Nov 03, 2013 10:20 | #1 Wondering who all has used the FoCal software, and if it worked and was worth the investment. Cameras: 7D2, S100
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Bakewell Goldmember 1,385 posts Joined Jan 2006 Location: Irvine, CA More info | Nov 03, 2013 13:55 | #2  Permanent banKeyan wrote in post #16420777  Wondering who all has used the FoCal software, and if it worked and was worth the investment. Looking at the "plus" version with the automatic mode. http://www.reikan.co.uk ….php/versions/focal-plus/ I feel like my 17-55 is front focusing on my 70D...and figure since this body supports MFA I might as well calibrate my lenses to it. It's very easy and very inconsistant. Maybe the soon to be released 2.0 version will be better. We can only hope. Dave
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Stone13 Goldmember  1,690 posts Likes: 8 Joined Aug 2009 Location: Huntersville, NC More info | Nov 03, 2013 15:40 | #3 I have FoCal Pro, I've used it on both my 7D & 5DIII and the results have always been very good. Having said that, none of my lenses have required more than +/-3 at the most so I'm not sure how much real world benefit I've gained but it does make MFA very easy... Ken
LOG IN TO REPLY |
windpig Chopped liver  More info | Nov 03, 2013 18:47 | #4 FoCal kicks butt! I spent hours and hours and hours before FoCal. It's not perfect, nothing will be, but it was easy to set up and then get into a production line with my lenses and bodies. Would you like to buy a vowel?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
steve126a Member 125 posts Likes: 2 Joined Mar 2013 Location: Michigan More info | Has anyone figured out how to get it to work with a 5d mkIII in automatic mode? Or does everyone just use the "dot tune" type of feature? Canon EOS 5D Mark III | Canon EOS 6D | Canon 85mm ƒ/1.8 | Canon 100mm ƒ/2.8 Macro | Canon 24-70L ƒ/2.8 II | Canon 17-40L ƒ/4 | Canon 70-200LII ƒ/2.8 | Canon 135L ƒ/2| 2 Canon 580EX II's | Canon 430EX II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Stone13 Goldmember 1,690 posts Likes: 8 Joined Aug 2009 Location: Huntersville, NC More info | Nov 03, 2013 20:51 | #6 steve126a wrote in post #16422049 Has anyone figured out how to get it to work with a 5d mkIII in automatic mode? Or does everyone just use the "dot tune" type of feature? Canon's SDK doesn't allow for the programmatic changing of mfa values on the 5DIII, so it's a manual process, but still very quick. Ken
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 04, 2013 04:57 | #7 If you can read the instructions and follow them then it should give accurate results every time. It (the Pro version) certainly has done so for me. Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DerDembo Member 53 posts Joined Aug 2009 More info | Nov 04, 2013 07:03 | #8 It is a very valuable tool but you need to have some basic understanding on how to perform experiments/measurements. I fear that simply running it in all auto might lead to confusing results.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 04, 2013 08:05 | #9 The real important thing about FoCal is the same as the most important thing in photography - the light. The best option is bright, unvarying natural light. I get best results if I use it outdoors on a sunny day, but in the shade or on one of the UKs bright but grey-skied days. Or next to a window on a bright day - but again, not with direct sunshine. Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 04, 2013 12:06 | #10 Thanks for the feedback all. Cameras: 7D2, S100
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nukehed Senior Member More info | I will confirm the need for lots of good steady light. I've used it with 2 cameras and 2 lenses. I have not to adjust of more than 2-3 on the MFA scale. "There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."- Ed Howdershelt
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BodyResults Member  124 posts Likes: 7 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Seattle More info | Nov 04, 2013 13:05 | #12 Are they still responding to support issues?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Bakewell Goldmember 1,385 posts Joined Jan 2006 Location: Irvine, CA More info | Nov 04, 2013 15:05 | #13 Permanent banhollis_f wrote in post #16422836 If you can read the instructions and follow them then it should give accurate results every time. It (the Pro version) certainly has done so for me. Let's see if I have this right. If I read the instructions and follow them it will give me accurate results every time.. So if I do the tests twice without changing any parameters and get totally different results (3-4 points at least) the second time ...I'm doing something wrong? Enlightenment please! Maybe it's atmospheric conditions? I may not be a "scientist" but I thought results needed to be repeatable. HHHmmmm. This software is full of issues as witnessed by numerous people on this forum in numerous threads. It shouldn't take a "scientist" to have it function correctly. Dave
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 04, 2013 16:56 | #14 Bakewell wrote in post #16424084 Let's see if I have this right. If I read the instructions and follow them it will give me accurate results every time.. So if I do the tests twice without changing any parameters and get totally different results (3-4 points at least). When a scientist does an experiment they very rarely expect to get the exact same result every single time, we call it experimental variation. If I use a highly sensitive balance to weigh something several times then I expect to get a range of results. If I use FoCal to determine the optimum MFA value several times then I would expect to get a range of results.  But I would expect each of the results to give me an image that was acceptably good. Here is the graph showing one run of (a very old version of) FoCal. The optimum MFA value was given as -1, but looking at the graph it's easy to see that the recorded values at -3, -2 and +1 are all very close to the optimum. Indeed, examination of the actual test images shows that they are, to the human eye, identical. So it would be no surprise if FoCal were to give different results when run multiple times. But those different results would all be good results, because a small difference in a MICRO Focus Adjust value normally inconsequential. Far from being "totally different" a range of 4 results in images that are indistinguishable  When you take into account the normal variance in AF then these small differences become even more unimportant. FoCal Pro allows one to acquire data that shows how the image sharpness varies from shot-to-shot. When I've tried this I've normally found the range is around +/- 2%. Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Bakewell Goldmember 1,385 posts Joined Jan 2006 Location: Irvine, CA More info | Permanent ban Your example/pictures seem to indicate a range of eight places (-3 to +4) would be a reasonable outcome. You say that range is indistinguishable. That's a variance of +/- 2% ? Don't think so. Maybe I'm being too picky but any of eight choices (out of twenty) isn't acceptable to me... Dave
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is ealarcon 1103 guests, 166 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
