# Never let it be said...



## chauncey (Sep 11, 2013)

That adjusting the "micro-focusing" is unnecessary. I recently took the time to do mine using a yardstick with a piece of glitter duck tape attached. 800 pixel crops


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 11, 2013)

I have tried all my 9 Canon AF lenses (ranging from 17 to 800mm) and ended up with micro adjustment at or very near 0 on my1D4, they also focus just fine on my other EOS cameras (5Dc, EOS3, EOS 33V and EOS 50E) am I just lucky?
I am not questioning that micro AF adjustment is not a great confidence builder, just saying that I have not found a use for it - except for confidence building!


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 12, 2013)

Hi Chauncy,
I recently posted about my EF-S 17-85 being so far out at 17 that I ran out of adjustment and in the 0-1 AFMA range from 50-85 so I would say you could be in the lucky territory or using high end glass. All AFMA has done for me is make me check all previous images for the lens and be disappointed that I didn't notice earlier that the lens was off. I do still have some keepers from it but only once it was stopped down some! I am now looking for a replacement on a budget, cant see that working out too well either. :'(

Cheers Graham.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 12, 2013)

I had a 24-70 that was +7 or so before I dropped it and it came back from Canon at +11; I think it is worth checking. If your kit is at zero then the engineers can be proud and if it is within limits then it is within limits.

Jim


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2013)

I am sorry I don't get the point of your post. It seems images one and three are horrifically over sharpened and image two doesn't appear to have anything sharp in it at all. Are these before and after micro AF? Why so much sharpening?


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 12, 2013)

johnf3f said:


> I have tried all my 9 Canon AF lenses (ranging from 17 to 800mm) and ended up with micro adjustment at or very near 0 on my1D4, they also focus just fine on my other EOS cameras (5Dc, EOS3, EOS 33V and EOS 50E) am I just lucky?
> I am not questioning that micro AF adjustment is not a great confidence builder, just saying that I have not found a use for it - except for confidence building!



If you were using a yard stick and duck tape like the OP then yes you are lucky.

My super telephotos on my 1D IV were dead on. The only ones I had problems with were the zooms. With my experience with 7D's, 5D's and 1D models I think Canon takes more time in getting the 1D bodies and the expensive lenses right.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I am sorry I don't get the point of your post. It seems images one and three are horrifically over sharpened and image two doesn't appear to have anything sharp in it at all. Are these before and after micro AF? Why so much sharpening?



My first thought was: how much is the image cropped? Followed by what lens? What camera? How was the image processed and at what settings? What iso? What shutter speed? And why no before and after pictures?


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 12, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > I have tried all my 9 Canon AF lenses (ranging from 17 to 800mm) and ended up with micro adjustment at or very near 0 on my1D4, they also focus just fine on my other EOS cameras (5Dc, EOS3, EOS 33V and EOS 50E) am I just lucky?
> ...



I wasn't using a yardstick I was using AF targets angled at 45 degrees to asses where the lens was focusing. I must admit that I haven't tried out my Canon 800mm F5.6 as the depth of field at 6 or 7 meters is so shallow, wide open, that any error would be immediately apparent as the depth of field is almost zero! I simply tried it on some, very co-operative, Kingfishers - eye in focus + very little else so it must be spot on (according to DOF Master it is only 1 to 2mm at these ranges and aperture). My previous long lens (a 600 F4 L IS Mk1) was also spot on on test targets.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Sep 12, 2013)

sorry but what is this ugly structure?

sharpening artifacts? but then... there should be ugly halos also?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 13, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> sorry but what is this ugly structure?
> 
> sharpening artifacts? but then... there should be ugly halos also?



I assumed some sort of noise reduction. Whatever the cause, I really don't care for it.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > sorry but what is this ugly structure?
> ...



Easy to do with lightroom....just take a slightly out of focus picture, heavily crop it, move all the sharpening and noise reduction sliders to 100% and you can change the before picture into the after picture....

Chauncy.... I'm just kidding... but it does look like your images are over-sharpened.... Could you post before and after and tell us how you processed them? Post processing is an art and you could get some great tips....


----------



## dave (Sep 13, 2013)

They are not oversharpened. They are just instagrammed. Haven't you seen the new pointillist/sandpit blended filter combo. ;D


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 13, 2013)

I have not been that lucky with my L lenses, all need _some afma_


----------



## Richard8971 (Sep 15, 2013)

I have found that micro adjustments are handy. My EF 100mm macro is perfect at 0, while my EF 70-300L is +3. It puts the focus point exactly where I want it. 

You have to figure that Canon builds and adjusts the specs of each camera and lens to a reasonable +/- tolerance. I can't imagine that they have the time to tune each and every camera body and lens to a perfect 0. Microadjusting is simply a way of fine tuning your equipment to suit your specific needs.

D


----------



## Famateur (Sep 15, 2013)

johnf3f said:


> I wasn't using a yardstick I was using AF targets *angled at 45 degrees to asses where the lens was focusing*. I must admit that I haven't tried out my Canon 800mm F5.6 as the depth of field at 6 or 7 meters is so shallow, wide open, that any error would be immediately apparent as the depth of field is almost zero! I simply tried it on some, very co-operative, Kingfishers - eye in focus + very little else so it must be spot on (according to DOF Master it is only 1 to 2mm at these ranges and aperture). My previous long lens (a 600 F4 L IS Mk1) was also spot on on test targets.



I think I might be missing something in the AFMA process. So you you focus on some asses with AF targets nearby at a 45 degree angle?


----------



## Eldar (Sep 15, 2013)

Apart from the 24-70 f2.8L II, I have had to do AFMA on all my other lenses on all bodies, some more than +/-10. I suspect that you would benefit from buying/borrowing a proper tool, because I cannot believe you have been that lucky. But on the other hand ... some also win the big prices in lotteries ... :-\


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 22, 2013)

I think I might be missing something in the AFMA process. So you you focus on some asses with AF targets nearby at a 45 degree angle? 
[/quote]


OOPS! Whiskey induced dyslexia or wishful thinking - you decide!


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 22, 2013)

I thought it was inaccurate to have a target at 45* and it should always be a perpendicular, flat target, otherwise you can't be sure where the AF is picking up on the 'slope'.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 23, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> I thought it was inaccurate to have a target at 45* and it should always be a perpendicular, flat target, otherwise you can't be sure where the AF is picking up on the 'slope'.



I have not found this to be an issue, as the focus point is very clear and the idea of the slope (and distance scale) is to show up any error. However, if it concerns you, then there are targets available that utilise a vertical target combined with a 45 degree distance scale.


----------



## bycostello (Sep 24, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > I have tried all my 9 Canon AF lenses (ranging from 17 to 800mm) and ended up with micro adjustment at or very near 0 on my1D4, they also focus just fine on my other EOS cameras (5Dc, EOS3, EOS 33V and EOS 50E) am I just lucky?
> ...




;D ;D ;D


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 25, 2013)

bycostello said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...




Maybe so, but having said that within the small circle of photographers I know well (including 1 pro) none of us have used this facility on any of our lenses to the best of my knowledge. The only Nikon shooter I know well has not needed to use it either. The cameras in question are a 40D, 5Dc and half a dozen 1D Mk4s, lenses are nearly all Canon (mainly L series) from 16mm to 800mm, sorry I can't remember the details of the 2 bodies that our Nikonian friend uses. I have also had no AF accuracy issues with my EOS 3, EOS 33V and EOS 50E - I must be really lucky!
P.S. the only camera I have used the Yardstick method with was my Leica IIIg - still spot on (within 1/2 inch or less at 6 feet) after all these years with all 3 lenses and has never been serviced.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 25, 2013)

johnf3f said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Of course this quote was just a rehash of an earlier post you responded to.

The thing is that the ruler method is not very accurate, it will probably get most people close enough.

Even the other methods like Lens Align and Reiken Focal are only accurate to a certain point. 
Both will give you a value at 25x or 50x the distance from the target (or the distance you pick). 
You will know what your values are at the light level you use. 

With lens align if you just use it once, and do not repeat your tests several times and get the exact same results you will not know if you are getting accurate results.
What you find out if you do enough testing with Lens Align (Not Reiken because it will just fail the test at low light levels) is if you repeat the exact same test and vary the lighting at different levels you will get different results. Do this and you are developing an understanding of how your AF system is performing.

One thing you find is that often a lens can be of +/- quit a few points before you may notice. For instance I have a 300mm f/2.8 IS that is off by +5 on every body I have. Without any adjustment I can get a 80% keeper rate with my 1D IV. Adjust the AFMA it gets about a 97% keeper rate. 

I could pick up any of my lenses and put them on my 1D IV or 5D with no adjustments and get a respectable keeper rate. A few of the L lenses I have I can tweak the adjustment a bit and get the keeper rate up. 

I find the reason for doing the AFMA is just increasing the keeper rate up by a few percent. It is not correcting a lens that is so far off it doesn't take a decent picture. If a lens is that bad I am shipping it to Canon.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 26, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > bycostello said:
> ...



Thanks for your insight! To date I have not had problems with AF accuracy, but I do have problems with AF acquisition and speed - probably just like the rest of us.
However I will have a look at some of your suggestions - I will be more than happy to eat my hat if I get better performance!


----------



## BozillaNZ (Sep 26, 2013)

Well all I can say is the standard of judging focus is different to each individual.

When I test a lens, I want it to be spot on wide open (f1.4 for my primes, f2.8 for zooms), using those focus points on my 1Ds3:

top most, bottom most, left most, right most, top-left corner, top-right corner, bottom-right corner, bottom-left corner, center

Also it has to be spot on at near MFD, 1m, 10m, 50m, infinity.

If any of those focus 'use cases' results in a consistent front/back focus, I will have to find ways to fix that <- which includes using hex wrench to adjust the mirror box of the camera in two points + AFMA, some times even a lens disassembly.

And believe me, the chance of this state of adjustment happens on all your camera body and lens without any human intervention is about 0.

Now my 24 1.4L, S50 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 II are all tuned up like that, so when I shoot a event, I can just chose any AF points at any distance and get a spot on image for about 85% of time. Anything off will be my own technique or subject motion to blame.


----------



## bratkinson (Oct 11, 2013)

One of the lesser reasons I upgraded from a 60D to 5D3 was to get the MFA capability. Although I thought 4 of the 5 L lenses I had were 'right on' mounted on the 60D and 5D3, 3 of them were +3 or so. The real surprise was the used 80-200 f2.8L 'magic drainpipe' I found in ebay with a 1993 build date was right on!! As for the 'other' L, my do-everything 24-105, it was noticebly soft on the 60D, and barely soft on the 5D3, but it took +3 (24) and +5 (105) to really make it knock-out sharp!


----------



## chauncey (Oct 11, 2013)

I doesn't take a genius to use the ruler method if you're adept at Photoshop focus stacking.
Simply take a series of images at incremented adjustments>import them into PS as layers and stack them...the masks will tell you where you ought to be.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 11, 2013)

chauncey said:


> I doesn't take a genius to use the ruler method if you're adept at Photoshop focus stacking.
> Simply take a series of images at incremented adjustments>import them into PS as layers and stack them...the masks will tell you where you ought to be.


+1


----------

