# 5D4 Dual-Pixel RAW Image Microadjust comparison to AFMA posted at DPR



## ahsanford (Aug 31, 2016)

https://www.dpreview.com/news/1177471835/testing-image-microadjust-on-the-canon-5d-mark-iv

Interesting -- I'm sure we could pick apart the methods (it is DPR after all), but they've pushed the limits of the Dual-Pixel RAW Image Microadjustment up against good ol' fashioned AFMA to scale the amount of focus correction possible in post with DP RAW. I'll give them credit, it's a simple and clever way to frame this up without just handing us a gallery of pre-/post-correction shots.
_
"However, the degree of correction we're seeing is so small (on the order of -2 to +2 in terms of traditional AF microadjustment) that we wonder whether it's worth the effort of incorporating DPP into your workflow, especially given its slow performance even on a fast computer. Or the doubling in file size."_

They completely drive past the stories this week that Adobe will just directly bolt this functionality into their much-more-widely-used traditional LR / ACR tools, but here's their rough swag for the scale of what you can do with focus in post.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2016)

It's consistent with the way Canon described the potential in their article from last week. Rudy Winston (Canon tech rep / mouthpiece) made the limitations clear, using words like 'tiny', 'subtle' and 'just a tad'.


----------



## Nitroman (Aug 31, 2016)

Personally i don't see that the benefit is worth the effort. AF accuracy varies so much under different conditions, that the shift in focus is negligable.

Now give me an AFMA that changes over distance to produce perfectly calibrated focus and i'll listen.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 1, 2016)

Early reports with testing on Beta models and software is saying that this feature is very dependent on focal length. Apparently longer focal lengths benefit more from this feature and I think it will end up being a great feature for wildlife photographers and macro users. At least that's my perspective.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> Early reports with testing on Beta models and software is saying that this feature is very dependent on focal length. Apparently longer focal lengths benefit more from this feature and I think it will end up being a great feature for wildlife photographers and macro users. At least that's my perspective.



I'm not sure that 'longer focal length' is correct. Is the thinking that _perspective_ determines how much you can focus microadjust an image? How would that work?

Rather, I think the magnitude of adjustment is inversely proportional to the DoF...so, aperture and magnification are the determinants, with wider and higher, respectively, meaning more effect of adjustment. It shouldn't matter whether that higher magnificaiton is achieved with a longer focal length or a closer subject (the issue of wide lenses giving deeper DoF have been done to death, if the subject is the same size in an image with different focal lengths, the DoF is the same).


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > Early reports with testing on Beta models and software is saying that this feature is very dependent on focal length. Apparently longer focal lengths benefit more from this feature and I think it will end up being a great feature for wildlife photographers and macro users. At least that's my perspective.
> ...



A review online claimed that the 50mm and 65mm didn't seem to have much in the way of latitude and the 85mm and 70-200mm seemed to show more. His comments were purely presumptive, so we'll just have to wait and see more.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 4, 2016)

I believe the scale of the adjustment is proportional to the depth of field.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's consistent with the way Canon described the potential in their article from last week. Rudy Winston (Canon tech rep / mouthpiece) made the limitations clear, using words like 'tiny', 'subtle' and 'just a tad'.



Exactly this ^^^, "tiny" being the key word, and he did emphasise TINY! I think some are thinking way too far on this.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 4, 2016)

I'd suggest the results are entirely consistent with what anyone with a passing knowledge of optics could expect, based on what is known about the sensor structures for DP designs.

To Canon's credit they are careful in how it is described, no mean feat given the demands of marketing ;-)

I expect more uses of it to emerge once others start tweaking their processing software...

That said I suspect we'll see more than a bit of whinging when some find out the realities


----------



## tpatana (Sep 4, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's consistent with the way Canon described the potential in their article from last week. Rudy Winston (Canon tech rep / mouthpiece) made the limitations clear, using words like 'tiny', 'subtle' and 'just a tad'.
> ...



The article (from Sweden) posted on another thread showed some 2m/6ft shift on a picture taken with 35mm lens.

If that's not fake, I'm no calling it tiny.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 4, 2016)

tpatana said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I don't think that's the case, 2m of shift would be ground braking IMO. I'll bet it's more like 2mm. If you can correct focus by 2m I'll eat my shorts...lol

Also I think Canon would have made quite a deal about DPRAW if it was capable of 2m worth of focus shift, and not time code 2.05 where a few MM is shown.

https://youtu.be/VTt1bDcLFB0


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 4, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > arthurbikemad said:
> ...



This is what tpatana is referring to:


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 4, 2016)

I did read the article and see those images. I agree if that is the case then WOW factor is BIG.

My understanding is that each pixel is placed side by side, thus a slightly different perspective is recorded from each in the raw file, the shift switches data from each, surly focus is more a case of one pixel would need to be forward and one back in order to record two focus points in a single shutter actuation? So are we not seeing a shift rather than two focus points, bit like closing one eye then swap from one to the other, is this not how they also shift the bokeh?


----------



## zim (Sep 4, 2016)

Yip read those articles too, something not adding up here, really hope others test this in depth particularly reviewers I trust, Bryan where are you!!


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 4, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



A link and the uncropped image would give more context.

http://www.kamerabild.se/tester/vi-har-provat-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv?nodePage=3


----------



## sebasan (Sep 4, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> A link and the uncropped image would give more context.
> 
> http://www.kamerabild.se/tester/vi-har-provat-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv?nodePage=3



And the second image shows the sky well exposed....
One stop in the highlights?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 4, 2016)

Thanks for the links guys.

I think this adds to my suspicion that the more DOF is in the original shot, the more leeway you can have for adjustment. I think that people wanting to rescue misfocused shots with 1cm of DOF are going to be disappointed...

I found another video buy by some South African guys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhVKMmKFGy8


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 5, 2016)

I agree, I can't find the video now of the Canon guy who was talking about DPRAW, he went on to say the correction is tiny, one or two millimetres at most, perhaps shallow DOF macro stuff it maybe of some use, keep in mind I only talk about what I saw and I'd hope that there is more to come but my suspicions are its minor, I shoot a reasonable amount of macro full frame and crop, using 100mm f2.8 IS, two tubes 12mm and 25mm plus the x2.0 mkiii teleconverter, most of the time I step it right down f11 and more with flash, hand held all of the time it's hard to get focus bang on even at wide DOF, I am interested to try out the mk4 to see if it's worth using DPRAW, I think for the amount of extra space it takes up and slower FPS??? I can't see me using it for much else, chimping focus at zoom works for me and I get to correct any errors at the time of the shoot, I can see the appeal for run and gun shooters at weddings and press etc but I'd bet they want the full 2m or correction shown in those test shots.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 5, 2016)

I don't know what the guys at DPReview think they're doing, but that was the most depressing article that could possibly be written about the most amazing feature implemented in a camera this century.

They used two examples with full headshots, not "head and shoulder" headshots, the kind of picture of your face that virtually no-one has ever requested be in a photo album.

Take that to a wedding and use the 70-200 at f2.8, for a proper portrait, and people would be doing cartwheels over the amazing new capabilities.

Is it good to know that extremely thin DOF applications won't get very much flexibility? Yes. 

Should DPR be ashamed of the gross limitations of the testing they've chosen to publish? Yes.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 5, 2016)

Seeing it's dpr, none of us are honestly expecting them to like a canon-exclusive (for the moment) technology. (of course DPAF is so big they can't deny its usefulness without losing face) No one has been pretending that this is to replace afma. This designed so that after one calibrates lens/camera combo, after mastering af system on the camera, and after mastering the skills necessary to focus shallow dof lenses, then one will be able to make tiny adjustments for whatever is left over to adjust. Such as the adjustment between focus on the middle of the eyelash vs focus on the centre of the eye.


----------



## zim (Sep 5, 2016)

and from that article (http://www.kamerabild.se/tester/vi-har-provat-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv?nodePage=3)

_"In this case, the conditions were great for after adjusting the image because I personally think that the result was above expectations, although I had no expectations ... 
future tests will show the tolerances required for a good end result, but this feature can really be very useful in certain situations, if you can make use of the altered workflow required (setting for the photo shoot, conditions and after treatment). 
*For best results, according to Canon using a focal length of at least 50mm and an aperture of f / 5.6 or lower, and an ISO setting of 1600 ISO or lower.* 
Photographs for example, a portrait with a 50mm lens, will the shooting stand 1-10 meters from the camera, at 100mm 2-20 meters, and at 200mm 4-40 meters from the camera."_

So both articles are correct, just that one seems to have tested within Canon's recommended limits, no?


----------



## Alex_M (Sep 5, 2016)

I thought that the purpose of the Dual Pixel RAW is to provide ability to compensate for an occasional and slight (-2/+2) out of focus shot of a AFMA-ed lens. As we all know, auto focus isn’t always perfect even for perfectly calibrated lens.



IglooEater said:


> Seeing it's dpr, none of us are honestly expecting them to like a canon-exclusive (for the moment) technology. (of course DPAF is so big they can't deny its usefulness without losing face) No one has been pretending that this is to replace afma. This designed so that after one calibrates lens/camera combo, after mastering af system on the camera, and after mastering the skills necessary to focus shallow dof lenses, then one will be able to make tiny adjustments for whatever is left over to adjust. Such as the adjustment between focus on the middle of the eyelash vs focus on the centre of the eye.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 5, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I thought that the purpose of the Dual Pixel RAW is to provide ability to compensate for an occasional and slight (-2/+2) out of focus shot of a AFMA-ed lens. As we all know, auto focus isn’t always perfect even for perfectly calibrated lens.



I've also heard that sometimes people (or the camera) moves after focus has been locked. It would fix those too, not just when afma is slightly off. And I think people moving is way more common problem than afma problems.

Also the -2/+2 is from dpr, so not sure on that. The swedish one looks more like -200/+200, which is amazing. And it was shot 35mm F2.2.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I thought that the purpose of the Dual Pixel RAW is to provide ability to compensate for an occasional and slight (-2/+2) out of focus shot of a AFMA-ed lens. As we all know, auto focus isn’t always perfect even for perfectly calibrated lens.



Yes, I don't see it as an either/or proposition. Rather I see it as and/or. You can choose AFMA, you can choose Dual Pixel Raw or you can choose both.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 6, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > arthurbikemad said:
> ...


The difference is much, much more than tiny ar +/-2 AF points. But the limitations of how much is can deliver compared to original FL, aperature and iso-setting may be why Canon is cautions about how and when it can be used effectively.

As mentioned above they underline several aspects that are important.

Would like to see more tests/reviews of this ground breaking tech before I make up my mind how important this may or may not be for practical shooting.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 6, 2016)

Watched a video last night by Clinton Lubbe, where the blogger posts the micro adjustment effect with 3 different focal lengths, 200mm, 300mm and 600mm.

The effect seems to become lesser as the focal lengths become longer. Clinton goes on to say that this probably won't help him in his genre (fashion/models etc) but maybe in other genres.

I'm interested to see what can happen with macro photography and if one can save those near misses.

Would like to see this feature in the 6Dii.


----------



## SteveM (Sep 6, 2016)

Check out 'Focus Magic' for those near misses


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 6, 2016)

It's pretty obvious that the adjustment latitude is just a multiple of the available depth of field.

If you're getting 1" DOF normally then you might have about 3" of total range to adjust.
Oppositely, shooting with a wide angle lens set near hyperfocal distance may very well give you hundreds of feet of adjustment range.

Now I'm really curious about what happens when you try with a Tilt Shift lens.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 6, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> Watched a video last night by Clinton Lubbe, where the blogger posts the micro adjustment effect with 3 different focal lengths, 200mm, 300mm and 600mm.
> 
> The effect seems to become lesser as the focal lengths become longer. Clinton goes on to say that this probably won't help him in his genre (fashion/models etc) but maybe in other genres.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the heads up. Here is the link 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCHEVovn8YQ

"DPAF worth jumping up and down about", funny how little the Canon knockers say about it, isn't it. Surely the other manufacturers must have something equal or better, since Canon is so so lacking. 

Equally intriguing is the disappointment that many are expressing after Canon has emphasized that there is this little tweak that you can now make using DPRAW, not an earth shattering invention. I don't get it. 

Jack


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 6, 2016)

9VIII said:


> It's pretty obvious that the adjustment latitude is just a multiple of the available depth of field.
> 
> If you're getting 1" DOF normally then you might have about 3" of total range to adjust.
> Oppositely, shooting with a wide angle lens set near hyperfocal distance may very well give you hundreds of feet of adjustment range.
> ...


Yes indeed.

I'm also curious if this can be used to fix moire problems, and if so whether it will be faster than trying to remove it by hand with the lightroom brush tool that works sometimes but not always as well as i'd like....


----------



## cerealito (Sep 7, 2016)

Dual Pixel Raw looks like a marketing gimmick according to my favorite Youtuber:

https://youtu.be/W0S8shTk94E

Thanks to Tony for this.


----------



## Click (Sep 7, 2016)

From what I have seen in this video, I have to agree with Tony on this.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 7, 2016)

Given how much Canon has bulked up on the caveats, I'd be hesitant to call it a gimmick. More like a capability they exploited in the pixel structure that few may use.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 7, 2016)

cerealito said:


> Dual Pixel Raw looks like a marketing gimmick according to my favorite Youtuber:
> 
> https://youtu.be/W0S8shTk94E
> 
> Thanks to Tony for this.


My favourite reviewer Rishi, figured that out 5 long days ago.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 7, 2016)

Canon said "tiny" amounts of correction from day one.

But no one has done in depth testing as of now. But the bodies ship in the next few days so info and pics will be all over.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 7, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> Canon said "tiny" amounts of correction from day one.
> 
> But no one has done in depth testing as of now. But the bodies ship in the next few days so info and pics will be all over.



I get tired of it, it's like so many are just out to smear Canon. Canon didn't present this as some massive feature but so many are ridiculing it. There must be a jealousy factor that comes into play with many posts. I guess that's just how it is when you're the top dog.

This camera will be another winner for Canon IMHO. A nice well rounded camera.

Jack


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 7, 2016)

cerealito said:


> Dual Pixel Raw looks like a marketing gimmick according to my favorite Youtuber:
> 
> https://youtu.be/W0S8shTk94E
> 
> Thanks to Tony for this.



Oh look! He starts off with a MACRO shot, and moves into another "chin to forehead" face shot.
Just like DPReview.
More examples of how not to use DPRAW.

90% of my Macro shots are at f8 and above, lots of the time I'm trying to shoot at f22 if I can blast enough light at something.
It's not uncommon for wildlife photographers to use f11 in daylight (affordable telephoto lenses are sharpest at f8 anyway).
And again, most portraits are full body, lots of them are framed for two people, and even the closeups probably aren't going to be taken from minimum focusing distance.

The baby picture was probably the most realistic, but he's still shooting a subject that's probably two feet tall with a 200f2.8 lens near minimum focus distance (and really, that image was just totally OOF).

We have yet to see a realistic application of DPRAW from reviewers.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 7, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > Canon said "tiny" amounts of correction from day one.
> ...



Only reason I play it down is people seem to think it will fix focus issues from head to toe, when the findings are not the case Canon will get bad press, but then they get bad press anyway haha, a mate of mine has been saying how he thinks it will resolve from nose to eye in portraits, I've said I think you will find its more like mid eyelash to tip. Jack I have no doubt this will be a fab camera and thats why I am on standby for the price to settle (i.e drop to normal RRP) then I will have one to go alongside my 1DX2 and move on my much loved Mk3, there are a lot of features in this camera that get overlooked, such as new info in the viewfinder (going back to the viewfinder on the Mk3 after the 1DX2 it seems to lack any info!), F8 AF, DPAF, faster FPS and well, we all know the rest...


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 7, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> Only reason I play it down is people seem to think it will fix focus issues from head to toe, when the findings are not the case Canon will get bad press, but then they get bad press anyway haha, a mate of mine has been saying how he thinks it will resolve from nose to eye in portraits, I've said I think you will find its more like mid eyelash to tip.



DPRAW can give you focus correction from head to toe or nose to eye or any amount that you want, because you are in total control of the amount of correction available.
Right now all these ridiculous testers are just complaining about their own ignorance, setting up the camera to have a fraction of an inch of adjustment range and then whining about it.
You basically can't use the feature at 85mm f1.4, but maybe a lot of people would be better off if they did stop down a bit.

Ironically it's going to be people with zoom lenses and cheaper lenses who will benefit most.
Hopefully that fact will push the technology down to entry level bodies sooner rather than later.


----------

