# Is FoCal worth ~$150?



## LovePhotography (Oct 7, 2014)

I have a 6D, ef 15, ef 8-15, Sigma 24-105 Art, ef 70-200 2.8 II, 2 x TC III, and soon 300 2.8 IS II. Will someday have ef 16-35 f/4 and Sigma 50 1.4 Art.

Is FoCal worth the time, effort and money? 
http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/why/about-focal/

Will it work with TC's? Are the adjustments made to the body or lens? Are the adjustments specific to each lens?

I'd rather buy the box than download since I upgrade computers pretty frequently.

Opinions appreciated.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 7, 2014)

I purchased the "pro" version of Focal recently and I am very impressed with it. I liked that the computer was performing the calculations instead of relying on my old eyes like other focus calibration systems. 

The instructions are not the clearest, but that is becoming common place with today's software industry. It does take a while to set up and if you are callibrating the longer FL lenses you will need some space.

I took the target data files and took then to a printshot and had them printed and mounted on foam board. That seemed to work well and was not expensive at all.

Since I only have the one version, I can't opine whether the other versions of FoCal are just as good as the "pro". I sprung for the pro and did not feel I was ripped off. 

I would download the manuals and give them a good read before making the decision. I can often learn more about a piece of software reading the manual than reading marketing stuff on a webpage. 

Good luck with it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2014)

Re: Is FoCal worth ~$150?

Is getting the sharpest possible images from thousands of dollars worth if gear worth $150?  

The adjustment is made to the body, it's specific to each lens, a lens + TC combo is treated as a separate lens. 

I have the Pro version, I've used it on most of my lenses (all my AF lenses except the EF-M lenses).


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> Is FoCal worth the time, effort and money?



I don't have focal, but I'd say before spending that lot of money (if you don't have stacks lying around) you can also try Magic Lantern's free dot_tune module which also automatically adjusts afma. Opinions are divided abut how precise it is, but for me (using a 6d) it's working just fine.

For what I do and with f4-f2.8 lenses, +-1 afma doesn't make a difference anyway and afma also varies with subject distance, so for many it's about getting in roughly the right afma region anyway... I'm not much of a geek in this point.


----------



## caruser (Oct 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have the Pro version, I've used it on most of my lenses (all my AF lenses except the EF-M lenses).


How annoying is it in practice with the 1DX (given that it doesn't do everything automatically)?


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 7, 2014)

IMHO - no

But then again I've long regarded any solution costing more than a few sheets of finely ruled graph paper as too expensive...

Putting my marketing hat on, I can see that there is a large enough sub-set of photographers obsessed with what I regard as spurious levels of measurement and precision, that there is a good chance of making money off them, so good luck to the developers ;-)

As with any such tech, opinions will vary from snake oil to essential tool - YMMV as they say ;-)


----------



## Thorse (Oct 7, 2014)

Is it possible to use FoCal with an 600D/T3i - I know I can't do any micro-adjustments, but i mean to compare different lenses, finding sweet-spots and so?

/Thorse


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 7, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> you can also try Magic Lantern's free dot_tune module which also automatically adjusts afma. Opinions are divided abut how precise it is, but for me (using a 6d) it's working just fine.



Do you know if dot_tune will tell me if my 60D is out of whack? I'm very much aware that the 60D does not support AFMA, but it would be nice to have it call to my attention how far out of tune it is.

Feel free to tell me to RTFM (or just try it), which I'd planned to do.

Thanks.


----------



## Steve (Oct 7, 2014)

I think it would depend on what $150 means to you versus just spending the time to AFMA by hand. For me, the money means more than the couple of hours total it took for all of my lenses but YMMV. AFMA isn't some occult sorcerers trick; its just guess and check "better? or worse?" adjustment until you get it as close as possible. You don't need a program to do it, though the program might speed up the process. I'd say give it a shot on your own and if it gets frustrating then look into buying a solution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2014)

caruser said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I have the Pro version, I've used it on most of my lenses (all my AF lenses except the EF-M lenses).
> ...



Not bad. I got the 1D X before it was supported at all, and started using Manual Mode analysis (taking pics myself, loading images into FoCal for analysis). That's easy enough that I've just kept doing it that way even after there was some level of support (as much as Canon's SDK permits).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2014)

Steve said:


> I think it would depend on what $150 means to you versus just spending the time to AFMA by hand. For me, the money means more than the couple of hours total it took for all of my lenses but YMMV. AFMA isn't some occult sorcerers trick; its just guess and check "better? or worse?" adjustment until you get it as close as possible. You don't need a program to do it, though the program might speed up the process. I'd say give it a shot on your own and if it gets frustrating then look into buying a solution.



As someone who's done a fair bit of manual analysis (and written a tutorial on the subject), I find FoCal much easier to use. Sometimes it's challenging judging between a set of images, quantification makes it a more robust process.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Do you know if dot_tune will tell me if my 60D is out of whack?



Yes, I know.



Orangutan said:


> Feel free to tell me to RTFM (or just try it), which I'd planned to do.



Nononono, what are we here for ? Canon (thanks!) removed the whole afma firmware part from 50d->60d, there's no way to recover it even with ML. This means the 60d has not only no gui to set afma, it lacks any ability to tell you about it.


----------



## Steve (Oct 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> As someone who's done a fair bit of manual analysis (and written a tutorial on the subject), I find FoCal much easier to use. Sometimes it's challenging judging between a set of images, quantification makes it a more robust process.



Right, totally, its just a matter of whether that added convenience/level of precision is worth the money or not. For me, a student with basically no money, its not worth it. At the other end, for a full time, well paid working professional its probably a different story. I'm not sure where LovePhotography falls on that scale.

The other thing is that its a program that a lot of people will only use once, or very very occasionally when they get a new lens. I would think it would be a great program to buy if you frequently rented lenses or consistently upgraded.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 7, 2014)

I was able to pre-order FoCal before it came out initially, I didn't realize that the price had risen so much. 

If all your sigma lenses work with their box, that is a better solution for them. You likely do not need adjustment or AFMA for ultra wide lenses, since the depth of field is so great. FoCal doesn't work all that well with ultra wides because focus errors make very little difference in sharpness.

I'd suggest first doing a controlled test with each lens, Place the camera on a sturdy tripod, use a remote shutter release, and make sure there is no vibration at all. Be sure to cover the viewfinder eyepiece to keep stray light out. 

Tkle a photo of a target at your most used distance for that lens, and at 25-50X the focal length of the lens using the phase detect. Reset the lens to infinity(or mfd) before each shot, and take 10 or more shots in very bright light.

Then, do the exact same thing using live view and live autofocus (You can do both phase detect and live view for each setup). Compare the images between the phase detect and live AF. If there is enough difference to bother you, you need to use AFMA. If not, don't waste the time or money.


----------



## LovePhotography (Oct 7, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I was able to pre-order FoCal before it came out initially, I didn't realize that the price had risen so much.
> 
> If all your sigma lenses work with their box, that is a better solution for them. You likely do not need adjustment or AFMA for ultra wide lenses, since the depth of field is so great. FoCal doesn't work all that well with ultra wides because focus errors make very little difference in sharpness.
> 
> ...



Wow! And, thank you! Sounds like a lot of work, but good learning curve.


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 7, 2014)

Steve said:


> ... For me, a student with basically no money, its not worth it. At the other end, for a full time, well paid working professional its probably a different story....



As someone relying on accurate sharp images for my job, I fall into the second category, and still don't think it's remotely worth it.

Given how often I change camera bodies or buy new lenses, I can think of far better ways to spend $150 for the business.

It's really not that much effort to do some experiments - trust what you find, rather than any 'received wisdom' on the matter.

Same goes for that old photo folklore of hyper focal focusing ;-)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 7, 2014)

keithcooper said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > ... For me, a student with basically no money, its not worth it. At the other end, for a full time, well paid working professional its probably a different story....
> ...


 

I'd tend to agree with that.


I've found a couple of lenses out of dozens that were way off, my 85mm f/1.8 and my 35mmL. Canon adjusted the new 35mmL, and I used AFMA for the 85mm. If I had had FoCal when I bought the 85mm lens, I'd have had it adjusted, since it took -17 to adjust. There were big differences from camera body to camera body as well.

I rechecked my table of AFMA values and found that my 15mm F/E needed a AFMA of -15 on my 5D MK II, but a +2 on my 7D, so the hyper focal stuff did not bear out. I might run it again on my 5D MK III and save the curve to see the shape (Broad or peaked). Generally, a +/- 3 makes very little difference in sharpness. 



I pre-ordered the pro version for far less in late 2011 or early 2012, and I thought the price was steep. I've managed to get a reasonable amount of use from it, and once I printed targets that were good quality, than its fairly fast to test a lens / body. I've also found that I can manually do a adjustment and get into the close enough range in less time by viewing at 10X on the LCD.

$150 seems extreme to me.

I'm expecting Canon to release cameras that have the adjustment built in. There have been two patents in the past year doing some types of AF optimization, and the dual pixel technology seems to produce very accurate AF if you use live view.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2014)

I also ordered FoCal Pro when it was new, cost was about half of what it is today. Some of the other features are quite handy (aperture sharpness test, multipoint focus test, etc.). Those are things that can be done manually, too...but the time savings with automation are substantial.


----------



## caruser (Oct 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> caruser said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Ok thanks that sounds good enough, I've been thinking about pulling the trigger for a while now.


----------



## iMagic (Oct 7, 2014)

I would suggest that $150 is a reasonable amount (at least for me) to at least verify my other techniques (manually guessing using test shots and then also using DotTune) were in the ball park. In the end, depending on the lens, it took some time to verify the results of the testing methodology for each technique until I was satisfied. Probably I overdid it, but I feel better for doing it.


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 7, 2014)

iMagic said:


> I would suggest that $150 is a reasonable amount (at least for me) to at least verify my other techniques (manually guessing using test shots and then also using DotTune) were in the ball park. In the end, depending on the lens, it took some time to verify the results of the testing methodology for each technique until I was satisfied. Probably I overdid it, but I feel better for doing it.


I'm minded to wonder if trusting your own experiments and measurements would be worth even more than the $150?

The whole process of using such software seems such an exercise in spurious precision, that it still mystifies me every time I get asked about it when doing talks at clubs and the like (I include it in a similar vein to many CIS ink setups for desktop printers).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2014)

keithcooper said:


> The whole process of using such software seems such an exercise in spurious precision...



Perhaps. However, AFMA affects every AF shot you take, so doing it incorrectly can be problematic. I've run across many people who have done AFMA incorrectly (e.g. testing at the MFD for a lens commonly used at a much greater distance). 

Honestly, it doesn't matter how you arrive at the correct value for your lens(es), as long as you _do_ arrive at that correct value. Sort of like driving a car with a manual transmission vs. automatic - both will get you there, but if you don't knw how to drive a stick shift, you're in for a jerky, bumpy, gear-grinding ride.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Oct 8, 2014)

It is worth 150.00 but not for the reason that you think. As far as a tool for calculating your optimal afma, it's not worth it. In order to accurately calculate afma, you have to have near perfect calibration conditions which most people don't have unless you have a studio, 300w halogen lights, and perhaps a football field to run your tests. The real value in foCal are the other features which allow you to calculate which f stop yields the highest resolution of fine detail, identifies inconsistencies in your lens af system, and finally which of your af points are out of spec with the center point.

I personally set my afma manually using a newspaper on a wall and then review which afma settings yield the best results. I then tweak it a little in the field depending on lighting, distance, etc. After a bit it becomes very easy to determine which setting is best.

The other features though are much more difficult to do manually and are best suited for the software.

One thing to consider with focal is the hit it takes on your shutter. I've had enough issues trying too get afma set right using the software that I easily added 2000+ shutter actuations to each of my cameras. If you want to go that route, I would suggest using the software in manual afma mode and import the photos into the software rejecting the outliers.

It is a very useful piece of software but you need to determine your needs before purchasing as it may not live up to your expectations as a primary afma tool. There are other means of doing it which for me have produced better results.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 8, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know if dot_tune will tell me if my 60D is out of whack?
> ...



Thanks, that'll save me wasted time and effort.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Oct 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > The whole process of using such software seems such an exercise in spurious precision...
> ...



Actually I think there is no correct value other than the one you need at the distance you are shooting, the light intensity you have, and the type/color/temperature of the lighting on game day. Even ambient temperature can change your afma. To say there is an absolute correct afma setting for all circumstances is a bit of a stretch.

I've also seen some canon lenses straight out of the box that will not focus at infinity if you afma using the FoCal guidelines. Surely you could find one out of a batch that needs adjustment but I've seen it with several copies on different lenses. Could be bad lens design but the variability is there. You need to afma at different focus distances and choose the correct one for your shooting conditions....or just keep a notebook and switch your settings when doing close ups then landscapes.

Wether or not you trust focal to get you that optimal afma setting, it will reveal these inconsistencies so you can decide wether to sell or return that new lens for something else.


----------



## zlatko (Oct 8, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> I have a 6D, ef 15, ef 8-15, Sigma 24-105 Art, ef 70-200 2.8 II, 2 x TC III, and soon 300 2.8 IS II. Will someday have ef 16-35 f/4 and Sigma 50 1.4 Art.
> 
> Is FoCal worth the time, effort and money?
> http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/why/about-focal/
> ...



There's a box version? Is there a disadvantage to getting the download?

The Pro version is £69.95, or about $112.50. I bought it 2 years ago for around $108. A lot of money, but does the job very well. 

The adjustments are made to the body, not the lens.


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 8, 2014)

Yes... Worth every penny...


----------



## mnclayshooter (Oct 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Re: Is FoCal worth ~$150?
> 
> Is getting the sharpest possible images from thousands of dollars worth if gear worth $150?
> 
> ...



Not wanting to step on toes, but I think this is true only if your TC is a "reporting" TC - meaning that the camera recognizes that the TC is present. Some third-party TC's don't report to the camera, thus your AFMA will only apply to the lens. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I own non-reporting TC's and would LOVE to know how to get a work-around for this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2014)

mnclayshooter said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Re: Is FoCal worth ~$150?
> ...



You're absolutely correct - only reporting TCs count.


----------



## Woody (Oct 8, 2014)

I now use Dot Tune under Magic Lantern. Automates the entire process and takes statistical average based on multiple tries. Far more accurate than what I can do manually. Most importantly, it's free.

I also have FoCal but the package now sits in my storage cabinet untouched since I started using Dot Tune.


----------



## Old Shooter (Oct 8, 2014)

FoCal has recently added hard targets to their store... If you don't want to fool around with printing and mounting a target, you can order them ready-to-go from them...

I have had the Pro version ever since I bought my 5DIII... There are several features that make the Pro version handy... As Neuro said, I think the aperture sharpness test is the bomb and I now have optimum aperture recorded for all of my lenses... I don't know if the 6D will let you store two values like the 5DIII, but when you're working with a zoom it is really nice...

If you buy, read every page of every document! It is not the most logical flow of user information - but all of it plays into the end result...


----------



## pwp (Oct 8, 2014)

Where is the $150 price coming from? I'm seeing FoCal Pro at the Reikan website for £69.95. http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/versions/focal-pro/

Converted to USD https://www.google.com.au/#q=70+pounds+to+dollars I'm seeing $112.48

Am I missing something here?

-pw


----------



## horshack (Oct 8, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > you can also try Magic Lantern's free dot_tune module which also automatically adjusts afma. Opinions are divided abut how precise it is, but for me (using a 6d) it's working just fine.
> ...



You can use an abridged version of the DotTune process to see if your 60D+lens is out of calibration (ie, would require AFMA if there was support for it). To do this, perform the initial steps of the DotTune process, including setting up a target, focusing on the target in Live View, and then exiting Live View and do a single viewfinder AF confirmation check and see if you get a solid green confirmation. If the confirmation waivers then your 60D+lens combo would benefit from AFMA (again, if AFMA was supported).


----------



## dcm (Oct 8, 2014)

If you have to ask, then you likely would benefit from it. If you were already sure your lenses were their sharpest with your body by some method you were using, you probably wouldn't be asking. If you get some OOF shots and wonder whether its the camera, lens, or AFMA then it might be worth checking out.

FoCal is most beneficial for fast and/or long lenses where you have a narrow DOF. As an engineer I appreciate the statistical approach and quantitative experimental method that you can dial up or down depending on the certainty you want in the results to trade off shutter count. I could do it all myself qualitatively or use other tools, but I value my time and use FoCal so I can focus on other things. 

I have a pair of 6Ds with zoom lenses ranging from 8mm to 600mm, some fast primes, and both tele extenders. It is fully automated with the 6D and lets you set two values (wide/tele) for your zooms and separate values with extenders. The addition of the second body made me appreciate it even more since there were differences in the AFMA between the bodies. FoCal can help you ensure you are getting the most from your expensive glass and give you some additional insights, like the sharpest f stops for each lens, performance of autofocus points, etc.


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 8, 2014)

Old Shooter said:


> FoCal has recently added hard targets to their store... If you don't want to fool around with printing and mounting a target, you can order them ready-to-go from them...



Once again, I doff my cap to their marketing efforts ;-)


----------



## Jamesy (Oct 8, 2014)

I have owned FocalPro for a couple of years and it seems to work well. That said, the Dot Tune method is free and worthy of investigation - although I have not tried it. No need to put ML on your camera.

Check out the extensive thread here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1187247

Twenty minute How-to video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zE50jCUPhM


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 8, 2014)

pwp said:


> Am I missing something here?



Checking facts isn't fair game, this is a rumor website :-> !


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 8, 2014)

Actually, one thing worth mentioning is that FoCal does let you know when your gear is not operating properly. You will get errors during the test, or you will get a completed test that rather than showing a nice bell curve of IQ throughout the AFMA range it will look like buck shot scatter. When this type of thing happens you know you have something wrong with your gear that no AFMA setting will cure. 

While this is rare, it has happened to me before. I had a 300 f2.8IS that worked perfectly for a couple of years. (I originally and successfully calibrated it with FoCal when I bought it). I then had a suspicion that I was having some problems. Not as many images were achieving the tack sharp focus I had enjoyed. So, I ran it on FoCal and got testing consistency errors along with huge variability across the AFMA range. I sent the lens in to canon and they had to replace an IS motor. FoCal confirmed it for me.

Another instance was with my 5DIII. I have two of these bodies, and immediately when I purchased them I ran them through FoCal with my lenses. Originally they were within about 5% of IQ of each other at optimal AFMA on any given lens. After over a year I began to suspect that one of the bodies was having some trouble. Totally gut instinct... it wasn't like one just stopped working. So, again I ran both bodies through FoCal and sure enough, the body had a problem. Instead of being within 5% of each other, there was over 30% IQ loss on the body in question. I sent it in to canon and they "fixed" it. When I got it back, I ran the test again, and Canon had done absolutely nothing to fix the actual problem. So I sent it back, this time with all the FoCal printouts. A few days later my camera came back with some hardware work and it was fixed. 

FoCal is an excellent tool for calibrating AFMA, but it is also an excellent tool at helping to diagnose when there are problems with your gear. Is it worth $150 to me? At least....


----------



## Max Rockbin (Oct 15, 2014)

Googling around for AFMA on my 70D, I ran across a method by Arash Hazeghi that uses the Canon EOS Utility to determine micro-adjustment. It doesn't work with every camera, but if your camera can trigger autofocus via the remote control in the utility, it's probably your best AFMA option, and VERY worth trying before you lay out $ on the FoCal thingy. This method is probably about as easy. You won't get a lot of graphs, but you won't get a 150 page manual to go with your $150 outlay either. 

Check out this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3056917861&feature=iv&src_vid=Pjef8w5I7VY&v=E9fqWcgtHWA

Or the site of the author of the technique:
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/MA-web/

It's really much simpler and much less time consuming than other techniques. People who've used it found the results very repeatable, which apparently isn't true of some other methods.
I tried it on a couple of my lenses and then tried repeating it. I got exactly the same result (which - lucky me - was a very minor adjustment).


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 15, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> I sent it in to canon and they "fixed" it. When I got it back, I ran the test again, and Canon had done absolutely nothing to fix the actual problem. So I sent it back, this time with all the FoCal printouts. A few days later my camera came back with some hardware work and it was fixed.



Yikes! Some service huh? I hope they did not charge you for the first "fix".


----------



## Canon1 (Oct 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > I sent it in to canon and they "fixed" it. When I got it back, I ran the test again, and Canon had done absolutely nothing to fix the actual problem. So I sent it back, this time with all the FoCal printouts. A few days later my camera came back with some hardware work and it was fixed.
> ...



No charge. I was several months outside of warranty too... So kudos to canon.


----------

