# AFMA Reikan FoCal vs Lens Align vs anything else



## pwp (Feb 16, 2017)

I think I've been one of the lucky ones. Every Canon body and lens I've had over the last decade has been perfect right out of the box, AFMA settings were never shifted from zero with the single exception of a 135 f/2 which needed + 15 to get good results.

I have a recently acquired 1DX that seems just a bit off with 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8IIis and 300 f/2.8is. I have an Lens Align MkI target, but my efforts have delivered results that are all over the shop. 

Maybe the whole AFMA thing has evolved since I bought Lens Align MkI years ago. What's the best system in 2017 for a relatively impatient, busy shooter who has been used to things just working out of the box?

Reikan FoCal
http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/

Lens Align from Michael Tapes
http://michaeltapesdesign.com/lensalign.html

Neuro's article posted at The Digital Picture a few years ago when Lens Align was king...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/af-microadjustment-tips.aspx

and Canon's free AFMA Guidebook (looks a bit flimsy...)
https://www.slrlounge.com/canons-free-autofocus-microadjustment-guidebook/

-pw


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 16, 2017)

pwp said:


> What's the best system in 2017 for a relatively impatient, busy shooter who has been used to things just working out of the box?



The big box option is the one that requires the least work.
Get a CPS memebership.
Put the lenses and body in the box and ship them to Canon to adjust.

None of them are worth much if you are impatient and do not have time.
But if I were doing it myself I would do FoCal.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 16, 2017)

Works fine using the camera LCD with a pair of reading glasses. Five to 10 mins per lens. 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=736849&gclid=CObbx_Xmk9ICFQVAhgodBEQMGg&Q=&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C89827194362%2C&is=REG&A=details

You'll be happy to see how easy it is.


----------



## pwp (Feb 16, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > What's the best system in 2017 for a relatively impatient, busy shooter who has been used to things just working out of the box?
> ...



Thanks, I'm a Platinum CPS member and live 15 minutes from our local CPS. Sounds time consuming and expensive. FoCal seems to be the home/studio option most people are referencing.

-pw


----------



## pwp (Feb 16, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Works fine using the camera LCD with a pair of reading glasses. Five to 10 mins per lens.
> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=736849&gclid=CObbx_Xmk9ICFQVAhgodBEQMGg&Q=&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C89827194362%2C&is=REG&A=details
> You'll be happy to see how easy it is.



Thanks, this looks functionally similar to my LensAlign target.

-pw


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 16, 2017)

Canon will fix camera body or lens and is by far the best solution.

My 2nd choice is FoCal. There is far more involved than just setting up a target and adjusting for accurate autofocus with that lens at that distance under whatever lighting you are using. Change distance or light color even, and the problem may appear again. Focal cannot fix that, but it can identify the issue. It can also test each autofocus point and tell you if any are not working right. You will find that some AF points work better than others. There are a lot of things Focal can help detect, but they have to be fixed by Canon.

My 3rd choice is one of the targets and a manual adjustment. If the AF does not vary by more than say 5 or6 points at various distances, a number in between will be just fine. Zooms get more comples with newer cameras allowing settings at each end of the zoom range, but various distances that you use need to be checked. The 50X focal length rule of thumb is a starting point.

My 4th choice is the dot tune method, it relies on the Canon focus indicator to tell you focus has been achieved, but it has a lot of latency that can throw off the accuracy. Even so, it will greatly improve a lens that is badly in need of adjustment


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 16, 2017)

A year ago I bought lens align and found a complete waste of money. I do not trust it a bit, because with different number of shots you get vastly different adjustment numbers. Makes zero methodological sense. Anything is better than that.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2017)

Zeidora said:


> A year ago I bought lens align and found a complete waste of money. I do not trust it a bit, because with different number of shots you get vastly different adjustment numbers. Makes zero methodological sense. Anything is better than that.



How can lens align be wrong? It's just a static target on which you focus. It's far more likely that you are just seeing instead the incosistency of the camera's AF or other artefacts.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 16, 2017)

Zeidora said:


> A year ago I bought lens align and found a complete waste of money. I do not trust it a bit, because with different number of shots you get vastly different adjustment numbers. Makes zero methodological sense. Anything is better than that.



Which is why every method says take multiple shots and use an average reading.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Feb 16, 2017)

Zeidora said:


> A year ago I bought lens align and found a complete waste of money. I do not trust it a bit, because with different number of shots you get vastly different adjustment numbers. Makes zero methodological sense. Anything is better than that.



Lighting on the target can make a big difference as does ensuring you have the alignment very accurate and stable. Be sure you have consistent (LED's and Fluorescent lamps flicker and can cause issues for AF). And fairly bright lighting 11+ EV to really be sure your contrast is sufficient - for either lensalign or focal.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 16, 2017)

pwp said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



I shipped mine and it took a total of 7 days, including shipping. So the actual work probably only took 2 days. I had the time to spare so thought I would give it a try.

As for what it cost it was free, if your body is less than a year old no matter if the lenses is a few years old, they will do all the lenses at no charge. I would imagine if your lens is less than year they would do it and multiple bodies as well.

FoCal is the best option IMO for doing it at home. The zooms you listed are some of the more difficult to do. If you are doing three or four lenses on a new body I know I would spend several hours messing with it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2017)

pwp said:


> What's the best system in 2017 for a relatively impatient, busy shooter who has been used to things just working out of the box?
> 
> Neuro's article posted at The Digital Picture a few years ago when Lens Align was king...
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/af-microadjustment-tips.aspx



Now I use FoCal...


----------



## cayenne (Feb 16, 2017)

Just started looking at the CPS program.

I estimate I have about 73 points..so, I could qualify for most of the categories.

What does the lens/body adjustment fall under? Would this be qualified under "Canon Maintenance Service for DSLR & EF " ?

I would want to get them to make sure my lenses all work with my body.

I'd be sending:

5D3
11-24L
24-70L II
70-200L 2.8 II


And maybe the 24-105L kit lens and 85 1.4.....

You just pack those all in a box and send it off to Canon, they adjust and send them all back?

That brings up my question, what do ya'll use to pack this equipment safely and securely, and I'm assuming you use something like FedEx and insure it to the hilt?

I find myself missing focus a good bit...and hoping maybe it is adjustment and that the problem isn't behind the camera.


Aside from the lens/body adjustments...what are the primary other benefits you get out of this? 

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 16, 2017)

cayenne said:


> Just started looking at the CPS program.
> 
> I estimate I have about 73 points..so, I could qualify for most of the categories.
> 
> ...



You might get them to clean your camera and lenses.
I used UPS so I could track it. Since the bodies were within the years warranty Canon sent me a label.
I took the lenses to UPS and they helped pack. But basically we just wrapped everything in bubble rap and then in a box full of peanuts. It came back in a similar manner, but you can tell that CPS doesn't take as much care packing as we do for our own gear.

I believe they would consider it a repair.


----------



## GammyKnee (Feb 16, 2017)

For every do-it-yourself method you'll find people who've had a good experience and others who haven't. If you've don't mind the hassle then the Canon option should always be best, but even then success is reliant on your equipment going to a techie who does their job properly.

Personally I've made my own version of the LensAlign target and I use it in conjunction with the DotTune method (always in decent natural light) and then use real world shooting as a sanity check. For me this quick, low-hassle method gets an afma value that is good enough given the amount of shot-to-shot variation that goes hand-in-hand with PD AF anyway. Only time it let me down was with a lens that was misbehaving anyway (Canon EF50 f/1.4)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2017)

cayenne said:


> Just started looking at the CPS program.
> 
> Aside from the lens/body adjustments...what are the primary other benefits you get out of this?



Lens/body adjustment is not a 'benefit', you have to pay for it unless your gear is still under warranty. The benefits are a few free clean-and-checks, a discount on repairs, equipment evaluation loans, faster repair turnaround, and repair loaners (all depend on your level of membership Silver/Gold/Platinum).


----------



## cayenne (Feb 16, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Just started looking at the CPS program.
> ...



Oh, thanks for the clarification Neuro!!

Could you or someone give me an idea about what the charges would be for the adjustment of body to 4-5 lenses like I listed in my original post?

Thanks in advance!!

C


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2017)

I have never used CPS for lens adjustments and all I know is the gossip form CR. It seemed at one stage to be the received wisdom that Canon would match a lens with a camera and not set each lens and each body to zero. Is this true?


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 16, 2017)

It was my understanding they actually make physical changes to the lens or camera with the intent to bring it within spec. For instance one of my lenses was off an equal amount on both bodies I sent in. When it was returned it tested out the same on both bodies with Focal, which was 0. Repair order indicated adjustments to the lens.

I am not sure I follow your question, but each lens they returned required no adjustment and were at 0.

I think it is incorrect to say that Canon is doing an AFMA (auto focus manual adjustment). They are not, they are doing a repair to bring the body and lens to meet specification. 

But other than the conversation with the tech and the limited information they give back after repair it is difficult to tell what they actually do.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 16, 2017)

Ok please indulge a newbie question...and maybe just put me on the path I need to research and where...

But without buying any software, etc....is there an in camera way to see if your lens and body match, or what the AFMA is or should be...etc.?

Is there a way to verify you have a problem before you package up all your lenses and send them in..?


Thanks in advance,

C


----------



## GammyKnee (Feb 16, 2017)

AlanF said:


> I have never used CPS for lens adjustments and all I know is the gossip form CR. It seemed at one stage to be the received wisdom that Canon would match a lens with a camera and not set each lens and each body to zero. Is this true?



Old comments from Chuck Westfall state that bodies and lenses aren't calibrated to work together, they're calibrated separately to get them back in spec:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6KQxzwgHScwJ:digitaljournalist.org/issue0505/westfall.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

(scroll down to the question on backfocus).

I would guess that the necessary adjustments could be physical or electronic, or both. In the electronic case, they'll almost certainly be more sophisticated than the AFMA facility available to us end-users (probably also more sophisticated than the Sigma/Tamron adjustments available through their lens dock products)


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 16, 2017)

cayenne said:


> Ok please indulge a newbie question...and maybe just put me on the path I need to research and where...
> 
> But without buying any software, etc....is there an in camera way to see if your lens and body match, or what the AFMA is or should be...etc.?
> 
> ...



Yes, it is called out of focus images. In many pictures you often can see where your focus falls. For instance shooting a deer standing in a grassy field. You can see it in portraits or bird photography where your actual focus point falls.

If you have been shooting for a while and you do not know if you have a problem, more than likely you do not. The exception would be that you are just do not look at your pictures that close.

I have checked mine shooting subjects against fences, in grass fields or subjects against a brick wall running away from you.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 16, 2017)

cayenne said:


> Is there a way to verify you have a problem before you package up all your lenses and send them in..?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> ...



I prefer to use something on grass - focus near the bottom of the object and when I view the image, I don't really look at the object itself but at the blades of grass around it. They blades of grass are close together and I can usually see how the DOF falls away and how that relates to the object. If no blades of grass look sharp then your technique needs improving...
Do that a few times at different distances and see how it works.


----------



## Joe M (Feb 16, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a way to verify you have a problem before you package up all your lenses and send them in..?
> ...



Grass is one of my favourites for a quick check as well. A single tree in my big backyard never fails to give me a good idea if a lens if close or way out of whack. Unless of course the lawn is covered in snow. Then I fall back on the privacy fence. It's sort of like a giant lensalign.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 16, 2017)

Focal is great software for testing and evaluating your gear and potentially useful for afma. However, you will greatly rack up shutter actuations with it as well as hair loss from frustration and not convinced it can consistently give you the best afma for all shooting conditions. Many lenses require a different afma setting for close shooting v infinity shooting. So one afma is not always the best for all conditions.

I have used it and now find i can do it rather quickly using a spyder lenscal and with the lenscal you dont need to have ideal conditions, bright studio lights or have to deal with varying brightness outdoors when clouds pass by. Plus with the lenscal you can quickly make sure everything is still calibrated before any critical shoot.

I rarely use Focal anymore except to validate my lenses and camera are working as good as they were when i bought them. The software will reveal af backlash and other worn parts that you just cant visualize with any other tool. In that respect you can uncover wear and get it fixed before it costs you a shoot.

Focal is a great tool but consider whats required to get good results plus wear and tear from using it. A lenscal is pretty much required anyway to validate what focal is telling you so why not just use it.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2017)

GammyKnee said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I have never used CPS for lens adjustments and all I know is the gossip form CR. It seemed at one stage to be the received wisdom that Canon would match a lens with a camera and not set each lens and each body to zero. Is this true?
> ...



In that case, when we are paying £3000+ for a new body or more for a super tale why can't they do that before sending it out?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 16, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> It was my understanding they actually make physical changes to the lens or camera with the intent to bring it within spec. For instance one of my lenses was off an equal amount on both bodies I sent in. When it was returned it tested out the same on both bodies with Focal, which was 0. Repair order indicated adjustments to the lens.
> 
> I am not sure I follow your question, but each lens they returned required no adjustment and were at 0.
> 
> ...



Depending on the equipment and requirement, canon can add/remove shims (older equipment) and make internal adjustments (newer equipment) to bring lenses to canon spec for afma 0. With newer cameras supporting afma, there is no need to do internal lens adjustments unless focus is off the afma scale or you still use a camera with fixed focal point like a 60D. In that case physical adjustments to the lens must be made to the fixed camera first, then afma is adjusted for the lens on the adjustable camera. Before firmware, afma was a complete manual process and very expensive.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 16, 2017)

Using Grass Check AF is going to be unreliable, because you are not forcing the AF system to focus at the point you want it to, it is larger than that little square in the viewfinder and can be focused on something outside that box.

The lens targets, at least the good ones, are designed to force the AF system to focus on a known point. They do not focus on the slanted ruler, but rather on a flat surface with a slanted ruler next to it.

A brick wall photo can reveal lens issues when one side is oof and the other is not, for example. If the entire wall is oof, then AFMA is likely needed. If you keep the camera on the tripod and use live view autofocus, it should be near perfect, you can dial in AFMA numbers until it looks correct, at 5 or 10x magnification but this is the worst method.

I would check my lenses carefully before sending anything to Canon, Set up the Tripod in front of a flat target or surface, you can print one if necessary, the surface needs something for the focus system to grab.

Using Live phase detect or DPAF, defocus the lens, focus and capture a image. Do this 10 times, because there is variance in the system. Now, use the normal phase detect focus, and repeat, defocusing before each shot.

Do this at two or three distances.

Ideally, the live view shots should be focused the same as the phase Detect shots. Unless the images are noticably different, there is no issue. If you find one of three lenses is different, send the lens in, telling them what you did, and the camera model.

In my case, Canon used a identical Camera model that was calibrated and adjusted the lens to match it, or that's what the paper said that I received. There is no need to send in the camera, they can be off, but its unusual, and focusing correctly on all but one lens supports that it is fine. If all of the lenses result is poorly focused images, I'd send the camera and lenses in.

I would avoid shipping anything that does not need repair. The rate of damage in shipping is too high for me. I wrap a lens in large bubble wrap to have at least 2 inches of protection, more for heavy lenses. Then they go in a inner box which has another 2 inches of foam or bubble around it, and I usually put 3/8 hard foam sheet all around the interior of the box to make it more rigid. I've never had shipping damage that way. it cost more to ship a large box, but having it arrive undamaged at Canon is very important in avoiding a big repair bill.

I ship hundreds of very sensitive electronic items a year, and this process reduces damage in shipping to a tiny amount. I wish Canon did the same on return shipments, their packing methods seem hit and miss.


----------



## Jopa (Feb 17, 2017)

I would just send the lenses that can't be consistently calibrated with FoCal. I, personally have one ready to be sent along with my 5dsr - the 70-200 2.8 II  Everything else takes about 10 min to calibrate with FoCal (a semi-manual process).
I'm pretty sure if UPS accidentally drops your package full of lenses - they may require some calibration again ;D


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 17, 2017)

Had great success with my 6D just shooting a target and tweaking. Now with my 1DX2 I've been baffled by what seems to be inconsistent focus performance. 

What I seem to have discovered is that one can't rely on the relative focus distance behind and in front to be equal (clarification, please). There is a tendency to view a shot looking at OOF areas and judging best focus to be midpoint and I don't think that's true. Another thing is that objects behind the plane of focus are further away so they will not present as well as closer objects assuming they are somewhat covered by the depth of field.

After a couple frustrating partial days of fooling with this I finally decided to use the fore and aft objects as a rough guide only but finally just choose the AFMA value that gives me the best focus sharpness at the plane where the focus square displays.

I don't know how to explain a shot at +11 being quite nicely in focus when the value I've finally settled on is +3 -> +4. This kind of situation seems to be happening to me too often. 

I also feel that I'd rather choose my setting based on my typical outdoor usage - distance, ISO etc., rather than sticking with prescribed setup parameters.

These comments are relative to 400 DO II X2 III only, since that's the one I want to be as absolutely close as possible. Other combos have behaved better.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 17, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> What I seem to have discovered is that one can't rely on the relative focus distance behind and in front to be equal (clarification, please).



Good observation. The depth of field behind the plane of focus is always deeper than the DOF in front of it. That ratio varies by magnification, focal length and aperture.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 17, 2017)

back in the day when Reikan Focal was not available to me, I discovered precise AFMA method that requires 3 targets and based on DoF values specific to the focal length, aperture, sensor size and distance to subject.
I also wanted to avoid the dreaded ruler method as with longer lenses and longer distances in its becoming really imprecise and cumbersome. 

3 targets to be positioned side by side, approx. 1 inch away from each other with the first one moved forward to the NEAR DoF LIMIT and third one moved backwards to the FAR DoF LIMIT.

you will see all 3 targets in your viewfinder just fine. the difference is that only the main target will have to be in perfect focus with first and third located at the DoF near and far limits be both EQUALLY out of focus.

example:

FF sensor, F2.0, 200mm focal length, distance to target:10.00 meters distance to subject ( x50 focal length)

Far limit: 10.14m
Near limit: 9.86m

we position the main target at: 10m to camera's sensor plane 
we position the first target 1 inch to the left from the main and 14cm forward at NEAR DoF limit (9.86m to the camera)
we position ther third target 1 inch to the right from the main target and 14cm backwards at FAR DoF limit (10.14m to the camera)

I use central AF point to focus on the main target and take the shot.
I then inspect the shot on computer screen and compare out of focus levels for each target.
you can also use you camera LCD to inspect the image at 1:1 pixel ratio. it works just as well if you are out in the field and have no access to a computer screen.

ideally, the main target will be the in focus and sharpest out of three targets with first and third target have to be equally out of focus.

if the first and the main targets are the sharpest , then lens front focused. increase AFMA value (+).
if the third and and the main targets are the sharpest, then lens back focused. decrease AFMA value (-).

repeat until the first and the third targets equally out of focus and the main target is perfectly in focus.

I use DoF calculator app on my iPhone for DoF value calculations. it is quick and straight forward to use. many such apps available for both iOS and Android phones.

I found this method to be as precise as Focal but does not require access to a computer with focal installed, quick and simple to use.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 17, 2017)

Alex_M, exactly what I was doing but I didn't give consideration to the fact that my secondary targets were 2" fore/aft and the DOF is certainly not equal in that case with 800mm FL @F8. It led to very skewed conclusions. I am now inclined to just look for the sharpest result AFMA value.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2017)

I have tried all of the target-based methods over the years, using all of my skills as an experimentalist: slanted rulers; targets placed in a row; matching live view with AFMA; measuring resolution of lines on charts; fitting the data to Gaussian curves or higher polynomials etc. The most important lesson I learned was how variable AF is. You have to do a serious number of repeats at each AFMA adjustment. 

The most useful result for me was to drop all of those methods and use Reikan FoCal. It usually works very well and reproducibly for my lenses of f/5.6 and wider. It is erratic for my long telephotos at narrow aperture with extenders (800mm f/8, 840mm f/9) because the long distances needed and the depth of field at those distances - the quality of focus vs AFMA curves are very broad and have lots of variability. So, I repeat them several times and take a mean value.

The mirrorless M5 is joy - no AFMA is required.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 17, 2017)

Hey Alan, I have begun to conclude that 400 X2 just isn't the most consistent AF, even with the 1DX2. However, now that I'm back to +3 rather than +9 etc., things are looking up.

I've also noticed that point expansion or zone, where multi-points are involved is definitely more predictable/accurate. The problem is ensuring that the points stay where you want them.

Jack


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 17, 2017)

AlanF said:


> The mirrorless M5 is joy - no AFMA is required.



That is the one reason I would like a full featured full frame camera. My interest in a 77D is based on the possibility of using it as a mirrorless in live view mode where its lack of AFMA doesn't matter. I'd want to compare AF speed with the 80D. I suspect the PDAF for a FF body like the 5D MK IV to be slower because focus of a FF needs to be more precise. I'm wondering if improvements in PDAF speed might come to a 6D MK II also.

Touch to focus is nice on a tripod, I'm in doubt about using it hand held, its not easy with my 1GX MK II, and its small and light to hold in one hand. I do use it successfully on occasion, but mostly to place the AF point, then the camera tracks the subject as I compose better. The problem is that I find FF so much nicer than APS-C that I might not use a 77D or 80D much. My 1GXII gets used because its small and easy to take with me, but it seems pretty limited in image quality unless lighting is perfect. A M5 is something I'm also considering as a replacement.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 17, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Using Grass Check AF is going to be unreliable, because you are not forcing the AF system to focus at the point you want it to, it is larger than that little square in the viewfinder and can be focused on something outside that box.



Fair point, and that is why I use a stake of 2x1 timber impled into the grass and the stake has a black marker pen line on it for contrast - the stake is wide enough to fill the AF point and flat so as not to confuse the AF with a curved surface. And I focus at the base to minimise distance errors and look at the grass surrounding the stake to get an idea of where the focus actually is 
As one experienced user commented somewhere, if you are getting beyond that level of accuracy, it is likely that your technique will be the limiting factor and not the AF. That again is why you should AF, shoot, focus on something else then repeat. Taking one shot, either in testing or out in the field, and judging AF on that can be very misleading.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 17, 2017)

That is correct, Sir! Fortunately, DoF Calculator is very precise and Far and Near DoF values to 1/2cm and gives accurate values for all focal lengths and distances. I see variable Far/Near DoF numbers too often to realise that i better set targets as per software advise. It actually works. Sure, Focal is a better tech but only when available.



Jack Douglas said:


> Alex_M, exactly what I was doing but I didn't give consideration to the fact that my secondary targets were 2" fore/aft and the DOF is certainly not equal in that case with 800mm FL @F8. It led to very skewed conclusions. I am now inclined to just look for the sharpest result AFMA value.
> 
> Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> That is correct, Sir! Fortunately, DoF Calculator is very precise and Far and Near DoF values to 1/2cm and gives accurate values for all focal lengths and distances. I see variable Far/Near DoF numbers too often to realise that i better set targets as per software advise. It actually works. Sure, Focal is a better tech but only when available.



Yes, the DoF calculator is very precise...if you are adhering to the underlying assumptions. For example, the CoC used in all those calculators assumes you are printing the image at 8x10" size and viewing it from a distance of 1 foot. Is that what you're doing? Every time?

Incidentally, here's a statement from the FAQ of one common online tool:

[quote author=DoFMaster]
*How accurate are depth of field calculations?*
DOF calculations are remarkably good estimates of the subjective depth of field in photographs. However, you shouldn't expect to get highly accurate results from the calculations.
[/quote]


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 17, 2017)

Neuro,
Of course not precise to mm level. I am not implying this. for the method in question the absolute values of near and far limit of DoF are non-important. Only ratio of far to near limit or near to far are important. If ratios are correct and both targets are equally out of focus, then afma value is correct. 
What is also important that I was able to confirm that the results correlate well with Focal results.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 17, 2017)

AFMA is a function provided by Canon to enable owners to make fine corrections at home, so to send in a lens and body for AFMA alone is neither necessary nor "better" than doing it a home; plus shipping is a risk.

Here is Canon's excellent AFMA guide, and they DO use grass!

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2016/af-microadjustment-landing.shtml

I've been involved in photography seriously for about 10 years, and IT work for 25 years. One common denominator: techies who compulsively make things much, much, much more complicated than needed.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 17, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> AFMA is a function provided by Canon to enable owners to make fine corrections at home, so to send in a lens and body for AFMA alone is neither necessary nor "better" than doing it a home; plus shipping is a risk.
> 
> Here is Canon's excellent AFMA guide, and they DO use grass!
> 
> ...



Usually what the techies miss is the first 1st thing mentioned in "Shooting environment for the adjustment test".
Use the same lighting you are going to shoot in. Then instead of testing at the distance they shoot they test at 50x or 25x distance to target.

The grass isn't a bad indicator. If you take 15 shots of your dog in the field and every shot the dog is OOF and the grass in front of him is then you need to adjust.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 17, 2017)

unfortunately, the method you are refering to is not precise enough for long lens calibration. DoF with such a lens can be extremely shallow. 
Canon also recommends altternative method that I found to be total rubbish. (page 5,6 of the brochure).please see the link below.
they reckon that if the focusing ring has not moved, then perfect focus was achieved. In reality, if focus is close enough to the optimal value, lens will not move and report that focus was acquired. far from being true!
Focal results are in agreement with my statement.
we all know, that during AF calibration, you have to defocus away from the camera each time. and that's for reason!

https://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_Accurate_EOS_AF_QuickGuide.pdf



YuengLinger said:


> AFMA is a function provided by Canon to enable owners to make fine corrections at home, so to send in a lens and body for AFMA alone is neither necessary nor "better" than doing it a home; plus shipping is a risk.
> 
> Here is Canon's excellent AFMA guide, and they DO use grass!
> 
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 17, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> unfortunately, the method you are refering to is not precise enough for long lens calibration. DoF with such a lens can be extremely shallow.
> Canon also recommends altternative method that I found to be total rubbish. (page 5,6 of the brochure).please see the link below.
> they reckon that if the focusing ring has not moved, then perfect focus was achieved. In reality, if focus is close enough to the optimal value, lens will not move and report that focus was acquired. far from being true!
> Focal results are in agreement with my statement.
> ...



Point made


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 17, 2017)

Another "problem" is being a compulsive "perfectionist"  I should know! I just wish perfectionist and perfection would occasionally align. But ..... at least I try.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2017)

Darn you all. Especially you, Jack. Now I have to go and re-check the AFMAs for all my lenses.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 17, 2017)

Thanks for posting the Canon links. A little late for me but they have reaffirmed I'm now on track, i.e. test and adjust at typical shooting distance and ambient light and so forth. Other comments and observations have been most helpful too.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 17, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Another "problem" is being a compulsive "perfectionist"  I should know! I just wish perfectionist and perfection would occasionally align. But ..... at least I try.
> 
> Jack



Try being an 'impatient perfectionist'. It played havoc with making model aircraft when I was a kid.


----------



## rfdesigner (Feb 17, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> My 4th choice is the dot tune method, it relies on the Canon focus indicator to tell you focus has been achieved, but it has a lot of latency that can throw off the accuracy. Even so, it will greatly improve a lens that is badly in need of adjustment



I'm interested as to why you put Dot tune in 4th.

I've run it (camera on tripod, good light etc etc.) and it made badly out of whack focus accurate with the random variation neatly spread around the desired focus point.

I fail to see how other methods could work better without taking a huge number of shots.

My own rule of thumb is for any sampled random set I want a bare minimum of 30 samples, you can still only be sure of your simga to +/-25% with that but at least it's an idea. (95% sure that is)


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 18, 2017)

Actually, am I perfectionist in filling up my car with manufacturer recommended type of petrol (gas)?
Or is a surgeon perfectionist in washing his hands before attending the operation?
Is he techie by doing this? Obviously no. 
I know full well and I had that negative experience shooting with miss calibrated long lens wide open. It ruined the gig for me. It takes 5-10 minutes then get AFMA right anyway. Why would not do it properly?
Yes, I like that to be prepared and be on top of the issue 
But no one ever called me a techie for being well organised person. 
There is a distinct line between compulsive gear centric perfectionist and someone that can utilise his technical knowledge in achieving better artistic outcomes. 
Some people are happy shooting with their canon L glass and never gave a second thought that AFMA was required. I have met many professional photos that never ever calibrated their Canon L glass even once. 
Only when you cross into big whites territory or shooting wide open with F1.4 primes you start to realise that AFMA is a nessesity due to very thin DoF
I guess, netizens of this forum have somewhat higher technical standards due to the fact that they are involved in very technical genres of photography, Astro, macro, panorama, BIF, wildlife, sports and action. Heck, even studio photography can be technically challenging starting up multiple sources of light , modifiers and ratios. Well, if one cares of course 
I guess one can call me techie, my day job is in technology heavy sector but far from being a technical employee or engineer. 
My experience though is that creativity in many cases can suffer if tools required to maintain that creative outcomes is out of tune by mile. 
So, in the outset: get you gear in tune, be prepared it helps to capture that unique moment of your life



Jack Douglas said:


> Another "problem" is being a compulsive "perfectionist"  I should know! I just wish perfectionist and perfection would occasionally align. But ..... at least I try.
> 
> Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 18, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> Actually, am I perfectionist in filling up my car with manufacturer recommended type of petrol (gas)?
> Or is a surgeon perfectionist in washing his hands before attending the operation?
> Is he techie by doing this? Obviously no.
> I know full well and I had that negative experience shooting with miss calibrated long lens wide open. It ruined the gig for me. It takes 5-10 minutes then get AFMA right anyway. Why would not do it properly?
> ...



WOW, Alex I have no issue with your approach. The problem perfectionist person is me that I was referring to.  I am not satisfied until it's the best it can be but I don't judge others harshly because I subscribe to the live/die by the sword principle and I have no interest in dying.  The techie comment, I believe, was not being directed at you in particular, just the general idea was being thrown out to the group because it sometimes is true.

The key is to just accept every person's contribution for what it's worth and not take things too personally. Your points were well presented, have merit and were interesting.

Jack


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 18, 2017)

Jack, I am so sorry!.. OMG!

My post was not a direct reply to your comment but only in support of the points you have rightfully raised. I reject "techie" labels some people tends to slap over forum members that understand technology side of the photography a bit better. This forum is a great source of knowledge for open minded photogs. 



Jack Douglas said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, am I perfectionist in filling up my car with manufacturer recommended type of petrol (gas)?
> ...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 18, 2017)

Nothing to be sorry about! 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 22, 2017)

Because of my ongoing issues with the 1DX2 AF and AFMA Canon has requested I send RAW files for them to analyze. This is a little more detailed/specific than what they have on-line as a guide so I thought some CR folk might like to see it.

Jack


If you want to troubleshoot the AF issue, I will suggest to get a few shots with no MA, on one shot MODE with and without the extender.

Here is an example of a focus test that you can follow, if you want.

====================
BASIC SLR FOCUS TEST
====================
In order to isolate the issue that you are experiencing, we suggest performing the following focusing test and responding with the results. Due to the large number of factors that can affect focus, it is imperative that all of the settings below be adhered to in order to properly assess the situation.

1. If you use filters with your lenses please remove them for this test.
2. Use the ?Clear all camera settings? and ?Clear all Custom Functions? of the camera to reset the camera to its default factory settings.
3. If your camera offers the AF microadjustment feature, please ensure that it is disabled for the purposes of this test.
4. Set the Image Quality setting to "Large JPEG" (or preferably RAW if possible)
5. Set the "Picture Style" to "Standard".
6. Set the shooting mode to "aperture priority <Av>" and set the aperture to the maximum value possible (smallest f/stop) however please also ensure that it is not set any lower than f/2.8
7. Set the "ISO" speed to "100".
8. Set the "AF mode" to "One Shot". For this test, do NOT use "AI Servo" or "AI Focus" modes.
9. Set the "Drive Mode" to "Single Shot". For this test, do NOT use "Continuous" shooting mode.
10. Select only the centre auto-focus point.
11. If you use a tripod, please disable the Image Stabilization of the lens by moving the "Stabilizer" switch on the lens to the "OFF" position.
12. Place three objects of the same size on a table at different distances from the camera. From left to right, place the left most object closest to the camera and the right most object furthest from the camera. From front to back, space the objects out by about 2 to 3 inches. For easier analysis, we recommend using objects that contain text or writing on them and that contain a fair amount of contrast (i.e. avoid using objects that are completely one colour).
13. Compose or frame the image in the viewfinder so that the three objects occupy and fill as much of the frame as possible. Also, please ensure that the iamge is taken at eye level and not an an angle.
14. Use the centre auto-focus point to achieve focus on the centre object and then, without re-framing, capture the image. Please ensure that the centre AF point is aimed towards a part of the object that contains contrast (i.e. avoid having the AF point land on a part of the object that is completely one colour).
15. Please ensure that there is more than adequate lighting in the room. If possible this test should be performed outdoors in full daylight.
16. Please ensure that the lens is "de-focused" or purposely thrown out of focus in between every test shot. To do this, focus on an object that is located at a different distance to your intended subject and then re-perform the test.
17. Optional: redo steps 1-16 using the "Live View Shooting" feature of your camera (if available on your model). This will help isolate the issue even further.

Note that, after downloading images to your computer from a digital camera, it is tempting to magnify or print out just a part of the image once downloaded to your computer. This can magnify small errors in AF that would otherwise not be apparent when being viewed at a more traditional print size. As a result, you may see slight errors in AF magnified many times over that would not normally be visible when the image is printed. Even if small errors in AF are visible on the computer monitor, these errors may not be visible when the image is viewed as a full size print.

Please reply to this message with the image(s) captured during this test attached. Please ensure that the images are sent using the file attachment feature of your particular email system. Images are not to be embedded or pasted into the email. In the case that the file size of the images is too large for email, you may also send your files via any file sharing web site of your choosing (i.e. www.wikisend.com, Dropbox etc.) and provide us with the web link. In addition, please e-mail images that have not been edited (i.e. no adjustments, no cropping, no resizing) and have been saved in the camera's native JPG/JPEG file format or RAW file format (if available).

Upon receipt of the image(s) we will examine them and will then contact you with our findings and recommendations.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 22, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Note that, after downloading images to your computer from a digital camera, it is tempting to magnify or print out just a part of the image once downloaded to your computer. This can magnify small errors in AF that would otherwise not be apparent when being viewed at a more traditional print size. As a result, you may see slight errors in AF magnified many times over that would not normally be visible when the image is printed. Even if small errors in AF are visible on the computer monitor, these errors may not be visible when the image is viewed as a full size print.



But, magnifying part of the image is just what we have to do for our bird photography! They have a get-out clause that AF has to be good enough for only an uncropped print.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 22, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Note that, after downloading images to your computer from a digital camera, it is tempting to magnify or print out just a part of the image once downloaded to your computer. This can magnify small errors in AF that would otherwise not be apparent when being viewed at a more traditional print size. As a result, you may see slight errors in AF magnified many times over that would not normally be visible when the image is printed. Even if small errors in AF are visible on the computer monitor, these errors may not be visible when the image is viewed as a full size print.
> ...



Yes Alan, that is indeed disturbing. They also told me the numerous spots on my sensor that are only in the top left quadrant are most likely dust and not oil. That really made me laugh. I suppose it's the way I hold the camera; all the dust rolls in that direction!

Oh, and Alan, you're not supposed to crop, you should frame it correctly in the first place. Even my daughter knows that and told me emphatically. 

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 22, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Note that, after downloading images to your computer from a digital camera, it is tempting to magnify or print out just a part of the image once downloaded to your computer. This can magnify small errors in AF that would otherwise not be apparent when being viewed at a more traditional print size. As a result, you may see slight errors in AF magnified many times over that would not normally be visible when the image is printed. Even if small errors in AF are visible on the computer monitor, these errors may not be visible when the image is viewed as a full size print.
> ...



I don't think it is a "get out clause" it is a specification.

Normal AF points are spec'ed at 1x depth of focus (not depth of field), high precision AF points are 1/3 x depth of focus. Obviously any enlargement, or crop, can potentially take a within spec AF image outside 'acceptable focus'.

The only way you can hope to get repeatable in focus images if you crop hard are if you limit AF point use to high precision points only.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 22, 2017)

Hey Scott, that did occur to me and I've been staying with the double cross when possible and almost always cross but of course that depends on lens. It occurred to me that the upper portrait orientation focus point is very commonly used and I wondered why they haven't made it cross type.

Further to this thought, would you guess that some of my AF inconsistency and generally poor performance might relate to F8 focusing not being quite up to snuff? I find the specs on AF type based on max aperture to be a little confusing and I'm not sure I'm interpreting the manual correctly. They pack a lot of information into a single diagram. 

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Mar 22, 2017)

Privatebydesign, It's a standard statement that gets trotted out that Canon's specification are for 1 depth of focus (at the sensor) not for 1 depth of field (of the object), and that the two are different. Here is an article by someone who has done the maths and using Canon's numbers shows that depth of focus does equal depth of field for the one-depth-of-focus definition http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/AF_accuracy.pdf

Quote:

"_This can be summarized: 
The range over which the actual focus distance can occur within the “one depth of focus” specification of autofocus accuracy is exactly the same as the range of distance that constitutes the depth of field for focus at the distance of our test object._ "


Jack, As I have mentioned before, my 5DIV at 800mm and f/8 has excellent reproducibility of AF and is giving BIF consistently in focus.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 22, 2017)

Alan, Now I wait for sunshine and not snowing and then I'll send the results in to Canon. However, I've pretty much made up my mind that the camera body will get sent in soon. It seems strange to me that I should be having such an experience after all the fun times with 6D and 300 X2, in spite of very slow AF, it it was generally accurate. Now it's 400 X2, very fast AF but inaccurate.

Jack


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 23, 2017)

Hi Jack. 
The line that bothers me is highlighted below, we take the time to set up our cameras to fulfil our needs (wants) then we get told the _only_ way to get reliable shots is to have the camera in its default setting (_extrapolated from the fact that they want the test done without any customisation_). Plus the resets don't clear down certain settings, afma being one of them if my memory serves me well and the one most likely to affect results. Yes I know that afma is mentioned separately in the setup. 
I do hope that once you have gone to these lengths they ask you to send the camera in for them to sort out and that when you get it back it can match or exceed the results Alan is getting (after all in a just world (yeah I know that it is often not just) the premium you payed should get you premium results  ). 

Cheers, Graham. 



Jack Douglas said:


> Because of my ongoing issues with the 1DX2 AF and AFMA Canon has requested I send RAW files for them to analyze. This is a little more detailed/specific than what they have on-line as a guide so I thought some CR folk might like to see it.
> 
> Jack
> 
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 23, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> we get told the _only_ way to get reliable shots is to have the camera in its default setting (_extrapolated from the fact that they want the test done without any customisation_).



I may have misunderstood your comment but IMO Canon know that AFMA should not be needed and they want to be sure any inaccuracy is not down to the customer firtling with it. 

How often have we had bit of technical equipment and played with settings then layered change on change and not wondered how we go to where we ended up. In my brief excursion with technical assistance it is surprising how often errors are caused by the user thinking they are dong the right thing.

Also, I have read several comments with zoom lenses (which have more compromises than prime lenses) where 
the have used AFMA then reset to factory and realised that they actually preferred the 'factory' version. Human perception is a devil of thing sometimes.

So I can understand why Canon have said to reset everything.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 23, 2017)

Appreciate the comments Graham and Mike.

I can save my settings to my card, and yes, it is a lot of fiddling to go through otherwise. I know because I had already tried that trick before contacting Canon but it is actually a good practice activity since it is easy to forget the process required to achieve certain desired customization. The 1DX2, maybe even more than the 5D4/7D2, has great options, especially for AF relative to different buttons. You can switch instantly between 4 or 5 AF modes/points by "rocking" fingers/thumb on buttons you've chosen to program to AF. In all cases the 1st finger shutter AF operation gets overridden. It's very well thought out.

One super big frustration is cloud and snow when theoretically it's now spring! I might have had this all sorted out long ago if not for winter and needing great light for F8 testing of 800mm.

Not to mention that last February a contracted tiling job in my home was botched and I had it aborted and proceeded to correct my severe floor unevenness/level issues (that the contractor should have stated as a reason he would not attempt the job!). At the moment I'm beginning the dry layout of my new tiles and if I can gather courage, I'll do the job myself. IOW I'm close to a nervous breakdown. :'( 

Pretty frivolous complaints/excuses, I know.

Jack


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 23, 2017)

H Mike. 
I wasn't so much meaning the afma needing to be reset as all the other customisations that one wouldn't necessarily link to poor af performance. However I do understand the problem with layers of customisation and the unknown problems interactions may cause. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Mikehit said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > we get told the _only_ way to get reliable shots is to have the camera in its default setting (_extrapolated from the fact that they want the test done without any customisation_).
> ...


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 24, 2017)

Hi Jack. 
It looks like your floor is going to be nice when you are finished, don't let these things push you over the edge. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Jack Douglas said:


> Appreciate the comments Graham and Mike.
> 
> I can save my settings to my card, and yes, it is a lot of fiddling to go through otherwise. I know because I had already tried that trick before contacting Canon but it is actually a good practice activity since it is easy to forget the process required to achieve certain desired customization. The 1DX2, maybe even more than the 5D4/7D2, has great options, especially for AF relative to different buttons. You can switch instantly between 4 or 5 AF modes/points by "rocking" fingers/thumb on buttons you've chosen to program to AF. In all cases the 1st finger shutter AF operation gets overridden. It's very well thought out.
> 
> ...


----------



## rfdesigner (Mar 24, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Pretty frivolous complaints/excuses, I know.
> 
> Jack



there are times to be picky and times not to be. A floor you'll be looking at for the next 40 years (maybe more) must be right.

My gran accepted a tiled fireplace with a duff tile in the top left corner. She lived in that house for 50 years and that tile annoyed her all that time. (replacing the tile wasn't an option, it would have had to be a whole new fireplace)

You'll get it right and you'll have a story to tell, and you'll always be happy you did it.


----------



## lion rock (Mar 24, 2017)

Jack,
Great layout. These are big tiles, be careful of uneven or bendable floor, your tiles might crack. Consider another underlayment beneath the tiles.
It would be beautiful, show us the progress and finished floor. You're really ambitious!
-r


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 25, 2017)

Thanks guys, I really need the encouragement. BTW the tile I chose for the botched job was not nice  so I am thankful to be rectifying that with the new choice. I agree looking at a serious flaw for many years is not exactly compatible with my personality. The floor has been leveled and bolstered as best I can and it's an awful lot better than it was so ....I hope?

I have deer visiting at dusk to eat my bird's corn that I scatter on the ground so I've set up flash 2 outside and flash 1 on camera at 200mm to shoot out my window, hss. I'm going with 400 DO II in this case so maybe more of a head shot. Here's hoping they show up; it's my break from the tiling. 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 25, 2017)

Well, the deer visited after dusk so my plan went off track with harsh flash and not pink but "blue eye". 

Never the less fun to watch. They were not exactly thrilled with the flash.

Jack


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 25, 2017)

Hi Jack. 
My limited experience with birds suggests that if you keep using the flash they will grow accustomed to it and it will not be such a problem, however the birds are fed and not hunted (by man), I don't know if the deer are familiar with hunting near you. If you can get the master flash off camera, use a YN-E3-E3 (the YongNuo has an AF assist grid and I believe the canon doesn't, (I do remember that you have the 600EX don't you)), the red / steel eye should be much reduced if not completely eliminated. I'm sure that you probably know all of this, but sometimes we get caught up in the minutia and overlook the obvious. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Jack Douglas said:


> Well, the deer visited after dusk so my plan went off track with harsh flash and not pink but "blue eye".
> 
> Never the less fun to watch. They were not exactly thrilled with the flash.
> 
> Jack


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I agree looking at a serious flaw for many years is not exactly compatible with my personality.
> Jack



A serious floor is exactly compatible?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 25, 2017)

Hey Graham, I used two Canon 600's - all I have. I can place the remote tripod mounted flash in a better orientation but the trigger flash is on camera. I could, using a cable, get the flash off camera but I'm not presently set up for this (I'm shooting through a circular cutout in a painted plexiglass insert in my open window because the deer spook easily). The remote was set to 24 mm and the master 200mm and I was using the 400 lens, which was actually too much for close proximity. Maybe I'll try 70-200. This was supposed to be fill flash but it was pitch black when they came.

Now, I better stop posting off topic.

Alan, I can't sleep thinking of me botching the renewed tiling effort but I'm forging ahead, regardless.


----------

