# AF microadjustment of long telephotos - favorite method/product?



## NancyP (Dec 29, 2014)

So, I would like to be able to AF microadjust my 400 f/5.6L as well as shorter lenses. I am looking for advice on a method or product for this procedure. I would like to get a start on learning the method before buying the 7D2. I would like to distinguish between hardware problems (AFMA needed, etc) and wetware problems (I am doing something wrong).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2014)

Focal works well. I have used it for all my telephotos on 7D, 70D, 5DIII and most recently on the 7DII. Obviously, it's best value if you have several lenses and bodies. For cheapness, a cross on the side of a box and a ruler sloping at about 30 deg works and is not too tedious for one lens and one body.


----------



## FEBS (Dec 29, 2014)

Definitely also Focal for me. I specially like the statistical way to propose the best afma value. The af system has tolerances and that's why Focal tries to use a best fit curve on top of several measurements. Of a few methods I tried, this seems to wrk best for me.


----------



## Hardwire (Dec 29, 2014)

I purchased Focal and to be honest find it a bit of a pain to get it working correctly...so just left my lens at 0.

Then reading an update on Magic Lantern it said that they had included green dot AMFA, so I googled it and found that while its a bit of a ball ache, I actually tuned my lens manually and you could too without spending money on this software.

At the time I only had two tele's and one prime to setup so YMMV


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2014)

Hardwire said:


> I purchased Focal and to be honest find it a bit of a pain to get it working correctly...so just left my lens at 0.
> 
> Then reading an update on Magic Lantern it said that they had included green dot AMFA, so I googled it and found that while its a bit of a ball ache, I actually tuned my lens manually and you could too without spending money on this software.
> 
> At the time I only had two tele's and one prime to setup so YMMV



This a repeat posting......

I have heard claims that "Dot Tune" was a reliable method to AFMA a lens. I have also heard claims to the contrary. Most of those claims have been long on opinion and short on data, so I decided to give it a try myself on a 7D2.

The results are as follows: (under incandescent lighting)

150-600: dot tune (150 +9) (600 +14) - Reikan (150 +5) (600 +6)
70-200: dot tune ( 70 +7) (200 +4) - Reikan ( 70 +2) (200 +3)
17-55 : dot tune ( 17 +4) ( 55 +3) - Reikan ( 17 +5) ( 55 +9)
10-20: dot tune ( 10 +4) ( 20 +9) - Reikan ( 10 +5) ( 20 +17)
100: dot tune (100 -8) - Reikan (100 +5)
30 : dot tune ( 30 -2) - Reikan ( 30 +1)

I changed locations, repeated the test and got the following: (under flourescent lighting)
150-600: dot tune (150 +11) (600 +17) - Reikan (150 +5) (600 +6)
70-200: dot tune ( 70 +7) (200 +5) - Reikan ( 70 +2) (200 +3)
17-55 : dot tune ( 17 +4) ( 55 +3) - Reikan ( 17 +5) ( 55 +9)
10-20: dot tune ( 10 +3) ( 20 +7) - Reikan ( 10 +5) ( 20 +17)
100: dot tune (100 -10) - Reikan (100 +5)
30 : dot tune ( 30 +1) - Reikan ( 30 +1)

The observations are: 
1) The Reikan values stayed the same between the runs
2) The Dot Tune values varied up to 3 units between runs
3) Reikan and Dot Tune only agreed once.
4) Reikan and Dot Tune can disagree by up to 15 AFMA units

If you look at the discrepancies under the two runs.
incandescent - 4, 8,5,1,1,6,1, 8,13,3
fluorescent - 6,11,5,2,1,6,2,10,15,0

it appears that Dot Tune is affected by fluorescent lighting.

A quick visual verification of the extreme cases indicates that the Reikan values are far more accurate that the Dot Tune values. looking at the before and after pictures, the difference was obvious.

My conclusion. At least on a 7D2, don't waste your time using Dot Tune on your lenses, get Focal and do it right.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 30, 2014)

Thanks for answers. I had been considering Reikan FoCal and LensAlign among commercial products, mostly because those are the ones that advertise. I don't have those particular organs to ache ;D - but I can live with picky protocols as long as the instructions make sense.

PrNCMent: All manufactured products are made to fit within manufacturer-determined variances. Most examples of a given product would be expected to cluster in the middle of the range (Gaussian distribution, bell curve). The average user will likely receive an average camera and an average lens that will work well enough together. Some users will receive a camera with unusual characteristics (on the tails of the bell curve) and an "average" lens, or vice versa. In that instance, the autofocus could be incorrect, but "consistently" incorrect in the same degree and direction. Autofocus micro-adjustment allows the owner of a camera to apply a correction factor so that the "mismatched" lens and camera pair now focuses correctly. This is important if you have a high need for focus accuracy, for instance, use of long telephoto lenses or of very fast lenses, where the depth of acceptable focus is very thin. If you shoot a 50mm lens at f/8 all the time, your chances of needing an adjustment aren't that high. If you shoot the same lens at f/1.4, you may need AF adjustment for your camera-lens pair.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I had been considering Reikan FoCal and LensAlign



I used to use a LensAlign, switched to FoCal when it first came out, far prefer the latter.


----------



## Synkka (Dec 30, 2014)

I use dot tune and it's always been fine for me.

I think the important points are a large high contrast target, bright lighting (I do mine outside), sturdy tripod, aligning the target and lens properly and have the target at the distance you would typically use the lens.

You can't underestimate how much of a difference good lighting makes when testing auto focus. If you are testing a f5.6 telephoto lens, it will hunt in dim light.


----------



## dcm (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I had been considering Reikan FoCal and LensAlign
> ...



I still use my LensAlign at multiple distances after FoCal to double check the results.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2014)

NancyP

I use both, FoCal works fine and if I chose 1 it would be it.

When you set up make sure you have very good lighting.
I use several halogens and a few 200 watt bulbs.
Poor and unequal lighting messes with results.
Make sure your target is the same level as the camera.
Make sure your target is square to the camera.
You should be able to set up your test one day, do it again the next day and get the same results.
Do an aperture sharpness test as well, it can be very informative.

The good news is that long prime lenses are the easiest to check.
Wide lenses are more prone to errors and results that vary.


----------



## RGF (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I had been considering Reikan FoCal and LensAlign
> ...



I tried to Focal and had some trouble. Perhaps indoor lighting was marginal, it was windy outside, ...

I hope to repeat the process but just wondering if you have any tips on how to get everything working well. I don't have a large studio to work in and my longest lens is 600. And if possible I would like to adjust it with both the 1.4x and 2.0x converts.

Thanks


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 30, 2014)

Synkka said:


> I use dot tune and it's always been fine for me. I think the important points are a large high contrast target, bright lighting (I do mine outside), sturdy tripod, aligning the target and lens properly and have the target at the distance you would typically use the lens.



+1, I feel just fine with Magic Lantern's automatic dot_tune as I don't own very fast lenses or cameras with a precise af system anyway. Plus for what I shoot there are more than enough other sources of af error than a bit more or less afma.

The only situations for me where afma does make a difference is shooting macro with f2.8 or the like - though this usually doesn't make a lot of sense as the dof is so thin. But as afma varies so much with subject distance, you need to calibrate for the specific scene, and I found dot_tune also works for this w/o spending a lot of €€€ for Focal.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2014)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



Lots of light, lots of distance. I tested outdoors in full sun with no wind, and actually added light on the target (ended up at 14-15 EV, meaning a nice high shutter speed with such a long, relatively slow (f/5.6 and f/8 with TCs) lens.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Modern innovations like FoCal for Mac helped take the testing outdoors for some of us whose only laptop was a Macbook Pro. It was a pain dragging the extension cord around for the PC outside.

Which kind of brings up the point for NancyP, Focal is great but you need a laptop or the ability to get your computer close to your camera.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 30, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> Which kind of brings up the point for NancyP, Focal is great but you need a laptop or the ability to get your computer close to your camera.



Well, you can still use FoCal in the "manual" mode, where you take a number of shots covering the +/-20 range (I usually do it at 5 increment steps) and then load the images into Focal's analysis system. As I recall, this is still Neuro's preferred method.

The semi-automated mode on the 5D3 is enough of an annoyance for me to use the manual mode quite often.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2014)

kaihp said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Which kind of brings up the point for NancyP, Focal is great but you need a laptop or the ability to get your computer close to your camera.
> ...



Sounds like extra work when you can plug the computer in and run a test in just a few minutes. Save the report if you like. Repeat. Adjust lighting and repeat instantly. Its more of a pain with newer bodies because you have to change the AF setting manually. But no big deal.

The 7D II is the first body I have tested that had to be manual. It may have been that older versions of Focal you had to do more. 


With the older bodies you do not have to adjust the setting manually. Even easier click and walk away for a minute or so till its done.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 30, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> Sounds like extra work when you can plug the computer in and run a test in just a few minutes. Save the report if you like. Repeat. Adjust lighting and repeat instantly. Its more of a pain with newer bodies because you have to change the AF setting manually. But no big deal.
> 
> The 7D II is the first body I have tested that had to be manual. It may have been that older versions of Focal you had to do more.
> 
> With the older bodies you do not have to adjust the setting manually. Even easier click and walk away for a minute or so till its done.



Have you actually tried the two modes/ways? If not, I would suggest to try and report back what you find.
For some lenses (the very long comes to mind) there is actually a value in *not* having to carry around and plug in a laptop, say, when doing it outdoors.

And no, the older FoCal's didn't require me to do more (when the camera body was supported).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2014)

Anyone else have problems with the latest version of Focal and OS Yosemite for the Mac? I upgraded to calibrate my new 7DII with Focal on a MacBook Pro, and the program kept crashing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2014)

kaihp said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Which kind of brings up the point for NancyP, Focal is great but you need a laptop or the ability to get your computer close to your camera.
> ...



Indeed, I routinely use manual mode (despite having both a MacBook Pro and a MacBook Air).


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



You just carried about 10 pounds of camera and lens outside, at least 1 tripod and head, maybe extra lighting. Would the 5 gallon bucket to set the MacBook Pro on just be to heavy?

Sorry but I am missing it, what is the benefit?

I find that results can vary slightly with just target confirmation. How do you overcome this, or do you think it is a non issue?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> You just carried about 10 pounds of camera and lens outside, at least 1 tripod and head, maybe extra lighting. Would the 5 gallon bucket to set the MacBook Pro on just be to heavy?
> 
> Sorry but I am missing it, what is the benefit?



I have a 1D X, which because of limitations in Canon's SDK is only supported in FoCal's 'MSC' mode (like the 5DIII). That means the user needs to manually change the AFMA setting in the camera between each shot. I started in manual mode because I got the 1D X before FoCal supported it at all, and kept using it. I do oversample, but I get good curve fits, and each 'run' (one focal length, one distance) takes <10 minutes. I can shoot a bunch of tests, then do all the analysis later. I've gotten quite adept at achieving proper alignment to the target, and I do the tests in triplicate.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > You just carried about 10 pounds of camera and lens outside, at least 1 tripod and head, maybe extra lighting. Would the 5 gallon bucket to set the MacBook Pro on just be to heavy?
> ...



I remember when the 1Dx and 5D III were released and the discussions about FoCal.
They did release a copy that supported the 1Dx, it sounds like you got stuck in the past .
I thought I would have problems with the 7D II, you have to manually change the settings but that is it.
It prompts you to change after every shot. It will not let you enter a wrong setting, I made that mistake and the camera wouldn't go forward. So the manual thing was an annoyance, I couldn't go to the bathroom while it was running or get a drink but that is it.

I did notice changing the settings manually that FoCal takes fewer shots than it does in automatic mode.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Anyone else have problems with the latest version of Focal and OS Yosemite for the Mac? I upgraded to calibrate my new 7DII with Focal on a MacBook Pro, and the program kept crashing.



I had it jamb on me in both the new windows and mac version. It wasn't just the 7D II it was all bodies. It would freeze and lock up if I did something out of sequence or switching between tests. If I followed the same sequence each time when changing test I wouldn't have a problem. Close the test that I am working on and start over at the first screen after you selected the camera, it would do fine.

A little glitch but nothing that wasn't easily and immediately solved. A few times I had to restart the program.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 30, 2014)

I have a laptop, and am going to upgrade its ancient 10.6.8 OS soon (10.9 or 10.0/Yosemite). I need to check the specs on the latest release of FoCal. Reikan has updated its FoCal release within the past week to accommodate 7D2. The easiest long telephoto venue for me would be an empty parking lot or top deck of parking garage at work on a weekend day (ghost town), assuming a rectangular floor plan (to help with squaring up the target and camera). The weight of tripods, camera, laptop, lens is rather inconsequential if one works near the car.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Really? Can you tell me which version of FoCal supports the 1D X in fully automatic mode, instead of just MSC mode? Or perhaps you got stuck in NRC mode – not reading carefully. I highlighted the relevant bit in red above to help you out. 

I'm using the current FoCal version.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I didn't say fully automatic mode.
Does it not support it in manual? Maybe it doesn't, I do not have a 1Dx to find out.
I highlighted in red the relevant bit I was referring to help you out.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I have a laptop, and am going to upgrade its ancient 10.6.8 OS soon (10.9 or 10.0/Yosemite). I need to check the specs on the latest release of FoCal. Reikan has updated its FoCal release within the past week to accommodate 7D2. The easiest long telephoto venue for me would be an empty parking lot or top deck of parking garage at work on a weekend day (ghost town), assuming a rectangular floor plan (to help with squaring up the target and camera). The weight of tripods, camera, laptop, lens is rather inconsequential if one works near the car.



25x 400mm a nice long hall way would work nicely to get you started.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2014)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Not sure what you don't understand, or if you re-re-reading the red bits would help. You erroneously suggested that I was 'stuck in the past' since FoCal did start supporting the 1D X, _after_ I had already pointed out that MSC mode support for the 1D X existed, but stated that I chose to continue using Manual Mode. 

Let's try again:

When the 1D X came out, FoCal did not support it in any tethered mode. Therefore, my only option was to use FoCal's Manual Mode, where you capture images of the target yourself, import them into FoCal, and it performs the analysis. Once FoCal started supporting the 1D X (and 5DIII), it was only in the Manual Settings Change (MSC) mode. I continued to calibrate lenses using FoCal's Manual Mode, which is no more time-consuming for me and gives accurate, reproducible results. The advantage of fully automatic calibration (which I used on my 7D and 5DII) is that you can set it up and walk away. If I have to stand next to the setup and fiddle with the camera the whole time anyway, there's no meaningful difference in the process of Manual vs MSC mode for my purposes, but there might be differences in the results.

When I collect images, I perform both near and far defocusing at each AFMA increment, whereas FoCal only gives you the option to perform one or the other (and only with the Pro version). I do find that the direction of defocus can make a difference in the resulting value, so by using both I am getting an 'averaged' value rather than a possibly skewed value. That's another reason I have continued using the Manual Mode.


----------



## Bruce in Philly (Dec 30, 2014)

*Moire method is easiest and best - Reikan Focal has issues*

I wrote a blog piece on just this issue at http://travelthroughpictures.com/photo-items/mfa-moire-reikan/

My blog is pure fun, I make no money on it.

In short, Reikan's Focal has issues at long focal lengths. I found you must anchor the camera really well to get good results and even the shutter clacking will weaken its results. If you have a 400mm lens, put the darn thing on a solid surface and pile on a pillow and then some weights. You will then get good results.

However, the easiest and NO COST way of adjusting is using the Moire method. It is pretty cool. Just download the target at my blog above, then display it on a large screen, and then use live view to focus. The two screens, your monitor and the rear screen of your camera both use dots/pixels and if there is not a perfect alignment with the dots, as would be with a perfect focus, you will see odd color patterns from the dot "interference" pattern. This makes adjustment really easy. It sounds complex but is really fast and easy and you don't need to spend a dime or learn software.

Give it a try. It costs nothing and works with all lenses.

Peace
Bruce in Philly
www.TravelThroughPictures.com
Moire method: http://travelthroughpictures.com/photo-items/mfa-moire-reikan/


----------



## RGF (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Thanks. Do you print your own targets or use their plastic target. I guess w/o wind you don't need to worry about the target blowing. A challenge for me is that our backyard is shady (partially shady) so it is hard to find a sunny spot that will stay sunny for several hours.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> When the 1D X came out, FoCal did not support it in any tethered mode. Therefore, my only option was to use FoCal's Manual Mode, where you capture images of the target yourself, import them into FoCal, and it performs the analysis. Once FoCal started supporting the 1D X (and 5DIII), it was only in the Manual Settings Change (MSC) mode. I continued to calibrate lenses using FoCal's Manual Mode.



Yes, you described my understanding of what you were saying.
It was not supported at all and when the body was finally supported with MSC mode you choose to continue working in Manual Mode. 

I appreciate the clarification, in case I order the 1Dx it will work with FoCal exactly like the 7D II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2014)

RE: the moiré method, I've found one can move back and forth quite a bit (relatively speaking) without a noticeable change in the interference pattern viewed on the back of the camera LCD...enough that I do not find the method reliable. I have not tried it, but perhaps tethering the camera and viewing the display on a larger monitor might make a difference.



RGF said:


> Thanks. Do you print your own targets or use their plastic target. I guess w/o wind you don't need to worry about the target blowing. A challenge for me is that our backyard is shady (partially shady) so it is hard to find a sunny spot that will stay sunny for several hours.



I printed them myself (inkjet printer, heavy matte photo paper).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> it appears that Dot Tune is affected by fluorescent lighting.
> 
> A quick visual verification of the extreme cases indicates that the Reikan values are far more accurate that the Dot Tune values. looking at the before and after pictures, the difference was obvious.
> 
> My conclusion. At least on a 7D2, don't waste your time using Dot Tune on your lenses, get Focal and do it right.


 
Don, I agree with your observation 100%. I've tried to AF many canon cameras using the AF indicator, it is not that accurate. The premise of using a inaccurate indicator to adjust AF makes little sense, except that it is a quick and dirty method to get AF into a acceptable but not perfect range. A error of +/- 3 is pretty good.

FoCal has used a lot of that money we have sent them to do 10's of thousands of tests, and they probably know more about the accuracy limitations of Canon and Nikon cameras than anyone but the manufacturers.

They have found that the content of the test target, lighting brightness, light color, distance, and a lot more affect the autofocus systems. They have managed thru several software iterations to minimize those affects on their test results, but, when you go to actually take a real world photo, all those limitations are still there, so you will not always get perfect results, just the best the AF system is capable of with the lens in use.

In the final analysis, the dot tune method may give good enough results, considering the accuracy limitations of the AF system. Its no different for Nikon. That's why a fast, accurate AF system using the image sensor is the Holy Grail, sought after but not achieved yet. They are definitely making big improvements though.


----------



## Bruce in Philly (Dec 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RE: the moiré method, I've found one can move back and forth quite a bit (relatively speaking) without a noticeable change in the interference pattern viewed on the back of the camera LCD...enough that I do not find the method reliable. I have not tried it, but perhaps tethering the camera and viewing the display on a larger monitor might make a difference.



Not my experience. I found it to be very sensitive... enough to satisfy a very picky me. Read my blog piece and you will see how crazy picky I am. I suspect that maybe your camera wasn't truly perpendicular to the flat plane of the monitor. You must be very perpendicular to have the effect spread over the screen. I have used this successfully with two cameras, the 7D and 5D Mk II. 

Anyway, as always, YMMV and it has. Good luck. Oh and I go into detail on use of FOCAL also... so much that I can't recommend the software. After looking back on it, I put too too many hours into d*cking with it that I was just wasting way too much time when I should have been shooting pictures. I ended up going to Staples and printing a 24" X 36" target to get better results with FOCAL... you should not have to do this.

Peace
Bruce in Philly
http://travelthroughpictures.com/photo-items/mfa-moire-reikan/


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2014)

Bruce in Philly
You write in your blog that the target for FoCal, according to Canon, should be 50x the focal length away from the camera. You then go on to write that: "*You will need a larger target for long lenses*." Surely, a target 50x the focal length away from any lens, be it wide angle or telephoto, will give the same size image on a sensor since image size = (object size)x(focal length/distance away), and (focal length/distance away) = 1/50 for all lenses. So, you need the same size target for all lenses.


----------



## Bruce in Philly (Dec 30, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Bruce in Philly
> You write in your blog that the target for FoCal, according to Canon, should be 50x the focal length away from the camera. You then go on to write that: "*You will need a larger target for long lenses*." Surely, a target 50x the focal length away from any lens, be it wide angle or telephoto, will give the same size image on a sensor since image size = (object size)x(focal length/distance away), and (focal length/distance away) = 1/50 for all lenses. So, you need the same size target for all lenses.



Hmmm... you got my head spinning..... What happened, despite the math, is that with my 500mm, 50x = 25 meters or 82 feet.... At that distance, the target, if printed on standard printer paper (8.5 x 11), is too small for Focal to grab. It just caused problems. The magnification of the lens did not fully compensate for the 50x distance and the target is smaller in the viewfinder. I found that you needed bigger targets as you moved away. That is IF you followed Canon's recommended procedure of 50x. IIRC, Reikan notes you don't have to go back that far but I forget their wording specifically. I also found that the higher the contrast... in other words, the brighter the lighting.... the easier it is for the FOCAL software to grab focus.

So... given you math.... either the formula is incorrect or maybe I didn't calculate 82 feet correctly... but the target was just too small... actually way too small.

Peace
Bruce in Philly


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2014)

The formula is close to correct. It is just approximating that the image focussing from 50x away is close to the focal length.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2014)

Bruce in Philly said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce in Philly
> ...



Sorry, but I'm really not sure why you found a larger target necessary. As AlanF states, it's simple math. Personally, I found that math to be correct (unsurprisingly) – the printed 8.5x11" target is framed pretty much identically (within a small margin of error for focus breathing, since lens focal length is specified at infinity focus) at 50x focal length, with lenses ranging from 16mm (the 16-35/2.8L II) to 1200mm (600mm f/4L IS II + 2xIII).

FoCal detected it just fine in both cases (and dozens in between). The only reason one should need a larger target would be for testing at distances longer than 50x the FL. There's likely no point in doing that for long lenses (as Reikan points out), but one may want to calibrate a 16mm lens at a distance that more closely approximates real world use (50 x 16mm = 2.6 feet).


----------



## NancyP (Dec 31, 2014)

The Reikan website sells larger preprinted targets, so somebody must want to use large targets.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2014)

NancyP said:


> The Reikan website sells larger preprinted targets, so somebody must want to use large targets.



Certainly there is...




neuroanatomist said:


> The only reason one should need a larger target would be for testing at distances longer than 50x the FL. There's likely no point in doing that for long lenses (as Reikan points out), but one may want to calibrate a 16mm lens at a distance that more closely approximates real world use (50 x 16mm = 2.6 feet).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 31, 2014)

I've found it more difficult to use long lenses with Focal, but I think its a matter of lens vibration. A larger target does seem to work better, whatever the reason.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've found it more difficult to use long lenses with Focal, but I think its a matter of lens vibration. A larger target does seem to work better, whatever the reason.



Likely it's vibration. When I first used FoCal, I set up on my hardwood flooring, and vibration was an issue. I moved the setup to the basement, no problems. For my 600mm, I have it on a stable outdoor setup (RRS TVC-33 + PG-02 LLR gimbal, with 30 lbs of lead hanging from the hook on the tripod. Lack of wind is key - the lens and it's hood act like a big ol' sail in even a light breeze.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I've found it more difficult to use long lenses with Focal, but I think its a matter of lens vibration. A larger target does seem to work better, whatever the reason.
> ...



Most likely virbration, or stability issues.

I found that it is easier to use Focal with the long lenses (once you have the logistics figured out). Not because you are using Focal but Lens Align as well, it takes just a few minutes to do my 500mm and 300mm. On the opposite end I have played with the 24 and 35mm for hours to find the optimum setting.


----------



## Bruce in Philly (Jan 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > The Reikan website sells larger preprinted targets, so somebody must want to use large targets.
> ...



You all had me questioning my methods.... so I went out today and shot a sample with my 500mm lens. This is the Riekan Focal target on 8.5x11, standard print, at 50x 500mm or 82 ft. The target is simply too small for Focal to consistently grab. I suspect our collective error here is from an assumption that my camera is a crop sensor model. It is not. My camera is 5D Mk II, a full frame unit. Check here on one of my blog pieces on the difference in "zoom" between crop sensor and full frame models:

http://travelthroughpictures.com/photo-items/crop-full-sensors-zoom/

So, I stand by my comments and blog piece. 

Peace,
Bruce in Philly

http://travelthroughpictures.com/photo-items/mfa-moire-reikan/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2015)

Bruce in Philly said:


> You all had me questioning my methods.... so I went out today and shot a sample with my 500mm lens. This is the Riekan Focal target on 8.5x11, standard print, at 50x 500mm or 82 ft. The target is simply too small for Focal to consistently grab. I suspect our collective error here is from an assumption that my camera is a crop sensor model. It is not. My camera is 5D Mk II, a full frame unit.
> ...
> 
> So, I stand by my comments and blog piece.



But I still question your conclusions. I, for one, did not assume you were using a crop body. As I stated, I have no issues out to 1200mm with the standard target on 8.5x11" paper, and that's with my 1D X which is also a FF body.

Below is an image of my outdoor long lens setup at 50x focal length. (I do 300mm and shorter lenses indoors), compare the size of the target in my image to that in yours - it's actually smaller in mine (looks like I may be using an older target version that fills less of the page, but...you state you're using 8.5x11" paper and the aspect ratio of your paper doesn't seem consistent with that statement). I wonder if perhaps your background is too cluttered?


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bruce in Philly said:
> 
> 
> > You all had me questioning my methods.... so I went out today and shot a sample with my 500mm lens. This is the Riekan Focal target on 8.5x11, standard print, at 50x 500mm or 82 ft. The target is simply too small for Focal to consistently grab. I suspect our collective error here is from an assumption that my camera is a crop sensor model. It is not. My camera is 5D Mk II, a full frame unit.
> ...



Cluttered yes, but he should be shooting with a single center focus point. 

The electric meter is to close, surely this is a sample showing size and not the set up he uses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Cluttered yes, but he should be shooting with a single center focus point.
> The electric meter is to close, surely this is a sample showing size and not the set up he uses.



Should be, but I'm struggling to find a reason he thinks the target is too small when mine is even smaller and I have no issues with lenses both shorter and much longer (I use the setup above for 400-1200mm lenses...but as stated, 50x FL gives basically identical framing with any lens). 

Looking at his blog post, the image above *is* his test setup.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Looking at his blog post, the image above *is* his test setup.



If I were trouble shooting the set up I would say level and square issues would cause inaccurate results or confirmation errors. Even if the target is level the lens may be above the target and shooting down at an angel. Who knows what effect the light reflecting off the meter has. I am sure it's not positive.

On the plus side the method he is talking about using the computer monitor could be helpful getting my gear accurate for the next time I go to Bestbuy and take pics of TV's on the wall


----------



## Bruce in Philly (Jan 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Cluttered yes, but he should be shooting with a single center focus point.
> ...



Boy you guys/gals are good! OK, some items... no particular order:

1 - Yes, that was my setup; center focus point only.
2 - Reality: Focal's focus was inconstant, errors, could not grab focus, results were all over the place. This was with bright sunlight, tungsten light... etc.
3 - This is the sum of all this stuff: Do you really want to dick around like this? Really? I may have created a situation that the tool won't work well, but really, what is it we expect? To have a laboratory at home? I did what they said, and it didn't work.

This tool drove me crazy and wasted way too much of my time. On top of that, it cost money. If that is not enough, there are other ways to adjust micro focus for free, and from my experience, is no less accurate. Moire method is one that I like, but I also duplicated the Lens Align tool by creating my own "scale" in PowerPoint, laying it down flat, angling my camera at a 45 degree angle... and it works!!! Really well! For free!

I find this hobby fascinating and fun. Playing with the Reiken Focal tool was a blast of fun, but in the end.... it was no better and in some cases worse than other free methods and I ended up spending way too much time with it. It is appealing in that it is "automatic".. after all, technology is better than your own judgement eh? ... just plug it in, aim it at a target... and wow.... calibration nirvana. Well that doesn't happen with long lenses. I even made a "scale" on a large, flattened cardboard box ala Lens Align and laid it out on a rise in my long driveway for my 500mm... worked!!!

I also didn't mention how many emails I sent to Rieken that were not responded to regarding my 500mm lens (obviously I wasn't the only one having trouble). They then stopped supporting 500mm lenses... after I purchased the product with this expectation. The newer versions just gave me an error message saying it won't work with 500mm lens. They did not respond to my emails. Then, on a lark, a few months ago I sent them another email and they did respond saying newer versions recognized my older purchase and would work with 500mm lens. It did not... I sent them an email... they did not respond.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant..... If you purchased it and it works for you, you won!! I can't recommend this software at all despite that it works with shorter lenses. You can do this using other methods for free and as far as I can tell, get the same results with a lot less dicking around.

Peace
Bruce in Philly


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2015)

Sounds like you had a bad experience, which is unfortunate. I suspect some methodological errors, given the apparent lack of understanding of a fixed FL multiple on framing, uncertainty (on my part, at least) about simple things like the size of paper you used, etc. 

OTOH, I have found FoCal to work reliably and accurately with lenses from 16mm to 1200mm, requiring no more work than other methods and giving results I trust. Having tried many methods to AFMA (and written tutorials on it), I can wholeheartedly recommend FoCal – to me, it was worth every penny (or shilling, as the case may be). I don't have an optical lab at home (although I do at work), I have a basement and a back yard, some desk lamps and extension cords, and an inkjet printer. The LensAlign gave equivalent results, but judging small differences in sharpness is a royal PITA, digital analysis is better. Other methods (moiré, dottune) were unreliable and inconsistent, but at least they were free so I got my money's worth...


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 2, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I have a laptop, and am going to upgrade its ancient 10.6.8 OS soon (10.9 or 10.0/Yosemite). I need to check the specs on the latest release of FoCal. Reikan has updated its FoCal release within the past week to accommodate 7D2. The easiest long telephoto venue for me would be an empty parking lot or top deck of parking garage at work on a weekend day (ghost town), assuming a rectangular floor plan (to help with squaring up the target and camera). The weight of tripods, camera, laptop, lens is rather inconsequential if one works near the car.


I AFMAd my 7D2 one evening after work..... It gave me a long hallway to shoot down and the floor tiles made calculating distance quite easy. A 500 Watt studio lamp helped illuminate the target


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 2, 2015)

Bruce in Philly said:


> They then stopped supporting 500mm lenses... after I purchased the product with this expectation. * The newer versions just gave me an error message saying it won't work with 500mm lens.*



Really?

I downloaded the latest version for the 7D II. It just happens that this morning I set up focal and calibrated my 500mm lens.
I didn't get any error message.
While it was set up I did my 5D II and the 7D II. No problems.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Bruce in Philly said:
> 
> 
> > They then stopped supporting 500mm lenses... after I purchased the product with this expectation. * The newer versions just gave me an error message saying it won't work with 500mm lens.*
> ...



Thanks for clarifying. Since I don't have a 500mm lens, I couldn't be certain...but that statement seemed pretty darn unlikely to me. Why would it work with 300mm, 400mm, 560mm, 600mm, 840mm and 1200mm lenses...but not 500mm lenses?? There's no reason FoCal shouldn't work with any AF lens on a supported camera. Granted, since AoV gets smaller as FL increases, setup stability becomes more important as the FL increases into the supertele range. That may present problems for people unable to achieve a stable setup (but then, lack of a stable setup may cause problems for their photography in general!).


----------



## Bruce in Philly (Jan 2, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Bruce in Philly said:
> 
> 
> > They then stopped supporting 500mm lenses... after I purchased the product with this expectation. * The newer versions just gave me an error message saying it won't work with 500mm lens.*
> ...



Yes, Really... read the RED message as the bottom:

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/versions/focal-plus/

Focal lengths 400mm and greater are only supported by their PRO version... and that costs more money. The reason this upsets me, is that I originally purchased the Standard which, at the time, did support all lens sizes. I had trouble using the product, so I upgraded to the Plus version.. more money. It also supported longer lenses. Then, with all of a sudden with version 1.9, they de-featured the software and blocked the use of longer lenses. At that time, if my memory serves, no version/edition of the software would handle longer lenses. Then... at some point... the PRO version supported longer lenses but ONLY this version. 

During all this time I sent them emails asking them questions about this... no responses. Clearly they had a problem. So today, as I type this, they want even more money for me to use a product that they said I could use in thier earlier versions. I am not happy.

Take this confusion we all have here..... it does ... it doesn't... oh just this version.... oh the target area is cluttered... etc. etc... as reasons I chose to not recommend their products.

Peace
Bruce in Philly


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce in Philly said:
> ...


Very good point about stability. On a tile floor, my tripod feet slipped and was not very stable and I found that the ball-head made it very hard to do precise aiming. I used a heavy duty video tripod with a gear head instead... that allowed very easy and very precise aiming at the center of the target and it gave a rock solid platform to work from.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2015)

Yes, I recall that the Pro version is needed for longer lenses. But your phrasing suggested FoCal doesn't support them at all, which is clearly not the case. 



Bruce in Philly said:


> Take this confusion we all have here.....



Speak for yourself, please. Not all of us are confused, even if you appear to be. Evidence of confusion from your blog:



> You will need a larger target for long lenses. I have a 500mm lens and with the 1.4x teleconverter, I get 700mm of length. This requires, per Canon’s recommendation, the camera be 115 feet away from the target. You are going to need a larger target for this. FoCal didn’t respond to my question about how large of a target is needed for a 700mm lens...



As already discussed, the target fills the same area of the frame at 50x focal length, whether that focal length is 14mm or 700mm. I agree they should have responded, but the question is rather inane. Your blog post starts out with warning about the technical nature of the discussion to follow, then you proceed to get a key technical concept dead wrong. I guess it's a good thing most people know better than to believe everything they read on the Internet... 

But grabbing a beer was good advice, so I think I'll follow it.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 2, 2015)

Bruce in Philly said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce in Philly said:
> ...



Your statement made it appear that no version of FoCal would support a 500mm lens.

So to clarify you can not recommend buying Focal based on the fact you do not have the version that supports your lens. 

Not that Focal may or may not be accurate with the right version.

So to recap in your review in the blog, you shot with the wrong version of Focal, you spent extra to print an oversized target rather than buy the Pro version. Using the wrong version with an oversized target you had poor results. Now you would not recommend it because they wanted more money for the Pro version.

It is sad to see your kind of blog, there are people who are really trying to learn who wouldn't know better when reading it.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 2, 2015)

I have found focal to be largely useless for most people. You end up with a false sense of security and blow away way too many shutter actuations. You get better and more accurate results by using something like a spyder lenscal.

I had terrible and inconsistent results across the board with it. So I don't recommend anyone waste their money unless you do camera repair and calibration for a living.


----------

