# The Truth about Microadjust



## canonman (Dec 13, 2010)

I have seen enough threads here on MicroAdjust so I thought I might provide some facts on it. 

- Most people take hours or all day to "microadjust" a lens. Its better to send it back to Canon along with the camera or to the lens manufacturer Sigma if you have that type of lens and let them calibrate it. I think Canon charges $70, but thats a whole lot cheaper on an hourly cost basis then if you did the "microadjust" on your own. I know Sigma is good with accepting their lenses back and adjusting them. Let the experts adjust the lenses.

- Some folks who fool with the microadjust feature ultimately go back to setting it at zero when they find they have messed the focus of the camera up.

- Microadjust is useful for prime lenses only. Lets say you microadjust a zoom, then it will need different microadjust settings at different focal points. Other variables such as temperature, humidity, etc. might effect the focus adjustment too. Again, its probably best to send it to the repair depot and pay the price for calibration because it might ultimately take hours for you to do and then you mess it up.

I have two prime lenses. The Canon 50mm 1.4 seems to work well, but my Sigma 30mm 1.4 seems to have some issues. In the case of the Sigma, I plan on sending the body and lens so they can adjust it. They are the experts on these lens focus issues...I am just the photographer. I will let them fool with it versus myself in my living room taking hours to adjust the focus and even then I may not get it right.

Lets say you are a professional. Why would you want to bother with doing the calibrations yourself? You are not a person who actually inspects and works with these lenses all day long. You might spend hours trying to do this and you may even screw it up more. Why wouldnt you simply send it all back to the repair depot to get properly calibrated versus risking making the issue worse? If your bread and butter comes from wedding photography for example, why not have the experts at Canon do the calibration? 

Here are reference threads to back up my conclusions:

http://www.inspiring-photography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25972
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canoneos5dmarkii/discuss/72157612282515084/

This is a good link check halfway down the page. Canon states the following:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html
"If you are attempting to set microadjustments for a zoom lens, it is important to realize that the camera's setting may only be accurate for the focal length setting you test."


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Dec 13, 2010)

Canonman said:
"*FEAR; UNCERTAINTY; DOUBT.*"

That sum it up?


----------



## Gothmoth (Dec 13, 2010)

i put much weight in something a nobody writes on a forum.. really i do. ;D

nothing of the above is new.. still microadjust is usefull.


----------



## kubelik (Dec 13, 2010)

did someone who works at a canon repair center realize they were a few orders shy of a bonus this holiday season?

the fact that Canon decided to include microadjustment as a feature on their cameras tells me at least someone at Canon thinks having it available is useful. simple as that.

also, how is it going to mess up your autofocus? if you don't like the results, set it back to zero. problem solved.


----------



## canonman (Dec 13, 2010)

I live and shoot around Manhattan. I go to several fashion shows and do all kinds of photographic work. I rarely, if ever, see anyone out and about with a prime lens in their hand. Actually, I am the only one I know of that uses a prime when taking pictures around Manhattan. I have never seen anyone utilize a prime out there in Manhattan for shoots. 

In order to use the microadjust feature, then you need to adjust it at several different focal points for a zoom. This means hours of time and work and even then you probably wont get it right. If my zoom was off calibration then I would send it to Canon. 

There are many features on the 7D and many of its prosumer cameras that most of us will never ever use and if we do then it will probably take some time to get it right. Microadjust is one of those settings that if not used properly will mess your shots up. 

The only time microadjust would be helpful is if you shoot with primes...especially cheap primes like the Sigmas. However, in those situations, you might as well just send it to Sigma along with the body who will calibrate for free. If you shoot with zooms, then fooling around with the microadjust will probably make the focus worse especially if you do not know what you are doing.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 13, 2010)

Well, the fact is that the calibration Canon does is solder a wire from one point to the other. Why they microadjust is because if you, like me use fast lenses with extreme shallow dof, experience that the previous setting was waay in front and then canon switch the wire point and then it's slightly behind, what do you do? You have the abillity to microadjust. For zoom lenses, I agree, it's pretty close to impossible to get all focals at all distances right, if it is off. But for primes, I would have to trade in my 35L, 50L and 300 2,8 L if I couldn't do the small adjustment after Canon have adjusted it MUCH closer to perfect first.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 13, 2010)

Canonman, I appreciate your effort to add some common sense to the microadjust debate. Unfortunately, I don't think it is going to do much good. 

It seems to me that a lot of people were just looking for something to be upset about and when the 60D did not have microadjust they pounced on it. It feeds into the conspiracy theories that Canon is purposely trying to deny their customers some wonderful feature. Of course, if the feature were that wonderful and that much in demand, no manufacturer would leave it off of a camera. 

I really think Canon did not include it because the downsides outweighed the upsides. When this issue first came up, I did a little reading and concluded that I was likely to do more damage than good if I played around with this on my 7D. With almost anything, but especially with precision optical equipment, I think the old adage "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" is a good idea.

Something tells me that Canon probably found that there were far more people likely to screw up their cameras using this feature than there are people who actually need it and are sufficiently sophisticated to make the adjustments themselves.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2010)

Thanks for sharing your _opinion_, canonman. I'm recommending others take a large grain of Salt-with-a-capital-S to go along with your Truth-with-a-capital-T. I agree with kubelik that Canon includes this feature for a reason. Just to name one, lots of people rent lenses - would you recommend they rent them for a couple of extra weeks, each time, so they can send them into Canon for adjustment? Something else to consider is that many people who've sent their cameras into Canon to let 'the experts' clean the sensor have reported getting the camera back with more sensor dust than when it was sent in - what makes it certain that 'the same experts' will do a better job at focus adjustment?


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 14, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for sharing your _opinion_, canonman. I'm recommending others take a large grain of Salt-with-a-capital-S to go along with your Truth-with-a-capital-T. I agree with kubelik that Canon includes this feature for a reason. Just to name one, lots of people rent lenses - would you recommend they rent them for a couple of extra weeks, each time, so they can send them into Canon for adjustment? Something else to consider is that many people who've sent their cameras into Canon to let 'the experts' clean the sensor have reported getting the camera back with more sensor dust than when it was sent in - what makes it certain that 'the same experts' will do a better job at focus adjustment?



Agreed with a ! I have micro-adjusted many Canon lenses. While it is true that wide aperture lenses are more sensitive to focus errors, mis focus has happened on standard aperture lenses.

Its quick and easy to do a MF adjust using a tripod and live view. I would not send in my lenses unless my testing revealed a serious problem.

Too many people read internet blogs and then proclaim what they have read as the truth.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2010)

canonman said:


> I have been through this before with my Canon equipment. Trust me, I have had problems with items such as Canon speedlites and my tinkering only made it worse. The problem only got solved when it was sent to the depot.



What the heck would you 'tinker' with on a Speedlite? There's a world of difference between changing a software setting that a manufacturer provides as an optional calibration step to improve the quality of your pictures, and getting out your set of eyeglass screwdrivers and a small hammer to 'fix' your Speedlite. Last time an application crashed on your computer, did you box the whole thing up and send it back to Dell?


----------



## lol (Dec 14, 2010)

If you need to take hours micro-adjusting a lens, you're doing it wrong pure and simple. There will be some set up time to have a focus target and reference, but once that is done the iterative process for the lens doesn't take long at all.

For non-pro users, "good enough" is a fair goal. Of my Canon lenses, only the 3 fast budget primes needed any adjustment to different degrees. All the zooms have no problem. The cost of Canon calibrating budget primes would not be economic.

In the CPS pages somewhere Canon actually recommend for pros they do not routinely use the microadjust, but to get them set by Canon if needed. They sell the feature as an emergency in-field fix in case the lens shifts for example if it is dropped.


----------



## Grendel (Dec 14, 2010)

I do MA some lenses, incl. zooms. Using a tool like LensAlign makes profiling a lens quick and easy -- up to you to decide what to set for a zoom, I usually use a value that will correct the long end since the DOF on the short side will compensate.


----------



## canonman (Dec 16, 2010)

lol said:


> For non-pro users, "good enough" is a fair goal.



All the so called "pro users" I see around Manhattan do with much less. I would say just about all the staff photographers at the Post, Times and every other major newspaper around here wouldn't bother with the microadjust. Those photojournalists don't seem to care too much about it. 

I don't "send" anything in. Around Manhattan there are plenty of independent repair labs where I can just walk in and get the work done on the spot. 

All of my lenses function "good enough". A good lens isnt going to need adjusting and if it does right out of the box then its going right back to the store. When I have spent over a grand on a lens, I didnt find it needed adjusting. The only lens of mine that needed adjusting was this cheap Sigma 30mm and that went right to the repair facility along with the camera for them to personally fool around and tinker with.


----------



## stark-arts (Dec 16, 2010)

canonman said:


> I live and shoot around Manhattan. I go to several fashion shows and do all kinds of photographic work. I rarely, if ever, see anyone out and about with a prime lens in their hand. Actually, I am the only one I know of that uses a prime when taking pictures around Manhattan. I have never seen anyone utilize a prime out there in Manhattan for shoots.
> 
> In order to use the microadjust feature, then you need to adjust it at several different focal points for a zoom. This means hours of time and work and even then you probably wont get it right. If my zoom was off calibration then I would send it to Canon.
> 
> ...



you don't look around much i guess - i see lots of primes these days. i for one always have my 35 1.4 on my camera and most of my friends are prime shooters...


----------



## kubelik (Dec 16, 2010)

stark, I agree. if we're talking about the prosumer range, and pretty much by definition, people who buy 7D's and 5DII's are prosumers at the least, we are talking about people who know enough about photography to be interested in buying a few primes.

I even know a lot of Rebel users who buy primes (most commonly the 50 f/1.4). and as even canonman observed, the 50 f/1.4 is a perfect example of the kind of lens that micro-adjust is useful for.

I'll admit I don't understand the context in which this thread was started. if it's to say that microadjust is not a neccessary feature, and not buying the 60D because it doesn't have microadjust is silly, then I agree. not having microadjustment is no reason not to buy the 60D. however, if the point was to say there's no useful reason for microadjustment to exist ... I think that doesn't hold up at all; plenty of people happily and easily using microadjust on their cameras, count me as one of them.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 18, 2010)

I know I wrote it elsewhere, but MA strikes me as being good for us and good for manufacturers: We get to solve problems (even if not 100% of the time) on our own, without having to pay for shipping; Canon reduces the work load at the service center to people who actually need the service. Obviously, not having the numbers, it'd be spreading FUD in a different direction for me to say that people who return lenses and cameras to the service center over, and over, and over, are a burden on the system, or that they make things more expensive for the rest of us - or even that they are unjustified (especially if they have lenses that can't be adjusted correctly throughout their range). But it may make a small positive impact to reduce the number of times this happens.

I use a manual focus lens for architecture / landscape shots, but if it was autofocus and I could use microadjust, there would be little downside to it. Obviously a wide lens doesn't suffer as obviously from microadjust, so this doesn't fix problems for too great a percentage of the DSLR-buying public - but it does cut down on the numbers of people sending things in for service a little. I think it's obvious to say that the technical side of things becomes critical with the longer lenses, with sports and other action-tracking shooting.

For those users who need long zoom or prime lenses, perhaps it's reasonable (considering their investment) that they can get help from a service center when their lenses and camera bodies are out of alignment. For everyone else, technique (especially live view focusing as scalesusa said) should often be enough to compensate.

I agree with kubelik about the 50/1.4; I definitely could use microadjust for mine. I suppose Canon doesn't include it on lower-end cameras both as an enticement to buy a more "professional" camera, and to prevent beginners from making their lenses perform worse, but it seems petty to me. Anybody who's brave enough to dig around in the menus should be granted a phone call or email to a service center to at least be told that they have made things worse, but it's not as if they will make the earth explode by trying it out.


----------



## revup67 (Dec 20, 2010)

Micro Adjust has been a concern of mine since I received my Canon 7D and 1.4 IS USM 50mm. I suspected the lens might be a bit off right out of the box and per the reviews I've read this lens is a bit soft around the edges to begin with. In addition and overtime AF lenses may succumb to going out of tune so this would be a good tool to have around especially if you own multiple lenses. To combat my concerns I dug into this further and found a few products out there to help calibrate such nuances. I ultimately just decided on the LensAlign Mark II (just released on 12/15/10 @ http://mtapesdesign.com/ ) - I was aware and opted to wait for this new and improved version. There's an online tool to help you figure out distance from the LensAlign (the formula is 25x the mm of the lens) so a 100mm would be 2500mm or 8.2 feet (Windows 7 built in calculator can do the math for you or the online LensAlign Distance Tool). For the folks that don't want to spend the $$ I have also found a free online tool in which you can use your monitor to assist which is at: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html#AF_test_image - I've not used this so cannot comment. I've just received the LensAlign MK II product and put it together in about 10 minutes and plan on doing the calibration this week. Others have reported excellent results from the LensAlign and the product has been around for awhile.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2010)

revup67 said:


> I ultimately just decided on the LensAlign Mark II (just released on 12/15/10 @ http://mtapesdesign.com/ ) - I was aware and opted to wait for this new and improved version.



I have and use the LensAlign Pro and it's excellent. Just to clarify, the LensAlign Mark II is a new and improved version of the LensAlign Lite product (it adds the site gate feature of the Pro version while keeping compact flat storage and still keeping the cost lower than the Pro). The Pro version has the Enumerator (an easy tool to record the adjustment you set right in the image), which the Lite and the Mark II do not have.


----------



## revup67 (Dec 22, 2010)

The Lens Align MK II didn't offer a Site Gate that you mention. M Tapes goes through the differences on his site (don't recall them all) within the knowledge base as I recall. Excellent product along with the WhiBal..can't leave home without it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2010)

revup67 said:


> The Lens Align MK II didn't offer a Site Gate that you mention. M Tapes goes through the differences on his site (don't recall them all) within the knowledge base as I recall. Excellent product along with the WhiBal..can't leave home without it.



The 'sight gate' refers to the two sighting plates (front and rear) that the Pro has, and now the Mark II also has. Sighting through the hole in the front plate to the target on the rear plate results in precise alignment. The old LensAlign Lite had just a singe plate and used a mirror for alignment, probably as precise but more difficult and time consuming.


----------



## acoll123 (Mar 24, 2011)

I micro-adjusted all of my lenses on my two bodies (5d mk II and 7D). I didn't make any adjustments at all to the longer lenses (70-200/2.8, 85/1.2 and 24-105/4.0) but did make adjustments to the short lenses (50/1.2 and 16-35/2.8). Is this just a coincidence or is it normal for the shorter lenses to need more adjustment? I have not yet taken any sample images with the adjusted lenses - maybe tomorrow - to see if there is a noticeable difference.

I used the Moire interference patterns method found at NorthlightImages:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html


----------



## Admin US West (Mar 24, 2011)

acoll123 said:


> I micro-adjusted all of my lenses on my two bodies (5d mk II and 7D). I didn't make any adjustments at all to the longer lenses (70-200/2.8, 85/1.2 and 24-105/4.0) but did make adjustments to the short lenses (50/1.2 and 16-35/2.8). Is this just a coincidence or is it normal for the shorter lenses to need more adjustment? I have not yet taken any sample images with the adjusted lenses - maybe tomorrow - to see if there is a noticeable difference.
> 
> I used the Moire interference patterns method found at NorthlightImages:
> 
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html



Its normal for wider aperture lenses to need adjustment, because they have a shallow depth of field and any issues are seen more easily then a lens with a narrow depth of field. Many shorter lenses tend to have wide apertures.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2011)

acoll123 said:


> Is this just a coincidence or is it normal for the shorter lenses to need more adjustment? I have not yet taken any sample images with the adjusted lenses - maybe tomorrow - to see if there is a noticeable difference.



As scalesusa says, wide aperture (fast) lenses tend to need adjustment more than narrow aperture (slow) lenses, because the latter have a deeper DoF which masks the effect of inaccurate focus. Like slow lenses, wide angle lenses have deeper DoF, so in theory should be less in need of microadjustment.

But, microadjusting wide angle lenses is more challenging than longer lenses, and more prone to error. In part, this is because the adjustment is usually performed at a fixed ratio to the focal length (LensAlign suggests 25x, Chuck Westfall suggests 50x). 25 times 35mm = ~34 inches, which is pretty close, quite likely closer than you're usually going to use the lens. The other reason it's challenging is that because of that close distance, the process is more affected by an imperfect alignment of the camera and the focus target. Even though the DoF is the same if the aperture is the same (e.g. 35mm f/2.8 has the same DoF as 200mm f/2.8 at 25 times the respective focal lengths), at the closer distance with the wide lens, the angular difference of a misaligned target has a bigger impact. That's why the better commercial adjustment tools have features that allow you to accurately align the camera to the target (something the on-screen moire pattern lacks).


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 26, 2011)

fantastic article. I HATE when people tell me their lens is "soft" ARGH!


----------



## K3nt (Apr 5, 2011)

I agree with you preston. Sounds wrong. 
Now if someone would just compile the info in this thread into a microadjustment guide and make it sticky. 
Personnally I'd like to see a tutorial on how it's done, preferrably using a Mac. What software and tools are needed (if any) and examples adjusted / not adjusted lenses. 

anyone?


----------



## ronin8600 (Apr 5, 2011)

K3nt said:


> Now if someone would just compile the info in this thread into a microadjustment guide and make it sticky.
> Personnally I'd like to see a tutorial on how it's done, preferrably using a Mac. What software and tools are needed (if any) and examples adjusted / not adjusted lenses.
> 
> anyone?



I use a tool called lens align pro which I highly recommend. 

Below is a link to tutorials and videos on using the lens align product
http://www.mtdhelp.com/kb/lensalign-how-to/documentation-tools-and-resources


----------



## skitron (Apr 5, 2011)

All I can say is I just bought a 60d and three different lens from three different manufacturers and every one of them front focuses the same degree on this body. I will say that the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L macro has a truly spectacular front focus 8) an amazing lens indeed. So every piece of gear is going back where it came from. The naysayers need to realize that I bought this stuff because I thought it would work out, not so I could just come here to bash it. however, it did not work out. The bottom line is every single camera from 7d up has it and they don't put it on their pro offerings as a sales gimmick. After thinking it thru, it seems the reason they dropped it on the 60d may have to do with the plastic body. It may simply have too much flex and too much thermal expansion for microadjust to even be effective, meaning you could probably dial it in and then as soon as you hang a heavy lens on it or take it in the hot sun it's off again.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2011)

skitron said:


> After thinking it thru, it seems the reason they dropped it on the 60d may have to do with the plastic body. It may simply have too much flex and too much thermal expansion for microadjust to even be effective, meaning you could probably dial it in and then as soon as you hang a heavy lens on it or take it in the hot sun it's off again.



Actually, I think a little more thinking might be in order. The thermal coefficient of expansion for the 60D's 'plastic' body (actually, glass fiber-reinforced polycarbonate) is 21.5 10-6 m/m K, and the value for the underlying aluminum frame of the 60D is very close to that (22.2 10-6 m/m K). The expansion coefficient for the 'metal' bodies (actually, magnesuim alloy) of the higher-end cameras is in the range of 25-27 10-6 m/m K, depending on the other metals in the alloy. So, if anything, the 60D will expand/contract less in response to temperature changes than camera bodies with the microadjust feature.

IMO, Canon left AMFA out of the 60D purely as way to discriminate the 60D from higher end models, and more clearly discriminate four lines of camera bodies (which the 50D had started to blur). Thus in the current lineup, AFMA is found only on the xD bodies.


----------



## skitron (Apr 5, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, I think a little more thinking might be in order.



Well actually some hard data in terms of the coefficients rather than more speculation (which I admit I did), which I am pleasantly surprised anybody has access to!



neuroanatomist said:


> So, if anything, the 60D will expand/contract less in response to temperature changes than camera bodies with the microadjust feature.
> 
> IMO, Canon left AMFA out of the 60D purely as way to discriminate the 60D from higher end models, and more clearly discriminate four lines of camera bodies (which the 50D had started to blur). Thus in the current lineup, AFMA is found only on the xD bodies.



This makes it even more frustrating, knowing it isn't a mechanical constraint and they really did just dumb it down to "protect sales". I got news for them though, all it did was run me off to Nikon. Do they really think people are going to buy this thing and then get bait-N-switched into a 7d when they find out their shiney new L lens take crap pictures with this body??? "Oh, you need to move up to a 7d body if you want your pictures to actually be in focus with your $1200 lens." 

And you know the REALLY stupid part? I would have chosen the 7d FIRST except they apparently dumbed IT down with lack of manual audio levels to protect 5d sales. Of well, they can enjoy their returns from the dealer since they all went back as "defective". A TOTALLY HORRIBLE experience with Canon here...and sadly it was sooo close to being very good experience and completely preventable with a stem of firmware that they already have deployed elsewhere.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2011)

skitron said:


> This makes it even more frustrating, knowing it isn't a mechanical constraint and they really did just dumb it down to "protect sales". I got news for them though, all it did was run me off to Nikon.



Leaving AFMA out of the 60D almost has to be a marketing decision - there's no mechanical reason for it, and since the 'feature' exists purely in the firmware and was already included in other bodies, there would be no real cost to include it in the 60D.

Unfortunately, it's pretty unlikely that Canon's marketing executives will get canned over your defection to Nikon. 

Especially since, at least based on Amazon's figures, the 60D is currently the #2 selling dSLR (yes, a Nikon is in the top slot and in the #3 slot, but those are sub-$1K entry-level bodies, and the 60D without a lens is in the #4 slot, indicating a strong possibility that adding the body only and kit versions of the 60D, it would be the current bestseller). However you interpret the numbers, 60D sales are very strong.

The other consideration is that you're not really buying a camera, you're buying a system. Chances are, whatever body you get, you'll replace it relatively soon...at least, a lot sooner than the lenses you buy. So, IMO the thing to do is look at the lenses available for each system, and that's where you put your money. Lenses are why I went with Canon in the first place. 



skitron said:


> Do they really think people are going to buy this thing and then get bait-N-switched into a 7d when they find out their shiney new L lens take crap pictures with this body??? "Oh, you need to move up to a 7d body if you want your pictures to actually be in focus with your $1200 lens."



Sure, why not? Or, more likely, most people with a 60D won't even notice, because they're using it with a lenses like the 18-135mm it's bundled with, or the 15-85mm, etc., i.e. slow lenses with deep enough DoF to mask a slight misfocusing.

Also, do keep in mind that you can send body and lenses into Canon for them to adjust them, for free under warranty.



skitron said:


> And you know the REALLY stupid part? I would have chosen the 7d FIRST except they apparently dumbed IT down with lack of manual audio levels to protect 5d sales.



History lesson: When the 7D was released, the 5DII did not offer manual audio gain either. That was added with Firmware 2.0.3/2.0.4 about 7.5 months _after_ the 7D came out (along with a 24 fps mode, which the 7D already had). The 7D also offers an intermediate HD resolution (720p) with a fast frame rate (60 fps) that was not and still is not available on the 5DII (but is on the 1D IV). In theory, Canon could add manual audio control to the 7D via a firmware update, as they did for the 5DII. Every Canon body released after the feature was added to the 5DII, including the Rebels (T2i and T3i) have the feature.


----------



## skitron (Apr 5, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Unfortunately, it's pretty unlikely that Canon's marketing executives will get canned over your defection to Nikon.



LOL, I have no illusions of that, in fact it appears to be very well established through out the web that they could not care less about individual customers as a matter of culture and policy. I suppose I can't blame them too much being in a volume oriented business.



neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, why not? Or, more likely, most people with a 60D won't even notice, because they're using it with a lenses like the 18-135mm it's bundled with, or the 15-85mm, etc., i.e. slow lenses with deep enough DoF to mask a slight misfocusing.



I agree with the reason why most would not notice. But since the 60d is supposed to be a sort of crossing point between the grade levels, they should have enough sense to know people are going to be putting fast Ls on a fair number of them. And that's when the "fun" begins.



neuroanatomist said:


> Also, do keep in mind that you can send body and lenses into Canon for them to adjust them, for free under warranty.



I have no first hand experience but see a bunch of reports that they're not very good, slow, etc. Do you have experience otherwise? 



neuroanatomist said:


> History lesson: When the 7D was released, the 5DII did not offer manual audio gain either. That was added with Firmware 2.0.3/2.0.4 about 7.5 months _after_ the 7D came out (along with a 24 fps mode, which the 7D already had). The 7D also offers an intermediate HD resolution (720p) with a fast frame rate (60 fps) that was not and still is not available on the 5DII (but is on the 1D IV). In theory, Canon could add manual audio control to the 7D via a firmware update, as they did for the 5DII. Every Canon body released after the feature was added to the 5DII, including the Rebels (T2i and T3i) have the feature.



Yes I was aware of all of this. It seems like there is still plenty to differentiate the grades other than firmware features. Plus they could actually charge extra to "unlock" firmware features. Heck, I'd pay $100 for new firmware that had micro-adjust. Does that kill a 7d sale? No it doesn't. Because I'd still take the 7d over the 60d if I could pay $100 extra to "unlock" manual audio on it. So in the end, they would get more revenue for basically zero overhead cost and have minimal impact on other models.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2011)

skitron said:


> But since the 60d is supposed to be a sort of crossing point between the grade levels, they should have enough sense to know people are going to be putting fast Ls on a fair number of them. And that's when the "fun" begins.



Even before L lenses...the 50/1.8 has pretty shallow DoF, and is among Canon's bestselling lenses (it's #1 on Amazon, and has been for a long time). But I suppose you could put focus errors down to using a 'cheap' lens. However, there are quite a few popular fast primes that can often benefit from AMFA (50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2, etc.), and while not L-lens money, if you spend $400 for OOF images, you'll notice.



skitron said:


> I have no first hand experience but see a bunch of reports that they're not very good, slow, etc. Do you have experience otherwise?



Nope...I had a backfocusing issue with my 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS lens on my T1i, but I lived with it for a couple of months (since I usually manually focus for macro shooting), then went straight to the 7D (and later added a 5DII). I use a LensAlign Pro for the adjustments. 



skitron said:


> Yes I was aware of all of this. It seems like there is still plenty to differentiate the grades other than firmware features. Plus they could actually charge extra to "unlock" firmware features. Heck, I'd pay $100 for new firmware that had micro-adjust. Does that kill a 7d sale? No it doesn't. Because I'd still take the 7d over the 60d if I could pay $100 extra to "unlock" manual audio on it. So in the end, they would get more revenue for basically zero overhead cost and have minimal impact on other models.



I agree that the firmware-sale model is a good one, although Canon would have to take some steps to prevent piracy, else they'd lose most of the possible revenue with the ease of 'sharing' a 10-15 MB file.

From a hardware perspective, there's a precedent for adding new features to older models for a fee - the locking mode dial introduced on the 60D can be retroactively added to the 7D and 5DII for $100. (Although it's not a feature I'd want personally, and I really hope they _don't_ implement it on the 5DIII and/or 7DII).


----------



## skitron (Apr 5, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I agree that the firmware-sale model is a good one, although Canon would have to take some steps to prevent piracy, else they'd lose most of the possible revenue with the ease of 'sharing' a 10-15 MB file.



Actually this should be the easy part for them. Canon has at their disposal the very best protection scheme in existence, at zero cost no less, in the simple fact that a camera body is an ideal dongle. They already use hard encryption on their code (i.e. the Magic Lantern delima trying to hack the 7d firmware) and the bodies already have serial numbers, presumably at the hardware level. The only fly in the ointment would be if the serial number is stored in accessible memory. All they have to do is serialize the firmware so it only runs on the body that has the same serial number. Simple as it is, the dongle scheme is standard practice in other industries and it works well.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Apr 6, 2011)

This is not a direct reply to anyone's submission but I'd like to get my 2 cents in because I have bought a great deal of Canon equipment for a number of years and here are my two points. First there are some non-Canon lenes that Canon does not offer a direct equivalent. For the 7D I seemed to have gotten a VERY good copy of the Tamron 18-270 VC that is pretty sharp at all focal lengths. Canon does'nt make this focal length. However this lens was a boat anchor until Microfocus came along and tuned up this lens nicely and easily (ProPlus from Lens Align) on my 7D as well as my 50D. I will not buy a camera again that can't be adjusted in this manner. By the way Canon would not adjust third party lenes of course.
For the second reason that is specific to the type of photography I do sometimes I want to front focus. Some birds for instance have very long and thin necks which don't give me a large enough focus target. Many times they are coming in at 45 degrees and I need to place my focus target on the body of the bird (or deer, or bear, or ...) but want I really want to do is to focus on the eyes which arn't yet in sight or arn't large enough or stable enough. I just slightly adjust my focus point forward (like on the 500mm F4 with the 1.4extender) and it comes out perfect. I'm not afraid of changing my focus point in the field if I need to for some reason - after all it is just a menu item and easily changed. This whole policy of taking away features from an already existing product line (I have the 10D, 20D, 40D, 50D, but no 60D) worries me. What other feature are they going to drop - like the joystick - oh I forgot they dropped that one too.


----------



## skitron (Apr 6, 2011)

My father in law just received his 60d body last night and it has exactly the same front focus symptom as mine. Tried several L lens and the amount of front focus was consistent. Of course live view focus was dead on with both my 60d and his. I suspect they came from the same production run since we bought from the same reseller withing a couple of weeks, but to borrow from a very famous event and subsequent movie: "Canon, we have a problem."

So for me, I have RMA in hand and now waffling between 7d and D7000 and leaning towards the latter...but 60d is outta here and I'd tell anyone to avoid it. I will say if the 7d2 were imminent in the near future I'd go for that, but it looks to be a ways out yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2011)

skitron said:


> Tried several L lens ... now waffling between 7d and D7000 and leaning towards the latter...



What'cha gonna do with all those red-ringed lenses if you get a D7000?


----------



## skitron (Apr 6, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > Tried several L lens ... now waffling between 7d and D7000 and leaning towards the latter...
> ...



RMA the ones that I bought. Fortunately I'm starting from scratch here...the last time I was serious about this stuf was back in the film days.


----------



## HughHowey (Apr 6, 2011)

RMA to me. 

Seriously, though, I don't blame you. The focus issue on the 60D and 7D seems to be popping up everywhere. If the D7000 had been on the market over a year ago, when I bought my T2i, I probably would've gone for it instead. I think Nikon is doing a whole lot right these days, which pains me to say as a Canon owner. But this is the way of things. The technology leapfrogs. The 5D3 will eventually come out and Nikon-heads will likely drool. Some will even sell all their gear and switch sides for the umpteenth time. 

When I get envious of new gear, I just go out and take some pictures. That usually makes me feel better. If I had the money, I'd probably have a Nikon and a Canon body, just so I could collect more lenses. This is a pretty sick hobby if you ask me!


----------



## gmrza (Apr 9, 2011)

What would be interesting to understand is what percentage of lenses and bodies require any micro-adjustment. I would guess that it is likely that only those who need to do micro-adjustment tend to be vocal about the subject.

I, for one, only today got around to finally checking some of our lenses against our 7D. For the 17-40mm f/4L, 85mm f/1.2L II, and 50mm f/1.4 none needed any micro-adjustment. - I have to admit I have not bothered testing the 85mm and 50mm against the 5DmkII, as we have shot so many sharp images wide open with those lenses, that I do not have the inclination to spend the time mucking around with adjustment.

Is there any way of getting an understanding of the percentage of lenses/bodies that require any micro-adjustment?


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 9, 2011)

gmrza said:


> What would be interesting to understand is what percentage of lenses and bodies require any micro-adjustment. I would guess that it is likely that only those who need to do micro-adjustment tend to be vocal about the subject.
> 
> I, for one, only today got around to finally checking some of our lenses against our 7D. For the 17-40mm f/4L, 85mm f/1.2L II, and 50mm f/1.4 none needed any micro-adjustment. - I have to admit I have not bothered testing the 85mm and 50mm against the 5DmkII, as we have shot so many sharp images wide open with those lenses, that I do not have the inclination to spend the time mucking around with adjustment.
> 
> Is there any way of getting an understanding of the percentage of lenses/bodies that require any micro-adjustment?



I think its a low percentage. I checked all my lenses when I bought my 5D MK II, and only my 24-105mm L could marginally benefit by a +2. I had about 8-10 lenses at the time. Since then, I have replaced some lenses with newer models, and have only found one that really needed micro adjust.

Last July, I bought a new 35mm L and as soon as I checked it out, the images were obviously fuzzy. A +2 adjustment on my 5d MK II made a huge difference. Then, I checked the lens on my 1D MK III and it took a +14 to correct it. I did not need a fancy setup, I could see the issue on my LCD at 10X. However, with the 5D MK II, I did a careful adjustment, since I was suprised at the huge difference +2 made.

Last week, I stumbled across a local deal for a used 35mm L, I checked it quickly on my 5D MK II with a few test images. The focus was pretty much right-on, but I have yet to see what happens on the 1D MK III.

If the 1D MK III is right-on as well, I'm sending my original 35mm L in for adjustment before the warranty expires.

I'm not sure that I'd want to buy a 60D, it is suppoosed to be a prosumer camera, and many will want to buy wide aperture expensive lenses for it. I expect that more of these will tend toward focus issues, but do not know how many.

With the smaller aperture consumer lenses, I doubt if many will see a problem.


----------



## lol (Apr 10, 2011)

It's hard to estimate on small sample sizes, but generally speaking only fast primes have needed adjustment. My 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 all bought new needed some adjustment on my 7D. Even the manual focus Zeiss 50/2 needed adjustment if you want to use the focus confirm indicator. Longer/slower lenses don't have any problem. A used 300mm f/2.8 non-IS I picked up recently needed quite a correction but it is over 2 decades old with unknown history.


----------



## skitron (Apr 12, 2011)

I RMA'd the 60d and lenses back to seller after Canon said I would have to pay the shipping to send a brand new body back to them to fix. Then found a deal I couldn't refuse on an unused 50d/28-135 kit and of course it has microfocus adjust. So I'm back in the Canon camp and I'll reorder the lenses and be good to go while waiting for 7d2 or 5d3 despite Canon's stupid way of doing business. 

I mean think about it...60d doesn't really compete very well with D7000 and Canon has a big hole in their pricing structure between the 60d and the 7d. You'd think they'd just add a couple of firmware changes for the crop zoom and microfocus adjust, kick the price up a couple of hundred bucks and call it a 60d+. They'd sell the daylights out of it and why care if it canibalizes 60d since it's the same exact hardware, so the amoritization of development/production ramp up costs are unchanged? IMO it wouldn't affect 7d since people who really need 8fps, more sophisitcated focus, better sealing, etc won't flex down to something that doesn't have those features.


----------



## Rocky (Apr 12, 2011)

skitron said:


> I mean think about it...60d doesn't really compete very well with D7000 and Canon has a big hole in their pricing structure between the 60d and the 7d. You'd think they'd just add a couple of firmware changes for the crop zoom and microfocus adjust, kick the price up a couple of hundred bucks and call it a 60d+. They'd sell the daylights out of it and why care if it canibalizes 60d since it's the same exact hardware, so the amoritization of development/production ramp up costs are unchanged? IMO it wouldn't affect 7d since people who really need 8fps, more sophisitcated focus, better sealing, etc won't flex down to something that doesn't have those features.


Totally agree. It is a VERY STUPID move for Canon to take away the micro adjustment from 60D. In fact, it should be a standard issue on ALL Canon DSLR including the Rebels.


----------



## skitron (Apr 13, 2011)

Rocky said:


> In fact, it should be a standard issue on ALL Canon DSLR including the Rebels.



It would certainly make buying fast L glass more sensible for Rebel owners. And for Canon it makes $en$e due to the logical upgrade path for the user: Rebel w/kit lens > L glass for the Rebel > 5D3 or 7d2 for the L glass > more L glass for the 5d3 or 7d2. In fact this is my own pathway except I had to do used 50d as the starting point instead of new Rebel or 60d due to the fact microfocus adjust is missing on those...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2011)

skitron said:


> It would certainly make buying fast L glass more sensible for Rebel owners. And for Canon it makes $en$e due to the logical upgrade path for the user: Rebel w/kit lens > L glass for the Rebel > 5D3 or 7d2 for the L glass > more L glass for the 5d3 or 7d2.



I suspect that's part of the marketing department's logic - going right from a Rebel to an xD body. Another part might be to push 50D owners to xD, rather than the 60D. 

Even though it looks like Canon is making their lines more complex with the 60D taking an apparent step backwards in some regards, I actually think they're making it simpler. To me, it appears that Canon's strategy is to now have three 'levels' instead of four. Previously, we had:


Entry level - xxxD/xxxxD
Enthusiast - xxD
Semi-pro - xD (x≠1)
Pro - 1-series

Now, they seem to have collapsed the first two into a single category - if you step into the line with any 2-, 3-, or 4-digit body, an xD is your upgrade path. First time dSLR buyers have more choices, 3-4 bodies over a $500 differential price and you choose mainly by budget. Yes, I know there are difference in the feature sets, but bear in mind that those of us posting/reading here are in the minority - the 'typical' first-time dSLR buyer is walking into a Best Buy or Costco and picking from what's on the shelves.


----------



## ronderick (Apr 14, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Now, they seem to have collapsed the first two into a single category - if you step into the line with any 2-, 3-, or 4-digit body, an xD is your upgrade path. First time dSLR buyers have more choices, 3-4 bodies over a $500 differential price and you choose mainly by budget. Yes, I know there are difference in the feature sets, but bear in mind that those of us posting/reading here are in the minority - the 'typical' first-time dSLR buyer is walking into a Best Buy or Costco and picking from what's on the shelves.



Just to echo some of neuro's points: it seems like this strategy is a response to the trend of diminishing overall camera sales but growth of DSLR sells in Japan. Frankly, I think the new entry level DSLRs (4, 3, and 2-digit bodies) are close in terms of price range but offer more variations in size. 

Some observations at a recent electronic show: a lot of ladies (there were also mom with kids) were picking up and playing with the 1100D (yeah, I guess the color variations did the trick). On the other hand, you get mostly guys - from middle age business people to college kids - at the 60D demo body. You really notice the difference in size/weight when you get the entry models sitting side-by-side on the same table.

Once again, these are the casual users, and they seem to be enjoying the fact that there's more to offer for DSLR camera bodies in their price range.


----------

