Regards
Steve

Steve, I am quite glad the process is paint less - I really didn't want to have to get out the rollers and brushes for this!

h14nha wrote in post #15493807
Tom,
Are you unsatisfied with your images ? ? ? If so don't worry as wildlife shooters shoot stepped down a lot anyway. If you have a 400/300 2.8 and wish to shoot wide open that's different though..........

My keeper rate when using very long focal lengths is around 30%, which is probably normal for the type of work I do. However, I can't help but wonder if it would climb a bit - to perhaps 33% or 34% - if I had my big lens properly micro-adjusted.

Some of the "misses" are images in which the hairs on the animal's nose/muzzle is real nice & sharp, but the eye, a couple inches back, is very slightly soft. Or, in other images, the eye will be slightly soft, but the hairs on the ear (a couple inches behind the eye) will be razor sharp.

Of course, DOF is extremely thin at the long focal lengths, and I am bound to miss a lot of shots no matter what. But I just want to be sure that there is no slight front-focusing or back-focusing. At all. That's why I wanted to do this adjustment test - just to eliminate one of the possible variables that affect the "keeper ratio".

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15496354
One thing I've seen mentioned several times in the responses is "tethered" and "untethered". I don't know what that means

'Tethered' means connected to a PC (or Mac) with a USB cable. If you're doing this method (which used to be my favourite) then the computer displays the live-view image from the camera while you tweak the focus until it looks optimal. Then you write down the number of clicks needed and enter that number in as the MFA value.

If you use FoCal (my new favourite method) then the computer talks to the camera, does all the required adjustments, decides on the best value and tells the camera to use that value - all automagically.

Untethered means you take pics at different MFA values, stick the card in the computer, look at the images and decide which value gives the best result and enter that into the computer. It's very slow and tedious.

Yep... I'm a big fan of FoCal.... it's a bit of a bear to get the lighting bright enough for it... it's recommended to either do it outside, or with a really bright halogen... but... I set up 1000W worklights and it works rather well.

va_rider wrote in post #15496583
Yep... I'm a big fan of FoCal.... it's a bit of a bear to get the lighting bright enough for it... it's recommended to either do it outside, or with a really bright halogen... but... I set up 1000W worklights and it works rather well.

Brightness is definitely important. If you've got a studio strobe with decent modeling light, that should do it also. I use one of my X1600's.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #15492835
Tom, I assume you've looked at Focal? http://www.reikan.co.u​k/focalweb/

It's pretty good unless you're a 5D3 or 1DX owner...

Todd,

I used Focal with my 7D but haven't tried it with 5D III. What are the issues with the 5D III?

Buylongterm wrote in post #15497826
Todd,

I used Focal with my 7D but haven't tried it with 5D III. What are the issues with the 5D III?

It won't automatically set the MA values for you. You have to enter them via CFn menu.

Buylongterm wrote in post #15497826
Todd,

I used Focal with my 7D but haven't tried it with 5D III. What are the issues with the 5D III?

I think Reikan calls it "semi-automatic" testing.... basically, you set up the targets and whatnot... tell it to start the test:

It fires a shot at 0MA then prompts you to set to +10MA, then fires a shot. Then tells you to set to +20MA, then it fires a shot. Then tells you to set -10MA... and so on so on.

So.. all of the MA adjustments, you have to make. Both during the testing, and for the final value.