MA Inconsistent

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18745583
.
But doesn't using that device still require the photographer to look at the images and figure out what is in sharpest focus? . What if someone is incapable of looking at something and being able to tell what is really sharp and what isn't? . How would that kind of person do MA with your device?

I know that my questions may come across as critical and fault-finding, but that is not my intention. . I am genuinely curious about how to use your device (and other similar devices) if you can't look and see what is sharp and what isn't.

.

You do have to take photos and compare. The main point about targets like this is that your intended plane of focus is an easy target that you focus onto. The diagonal ruler has the 0 point right at that plane of focus, so it should be apparent if the 0 point is not in focus (and if a tick mark on the ruler is sharper in front of or behind). The only main critical point is that I have found it's sometimes hard to find what could be sharper with a step 1 MFA (but in most situations, that's getting too critical anyway).

digital paradise wrote in post #18745109
A member called joeseph found it at another location. Thanks very much for the help.

http://www.courtier.co​.nz …roAdjustGuide_d​esktop.pdf

actually I put it there so you could get a copy!

joeseph wrote in post #18745614
actually I put it there so you could get a copy!

I should have said you name. Thanks for that and the PM.

>> What about people who simply can't get their eyes and their brains to work together to determine what degree of sharpness they are seeing? <<

I wouldn’t know.
I guess it’s like with every single method out there …. It doesn’t work for everybody.

Personally I don’t use Spyder or LensAlign method or any method with a ruler. My favourite method is ‘’beer cans’’ method – similar to battery method except I use beer cans.

bpalermini wrote in post #18745292
I have good news. The technology you are looking for exists. I have been using FoCal software from Reikan for many years to adjust my lenses to my bodies. It has always worked well for me.

I checked their website and it looks like FoCal has many great features. Since I need to MA lenses greater than 400mm, I would have to buy the pro version.

But at BHP the user reviews are mixed. That gives me concern.

Good to hear that it works well for you.

Mathmans wrote in post #18745741
Personally I don’t use Spyder or LensAlign method or any method with a ruler. My favourite method is ‘’beer cans’’ method – similar to battery method except I use beer cans.

Beer cans or batteries, it's a similar method outlined in Canon's AF Microadjustment Guide Book. But instead of batteries, Canon uses blades of grass.

I tried using beer cans but it didn't work for me. After I "empty" a couple of cans all the images begin to look out of focus.

I've had a little inconsistency with the Sigma 35A, nothing too great though. That said it is important to have a good set up for MFA and as others are saying, follow proper procedures.

After doing this a number of times I like where I ended up with MfA. Here's my highly refined set up:

Photo from Left Handed Brisket's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (761767)

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #18745754
Beer cans or batteries, it's a similar method outlined in Canon's AF Microadjustment Guide Book. But instead of batteries, Canon uses blades of grass.

I tried using beer cans but it didn't work for me. After I "empty" a couple of cans all the images begin to look out of focus.

Your supposed to drink the beer first then it is more fun. The grass is a confirmation. Canon recommends doing initial MFA on a flat service. Not sure if anyone remembers but when MFA first came out people were using printed rulers only on a 45 degree angle. Then Lens Align came out. People made their own like Focus Genie.

I used that battery test as a confirmation to what focal told me. I wasn't sure about only one result FoCal gave me. My 7D2, 400 DO II and 1.4. Since that lens and TC's require a lot of that distance I don't have I rented a community college. They rent it out for $50 and hr and I have shot wedding/engagement gigs there. Lot's of space and a concrete floor. I ran out of time and the security was fine with it but I felt rushed and more people started walking around.

I didn't want to do that again so I decided to try it at home. Liquidstone (Romy Ocon) who is a very good birder and member does MFA at minimal focusing distance. I read about that a long time ago and asked him about it about a month ago at FM. He told me the closer you are and with a shallow DOF your fine tuning is more critical which makes it more precise. With distance it is more forgiving. I know that distance is supposed to effect MFA but you can't argue with his results. I reduced the FoCal target size and used the space I had at home. FoCal gave me a distance warning but I ran the test several times and then confirmed with the batteries.

I am not going to miss this when mirrorless takes over. I was going to ask yesterday - are we going to talk about this in 5 years?

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #18745744
I checked their website and it looks like FoCal has many great features. Since I need to MA lenses greater than 400mm, I would have to buy the pro version.

But at BHP the user reviews are mixed. That gives me concern.

Good to hear that it works well for you.

Mixed reviews come from old ones. FoCal was a little iffy at first but they put a lot of effort into it in subsequent versions. Inconsistency comes from not following instructions. Not lighting the target correctly or with the right lighting source. Lousy printed targets or not using the correct ink. FoCal does not recommend laser as the ink is too reflective. I must admit that printed targets using plain stock on my inkjet gave me good results. If you read my other post I printed another smaller sized target but on glossy stock for my last run and the edges are pretty sharp. It worked well.

I did purchase FoCal's hard target and I use two studio, daylight balanced CFL's to light the target because they don't flicker. Well they do but unlike fluorescent it is so fast the camera can't detect it. When I was researching all of this I found this. I only paid $12 for Studio CFL's but you can get them at Home Depot.

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

According to FoCal you can use incandescent lighting which I thought worked OK. The reason I use daylight balanced is because I shoot in outdoors so I was doing this before I found that Canon MFA guidebook. As far as I'm concerned that is the best and most comprehensive one do date. The first time Canon actually talks about 50X and at the distance you normally shoot at. All other documents either say 50X or the distance you normally shoot at. Even the manual does not mention 50X. That was one reason why I had a love/hate relationship with MFA for so many years. Which one is it Canon? You have the engineers. Make up your mind

Also it is the first document that talks about the light source. That was why I got ticked off when I couldn't find it anymore.

digital paradise wrote in post #18745818
Mixed reviews come from old ones. FoCal was a little iffy at first but they put a lot of effort into it in subsequent versions. Inconsistency comes from not following instructions. Not lighting the target correctly or with the right lighting source. Lousy printed targets or not using the correct ink. FoCal does not recommend laser as the ink is too reflective. I must admit that printed targets using plain stock on my inkjet gave me good results. If you read my other post I printed another smaller sized target but on glossy stock for my last run and the edges are pretty sharp. It worked well.

I did purchase FoCal's hard target and I use two studio, daylight balanced CFL's to light the target because they don't flicker. Well they do but unlike fluorescent it is so fast the camera can't detect it. When I was researching all of this I found this. I only paid $12 for Studio CFL's but you can get them at Home Depot.

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

According to FoCal you can use incandescent lighting which I thought worked OK. The reason I use daylight balanced is because I shoot in outdoors so I was doing this before I found that Canon MFA guidebook. As far as I'm concerned that is the best and most comprehensive one do date. The first time Canon actually talks about 50X and at the distance you normally shoot at. All other documents either say 50X or the distance you normally shoot at. Even the manual does not mention 50X. That was one reason why I had a love/hate relationship with MFA for so many years. Which one is it Canon? You have the engineers. Make up your mind

Also it is the first document that talks about the light source. That was why I got ticked off when I couldn't find it anymore.

Ok, that's good information. About the mixed reviews on BHP, many are from this year, not old ones.
Complaints about the s.w. being buggy and not performing as it should. But reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt.
I'll buy FoCal and see for myself.

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #18745955
Ok, that's good information. About the mixed reviews on BHP, many are from this year, not old ones.
Complaints about the s.w. being buggy and not performing as it should. But reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt.
I'll buy FoCal and see for myself.

Just so you know it is not fully automatic. Canon stopped releasing code that FoCal needs on newer cameras. It stops 4 times during the process and asks you to enter -20, -10, +10 and +20. It is not a big deal. For me anyway.

>> I tried using beer cans but it didn't work for me. After I "empty" a couple of cans all the images begin to look out of focus. <<

No pain, no gain they say. 

Here is my setup. I was doing AF fine tune to my 85 f1.8G.
The setup is lit with one 500W halogen reflector, one 150W wolfram bulb and one led light. The light seems to work OK because I get no focus shift in daylight.

This is what throws me off when I do this. While the text is sharp it still looks like it is back focusing. 1 is sharper than 2 yet the text at 3 looks more OOF than 4. The can to the right of centre is turned is turned more to the left than the centre and left one. It is more than likely fine but when I go back to review my shots I see these things I'm not sure. Even with everything orientated in line. The gold text below the name looks more in focus on the left can as well.

I have been using the dot tune method for all my lenses.
It is fairly simple and from my experience it gives very good results.

It needs to be done in good light though. If it is too dark the results will be a bit off..
https://youtu.be/7zE50​jCUPhM

>> This is what throws me off when I do this. While the text is sharp it still looks like it is back focusing. 1 is sharper than 2 yet the text at 3 looks more OOF than 4. The can to the right of centre is turned is turned more to the left than the centre and left one. It is more than likely fine but when I go back to review my shots I see these things I'm not sure. Even with everything orientated in line. The gold text below the name looks more in focus on the left can as well. <<


This is the original image without using horizon tool in post.
This method is not 100% accurate but gives me good enough results and I get sharp eyes in real life shooting.

I think LensAlign also is not 100% accurate because ruler is on the side of the target.