foCal question

Sorry if this is not the correct section, but i figured it is the body that gets adjusted so maybe it is ok here. I see a few references to foCal software for micr adjusting lenses. I considered buying this. Question for anyone who has used this-Is it worthwhile and if so which version would be best for an enthusiast as opposed to pro. Thanks

I downloaded it when it was free a couple years ago and none of my lenses needed any adjustment on my 5D II. If you think one or some of your lenses are way off, you could consider it. Or you could run your own test. Angle the camera at 45 degrees with some printed material (preferably horizontal lines) and then see if the lens is off.

If you can't see that what you've focused on is really out of focus, I wouldn't worry about it.

jaomul wrote in post #15905828
Sorry if this is not the correct section, but i figured it is the body that gets adjusted so maybe it is ok here. I see a few references to foCal software for micr adjusting lenses. I considered buying this. Question for anyone who has used this-Is it worthwhile and if so which version would be best for an enthusiast as opposed to pro. Thanks

Actually, it's probably better for an enthusiast than a pro. A pro realises that time=money and that the time spent playing around with Micro Focus Adjustment is time spent not earning; for a result that is not likely to make any discernable difference to their final images.

Enthusiasts, on the other hand, tend to enjoy playing around with their gear and investigating all the possible ways of optimising performance. You'll read loads of people saying how vitally important MFA is, yet everybody managed without it for many, many years. Even when the 40D was released (after Canon had already produced MFA for the 1D) nobody complained about the lack of MFA.

So, what sort of difference can you expect? Well, it depends on whether or not your body or any of your lenses are almost out of spec. Here's what FoCal Pro produced for my Tokina 11-16. These are 100% crops at MFA values of -3, +1 and +4. As you can see, the difference is remarkable - remarkably small.

Thanks. I think one lens is focussing badly but my attempts at adjusting it are more miss than hit. I wil try again before I buy.

I used it to adjust my 7D and 5Diii, all lenses "needed" a little bit. I'm much more than an enthusiast and I want to do all I can to get the sharpest shot imaginable, and I have been, so I'm glad I took the time to do it.

rejay14 wrote in post #15906302
I used it to adjust my 7D and 5Diii, all lenses "needed" a little bit. I'm much more than an enthusiast and I want to do all I can to get the sharpest shot imaginable, and I have been, so I'm glad I took the time to do it.

So you would recommend it then? Which version did you use?

My experience has been different from Frank's. I'm nothing but an enthusiast/shoot for fun person, and probably a very poor photographer. I think a pro is expected to produce top quality pictures and he can't do so if his lens is front or back focusing on a particular camera body. Back in the day this pro would simply/have to run through numerous copies of a lens to find one that works well on his camera body. An enthusiast probably doesn't have the resources to do this so the advent of MFA in a body was wonderful. With MFA nearly ANYONE can keep their original copy of a lens and make it work well. For the most part no more trying numerous copies of a lens is required. Maybe that means news agencies that provide equipment to their shooters won't have to buy as many spare/backup lenses. And even pros get a day off to tweak/perfect their equipment. As a hobbyist I still strive for perfect, clear, sharp, whatever, images. I hope that my FoCal can see better that I can and help me to nail down the focus as needed. Before FoCal I tried shooting dozens and dozens of test images and evaluating them myself and it's a big pain in the ass. I feel using FoCal saves me a great deal of time in the beginning and then I make the last adjustment I think it needs, if any. I think FoCal or anything like it benefits pros and hobbyists equally. And, several of my lenses have needed and greatly benefited from MFA, some are adjusted by 7-10 steps. That amount is definitely discernible.

jaomul wrote in post #15906374
So you would recommend it then? Which version did you use?

Yes, I'd recommend it. I used version 1.6.0 Pro. Which body are you using? The 7D uses the fully automatic measurements, but the 5Diii requires you to press the shutter yourself. It's annoying, but it works.

Jeff

hollis_f wrote in post #15905884
Actually, it's probably better for an enthusiast than a pro. A pro realises that time=money and that the time spent playing around with Micro Focus Adjustment is time spent not earning; for a result that is not likely to make any discernable difference to their final images.

Enthusiasts, on the other hand, tend to enjoy playing around with their gear and investigating all the possible ways of optimising performance. You'll read loads of people saying how vitally important MFA is, yet everybody managed without it for many, many years. Even when the 40D was released (after Canon had already produced MFA for the 1D) nobody complained about the lack of MFA.

So, what sort of difference can you expect? Well, it depends on whether or not your body or any of your lenses are almost out of spec. Here's what FoCal Pro produced for my Tokina 11-16. These are 100% crops at MFA values of -3, +1 and +4. As you can see, the difference is remarkable - remarkably small.

What I suggest you do it to shoot a well-lit, flat target (not 45º - that will not work) that fills the viewfinder (a cereal packet is a good target). Put your camera on a tripod and take a shot with the lens wide open using autofocus. Then switch to live view and take a shot after manually focusing using the rear LCD. Compare the two images. The manually-focused shot should be the sharper. If the AF shot is significantly worse then you may benefit from MFA.

The other reason to purchase FoCal is for its play value. The Pro version gives you loads of toys and I reckon it was worth the extra.

I hope you chose +1. It looks like the Tokina is close to perfect regardless!

FoCal customer support sucks big time - they never refunded my purchase, despite the fact that it never worked for me (Windows XP SP3 laptop, which is officially supported). After a few months of waiting, I gave up on them.

Dot-tune is a free method for MA calibration, apparently as accurate or even better than Focal, and much faster. It is now implemented in alternative firmware Magic Lantern (their bleeding edge nightly release), so if your camera is supported, it is by far the most convenient way to do MA.

pulsar123 wrote in post #15907885
FoCal customer support sucks big time - they never refunded my purchase, despite the fact that it never worked for me (Windows XP SP3 laptop, which is officially supported). After a few months of waiting, I gave up on them.

Dot-tune is a free method for MA calibration, apparently as accurate or even better than Focal, and much faster. It is now implemented in alternative firmware Magic Lantern (their bleeding edge nightly release), so if your camera is supported, it is by far the most convenient way to do MA.

thanks. I googled dot-tune and came up with a link to the Fred Miranda site which explained it very well and simply. i am off work next few days so will give this a try.

rejay14 wrote in post #15906804
Yes, I'd recommend it. I used version 1.6.0 Pro. Which body are you using? The 7D uses the fully automatic measurements, but the 5Diii requires you to press the shutter yourself. It's annoying, but it works.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff, I am using a 7d. I will try this dot-tune method and if it doesn't do what i need foCal will be my next port of call

Can't go wrong with trying free things first!

Another good use for Focal is it gives you a shutter count