# 5dm3 AFMA Focal results



## Basti187 (Dec 21, 2012)

Hey guys,

just spend a few hours calibrating my 5dm3 as I was really unhappy with the unsharp results of it.

I used Reikan Focal 1.6.0 Plus, the fully AFMA. 

The results vary quite a lot though when I change range so I am wondering what to calibrate it at.

I did this for two lenses...my 24-105mm and the 100-400mm.

Results: 24-105mm

24mm

EV 7 5.4m W+1
EV 7 3.3m W+2
EV 7 0.8m W+3

105mm

EV 7.5 7m (14m zoomed) T-1
EV 7.5 3.9m (7.9m zoomed)T+6
EV 7.5 2.5m T+5
EV 7.5 1.6m T+7
EV 7.5 0.8m T+7


_______________________________________________

Results: 100-400mm

100mm

EV 7.5 1.9m W+0
EV 7.5 3.1m W+0
EV 7.5 4.7m W+4
EV 7.5 7.0m (13m zoomed) W+2


400mm

EV 8 7.0m T+4
EV 8 5.7m T+4
EV 8 4.5m T+4
EV 8 3.5m T+7
EV 8 2.5m T+9


So, I guess the 400mm one to keep at T+4 as I used it for far away wildlife most of times. Considering the other focal lenghts I could use a bit of advice please.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2012)

I think you should repeat the testing with more light. Your EV's are quite low, I'd recommend getting them above EV 10.


----------



## JaxPhotographer (Dec 21, 2012)

Neuro's suggestion is valid. As far as being concerned with the range, it seems you are operating outside the recommended 25x-50x focal length for the calibration on a number of your distances tested. I recommend that when you retest with higher EV 's you also work inside the recommended test ranges and use those figures initially until you can validate with some real shooting results.

If you need a quick calculator to confirm your target distances at different focal lengths, try the link below for a competitors product:

http://michaeltapesdesign.com/lensalign.html


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 21, 2012)

The only exception to that would be any lens you plan to use for close up work or macro. You still need to calibrate in the recommended range but ALSO at a range Representative of the type of closeup work you would be doing. Also make sure you are not using Florescent, CF, or LED lighting. The flicker messes with the analysis. Use daylight on a cloudless day or some very strong halogen lighting.



JaxPhotographer said:


> Neuro's suggestion is valid. As far as being concerned with the range, it seems you are operating outside the recommended 25x-50x focal length for the calibration on a number of your distances tested. I recommend that when you retest with higher EV 's you also work inside the recommended test ranges and use those figures initially until you can validate with some real shooting results.
> 
> If you need a quick calculator to confirm your target distances at different focal lengths, try the link below for a competitors product:
> 
> http://michaeltapesdesign.com/lensalign.html


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 21, 2012)

JaxPhotographer said:


> Neuro's suggestion is valid. As far as being concerned with the range, it seems you are operating outside the recommended 25x-50x focal length for the calibration on a number of your distances tested. I recommend that when you retest with higher EV 's you also work inside the recommended test ranges and use those figures initially until you can validate with some real shooting results.
> 
> If you need a quick calculator to confirm your target distances at different focal lengths, try the link below for a competitors product:
> 
> http://michaeltapesdesign.com/lensalign.html




I saw Neuro's excellent tutorial on how to use it, but I wasn't sure if I'd have the time for it. 
On the other hand FoCal seems both easy and cheap. However, when that is the case there's also a catch or else why would anyone use LensAlign.
So I'd really appreciate someone knowledgeable to advise on what the pros and cons of the two are for AFMA. 
Thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2012)

I wrote the tutorial before FoCal was available. I've sold my LensAlign Pro and I use FoCal now.


----------



## mememe (Dec 21, 2012)

Can someone do this with a really new Lens? (70-200 2.8 II or 24-70 II)?

There was a Rumor that Canon changed Autofocus algorithms and Focus is now checked after focussing and corrected if not perfect (u can see this when the Lens does a tiny step after the first fast and large one). But it works only with new Lenses and Cameras (rumor said so)


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 21, 2012)

As a Mac user I find the Beta is of zero worth to me for a 5D3. pity. So Focal Pro just sits for me until Canon changes the SDK.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 21, 2012)

New version (alpha) claims to be able to do it now in two shots (the third being the shot taken at the selected AFMA). If that's true then MSC mode is not that big of a deal...Though I will have to see it to believe it.



crasher8 said:


> As a Mac user I find the Beta is of zero worth to me for a 5D3. pity. So Focal Pro just sits for me until Canon changes the SDK.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 21, 2012)

mememe said:


> Can someone do this with a really new Lens? (70-200 2.8 II or 24-70 II)?
> 
> There was a Rumor that Canon changed Autofocus algorithms and Focus is now checked after focussing and corrected if not perfect (u can see this when the Lens does a tiny step after the first fast and large one). But it works only with new Lenses and Cameras (rumor said so)



Yes, it's still useful. The newer lenses combined with newer bodies tend to have better AF consistency, but in terms of actual focus accuracy MFA can still improve things since you can still have a mis-match between what the actual focus is, and what the AF sensor says it is.


----------



## junkwerks (Dec 21, 2012)

Just curious -- did you have any indication that something was wrong before you did the testing?


----------



## PackLight (Dec 21, 2012)

Basti187

Your lighting is less than recommended and the brighter the better. That is an obvious issue with your test.

But let me give you a few thoughts that might help you.

I have found the following to be true whether you use lensalign or focal.

Light differences will give you different results. Not only can they be more inaccurate, but different intensities can cause slight variations.

Different distances can give you different results. So shooting at different distances will give you an idea, but keep this in mind. The farther you are from your subject the deeper the DOF. So even though the settings farther away may be different your DOF may compensate. I would suggest the 50x focal length that is recommended, and possibly 25x if you like to shoot close sometimes. The farther away the less critical the results.

Zooms are flakey, and even when you get fairly consistent results they will never be as accurate as most primes. Differences from the long end to the short is common.

Set up in a clinical manner, use consistent lighting, set up square, measure your target center from the floor and match the lens center. Variations in lighting and set up can cause you the most frustration.

Good Luck


----------



## CharlieB (Dec 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think you should repeat the testing with more light. Your EV's are quite low, I'd recommend getting them above EV 10.



Just a point of order, to say that EV is not an indication of the amount of light - although most folks think it is.

EV, without an ISO reference is useless to determine light levels. You can only say that for any given EV, at the same ISO, the lower number means less light, but thats it.


----------



## CharlieB (Dec 22, 2012)

Should also say - test in bright light, but if you're not getting consistent results near to far.... time for a body recalibration at Canon.

My 7D was awful... could AFMA for near, or middle, or far, but it would throw the other distances all off focus, by a LOT.

For instance, if I AFMA'd at say 2 meters with a 28mm lens, at 10 meters, I'd be back focusing, and at infinity I'd be front focusing!

Trip to Canon solved it, and it tracks near to far dead on now. Some lenses still need some AFMA tweakage, but thats ok. I'm finding if I tweak at about the 50x the focal length - its about right (as they suggest). And, that all of my lenses focused well at infinity (aka, the moon) while it was always the near end that needed some tweakage - which the AFMA did just fine.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2012)

CharlieB said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I think you should repeat the testing with more light. Your EV's are quite low, I'd recommend getting them above EV 10.
> ...



Technically true, but practically, most photographic discussions assume ISO 100 so the EV concept can be applied to real-world situations, such as when Canon indicated the 1D X can AF at EV -2, which moonlight from a full moon. FoCal also assumes ISO 100.


----------



## rpt (Dec 22, 2012)

You have most of the answers. The one thing that confused FoCal when I used it first was tripod stability. I had raised the central column...

Ensure your camera is rock steady. Suspend a weight under the central column if you can. Ensure central column is not raised.

Oh! The other thing is ensure your lights are not fluorescent nor AC powered LEDs. That may cause strange readings to show up.

So since the world has not ended I guess it is back to the tripod for you


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 22, 2012)

This is for 25, so if you want to use the 50, multiply distance X 2



JaxPhotographer said:


> Neuro's suggestion is valid. As far as being concerned with the range, it seems you are operating outside the recommended 25x-50x focal length for the calibration on a number of your distances tested. I recommend that when you retest with higher EV 's you also work inside the recommended test ranges and use those figures initially until you can validate with some real shooting results.
> 
> If you need a quick calculator to confirm your target distances at different focal lengths, try the link below for a competitors product:
> 
> http://michaeltapesdesign.com/lensalign.html


----------



## JaxPhotographer (Dec 22, 2012)

scottkinfw said:


> This is for 25, so if you want to use the 50, multiply distance X 2



Actually, the tool I linked offers a simple button to click for either 25x OR 50x focal length calculation so no extra math involved if you click on the correct choice.


----------



## CharlieB (Dec 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> EV, without an ISO reference
> 
> most photographic discussions assume ISO 100 so the EV concept can be applied to real-world situations



I guess most photo discussions don't include folks who grew up using the EV system.....

When I see EV -2, I consider that to be the real EV -2, not a luminance value.

I find it strange that Canon chooses use the EV system for a function that is subject neither to shutter speed, or ISO. Its not like you could manually bump either of those and have the camera suddenly start focusing. Or, put another way, if you had the camera set to EV -5 things would call apart with focus, if the light were adequate.

My little peeve is when people say "it was so bright, it must have been EV 20 out...." or "it was EV -5, I couldn't see a thing" - neither of which is related to any brightness.

Too old school I guess....


----------



## Basti187 (Dec 23, 2012)

thanks for the tips...I will get back to testing once I get back home as I don't have a tripod with me as I m travelling at the moment and had to work with books and a table


----------



## rpt (Dec 23, 2012)

Basti187 said:


> thanks for the tips...I will get back to testing once I get back home as I don't have a tripod with me as I m travelling at the moment and had to work with books and a table


Good luck. Let us know how it goes.


----------



## Phenix205 (Dec 23, 2012)

If the testing results are so much sensitive to the lighting conditions, then in the real world shooting where the lighting condition can rarely be as ideal as the testing condition, would minor inconsistency in the AFMA results matter at all? I've done a few rounds of tests on all my lenses and I had hard time keeping my lighting conditions consistent so I got slightly different results every time. It was kind of frustrating. So I ended up picking an average value and moving on.

Neuro, et al I'd appreciate you shedding some light on this. Would +/- 5 units be siginificant enough to make any difference in the real world shooting?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 23, 2012)

Phenix205 said:


> If the testing results are so much sensitive to the lighting conditions, then in the real world shooting where the lighting condition can rarely be as ideal as the testing condition, would minor inconsistency in the AFMA results matter at all? I've done a few rounds of tests on all my lenses and I had hard time keeping my lighting conditions consistent so I got slightly different results every time. It was kind of frustrating. So I ended up picking an average value and moving on.
> 
> Neuro, et al I'd appreciate you shedding some light on this. Would +/- 5 units be siginificant enough to make any difference in the real world shooting?



Yes, you'd notice a 5-unit difference, maybe not too much with an f/5.6 lens, but definitely with an f/2.8 lens. There are always going to be inconsistencies. Any one shot may be a little off. A properly calibrated system ensures that's cross many shots, the average is at the correct focus. Having the test setup for AFMA as close to 'ideal' as possible (aligned, well-lit, high-contrast target) ensures your AFMA doesn't introduce a systematic error.


----------

