# The 60D Needs AF Microadjustment



## LukeS (Aug 27, 2010)

I think anyone who wants AF microadjust in the 60D should email Canon asking for it. If they get enough request they may do something about it. I would consider the camera if they added the feature, a few of my lens require it. It is good to see the support rep had a sense of humor about it; canon has made changes in the past from customer complaints, the biggest being the addition of 24fps to the 5D II.

My email to them


> Hi,
> I just wanted to say I am very disappointed with the new 60D, I know I
> will probably get a boiler template response with a "we are sorry..."
> and no one will ever see this complaint but I hope someone who actually
> ...



Their response, pretty amusing


> Dear Luke:
> 
> Thank you for your inquiry. We value you as a Canon customer and
> appreciate the opportunity to assist you.
> ...


----------



## ELK (Aug 27, 2010)

*Re: Email Canon asking for AF microadjust in the 60D!! Here is their response..*



LukeS said:


> I think anyone who wants AF microadjust in the 60D should email Canon asking for it. If they get enough request they may do something about it. I would consider the camera if they added the feature, a few of my lens require it. It is good to see the support rep had a sense of humor about it; canon has made changes in the past from customer complain, the biggest being the addition of 24fps to the 5D II.
> 
> My email to them
> 
> ...



I also emailed Canon regarding AF microadjustment issue - the response was very official:
"There is currently no information regarding whether the 60D will have AF
microadjustment. The pre-production version does not, but we do not
know if the production model will. The camera was just announced today,
so there is very limited information. We will have more information in
a few weeks."


----------



## gkreis (Aug 27, 2010)

*Re: Email Canon asking for AF microadjust in the 60D!! Here is their response..*

I just sent my email...

Keep it going folks....


----------



## MadButcher (Aug 28, 2010)

*Re: Email Canon asking for AF microadjust in the 60D!! Here is their response..*

So Micro-adjust of AF is totally a software issue?


----------



## LukeS (Aug 28, 2010)

*Re: Email Canon asking for AF microadjust in the 60D!! Here is their response..*



MadButcher said:


> So Micro-adjust of AF is totally a software issue?


Yup, it is a firmware thing, zero cost feature. Shouldn't be to hard to add for Canon, they already have the code from the 7D, 50D, and a ton other cameras.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 28, 2010)

*Re: Email Canon asking for AF microadjust in the 60D!! Here is their response..*



LukeS said:


> MadButcher said:
> 
> 
> > So Micro-adjust of AF is totally a software issue?
> ...



It should be a simple firmware upgrade. I have sent them a email earlier today to urge them to put the micro adjustment into 60D> I told them that if they put it on, I will buy the 60D immediately, even it is a plastic body.


----------



## MintMark (Aug 29, 2010)

*Re: Email Canon asking for AF microadjust in the 60D!! Here is their response..*

I sent them an email this morning. I said that it would give buyers more confidence when buying bodies and lenses if they knew adjusting the focus was possible. We'll see what they say...


----------



## CameraAddict (Aug 29, 2010)

*Re: Email Canon asking for AF microadjust in the 60D!! Here is their response..*

I think one thing will make them add microfocus adjustment to the firmware-- if the Nikon D7000 offers Microfocus adjustment. Otherwise, it will take more than a few hundred letters to fashion a change.

They know what they did, and I'm sure they considered that it would peeve quite a few people. But their goal in doing it was to force an upsale to the 7D. If it instead forces an upsale to a D7000, see my paragraph 1.


----------



## MintMark (Aug 30, 2010)

*Re: Email Canon asking for AF microadjust in the 60D!! Here is their response..*

Here is the reply from Canon UK (although I think it came from Germany)



> Thank you for contacting Canon Support.
> 
> In response to your query, we would advise you that we do not have any
> information on whether there will be any changes in features for the EOS 60D,
> ...



Hopefully someone will get the message...


----------



## pedro (Aug 30, 2010)

*Re: Email Canon asking for AF microadjust in the 60D!! Here is their response..*

Thank you Luke. The 60D's condition at streetrelease date or even an announcement prior to it will proof if Canon means business.


----------



## Richard (Aug 30, 2010)

*Re: Email Canon asking for AF microadjust in the 60D!! Here is their response..*

After the 5d mk II firmware update, I think this is quite possible. There is already enough hate directed toward this camera based on its plastic, canon does not need an additional strike against it.


----------



## garys (Aug 30, 2010)

Canon's math has to look like this:

Microadjustment omission value = (price premium of 7D over 60D) x (number of people who choose the 7D over the 60D strictly in order to get microadjustment

Microadjustment omission cost = (cost of warranty repair on lenses that could be corrected with microadjustment) x number of lenses sent in by people who bought the 60D without microadjustment

If the value of omitting microadjustment is greater than the cost, omit microadjustment.

I'm not saying that they SHOULD follow this formula, but looking at it, the majority of 60D owners probably will get it as their sole camera and won't notice the kind of tiny focus errors that microadjustment or warranty repairs would fix. The warranty repair cost is thus pretty low. Then again, plenty of us have out of warranty lenses and won't tolerate minor focus issues, so for us, buying a camera as a second body or backup, microadjustment is very important -- so the microadjustment omission value might well be higher than the cost.

If canon wants to be consumer friendly, they'll add microadjustment. If they want to pad the bottom line, I'm guessing their choice will be to leave it out.

Just my two cents. I really have no idea what process canon actually follows in making these decisions....


----------



## spidouz (Aug 30, 2010)

Hi guys,

I'm new to post here (even thought I do read for a while now).

Which email address are you sending at your "suggestion/request/question"? 
It's tough to find any address on website (or I might be too stupid to find it  ).

Thanks in advance,
Phil


----------



## Rocky (Aug 30, 2010)

spidouz said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm new to post here (even thought I do read for a while now).
> 
> ...



Go to www.powershot.com. On the bottom of the left side, there is "contact Us" click this tab and follow the yellow brick road.


----------



## Justin (Aug 30, 2010)

Wow! Sucks. I just sent Canon a letter in support of adding it via firmware. Can't believe this omission.


----------



## bradj (Aug 30, 2010)

It's not made of metal, and it has no microadjustment to boot.
I wouldn't consider a camera at this price unless it had microadjustment.
Canon get your act together.
Brad.


----------



## tinnunculus (Aug 30, 2010)

garys said:


> Canon's math has to look like this:
> 
> Microadjustment omission value = (price premium of 7D over 60D) x (number of people who choose the 7D over the 60D strictly in order to get microadjustment
> 
> ...



I can add the ,, Then I wait until the 7DÂ´s price drops to 70% of the current price" factor to your formula.


----------



## off topic (Aug 30, 2010)

shame on the canon marketing team for being stingy

it is pretty funny how fast the feedback comes shooting back at the 
manufactures from their users. Camera hasn't even shipped yet.


----------



## spidouz (Aug 31, 2010)

Rocky said:


> Go to www.powershot.com. On the bottom of the left side, there is "contact Us" click this tab and follow the yellow brick road.



Thank you Rocky 

Phil


----------



## ssbuchanan (Aug 31, 2010)

The 40D never had AF Microadjustment, and plenty of people bought that, and swear by it.

I had the choice when I was buying, between the 50D with Micro-AF adjustment, and the 40D without. The price premium for the 50D wasn't justified IMHO. I chose the 40D, and have never missed Micro-AF adjustment.

Similarly, if you value Micro-AF adjustment that much, well, maybe you shouldn't buy the 60D. Seriously, if you're THAT convinced that you need Micro-AF adjustment, well, maybe you need better AF too. Maybe you also need a higher FPS. Maybe you need a 1Ds


----------



## LukeS (Aug 31, 2010)

Here is a direct link to the forum you can use to send a message to canon: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional?pageKeyCode=contactUsLanding


----------



## Bart (Aug 31, 2010)

The micro adjustment assumes that the lens is perfectly calibrated just not correctly mated to a certain body. It was in my opinion an insult that Canon put it on a body in the first place. Why should the responsibility of calibration rely on me, the end user, that's a bunch of BS and anyone that doesn't believe it wasn't Canon way of pushing off responsibility has been brain washed into thinking Micro Adj on the camera is a good thing. Modern lenses like say the 24-70 have 8 focus calibration points non of which are accessible to the end user. If you adjust at 70mm, chances are you mess up 24 or 32 or 40 or 50 and so on. Don't be fooled, not having the adjustment on the camera is a good thing and forces Canon to get it better the first time and not to be able to say to us, did you try the micro adj. What a crock of nonsense. OK, rant over.


----------



## Woody (Aug 31, 2010)

The D90 does not have AF microadjustment so Canon figures the 60D does not need it too.

They fail to realize their (Canon's) QC is pretty awful.

They also fail to realize the D90 upgrade will FAR surpass the 60D in terms of specs.

Canon has been chasing after Nikon in the past few years. Considering how they use to lead the DSLR department with all their innovation and technology, it's a crying shame.

Now, they have Sony to contend with as well...


----------



## elmo_2006 (Aug 31, 2010)

*Re: Email Canon asking for AF microadjust in the 60D!! Here is their response..*



CameraAddict said:


> I think one thing will make them add microfocus adjustment to the firmware-- if the Nikon D7000 offers Microfocus adjustment. Otherwise, it will take more than a few hundred letters to fashion a change.
> 
> They know what they did, and I'm sure they considered that it would peeve quite a few people. But their goal in doing it was to force an upsale to the 7D. If it instead forces an upsale to a D7000, see my paragraph 1.



I don't buy this as Nikon offers their tier one camera AF systems in their lower tier camera bodies, I don't see everyone flocking to the lower models. It all comes down to pricing and affordability. 
Canon needs to change their marketing strategy as I'm losing patience with their 7 year old 9-point AF sensor let alone no Micro adjustment on a $1200 body only camera!
I need some evidence as what defines listening to the customers - releasing firmware updates is not considered listening in my books at least.
Canon, please do whatever it is to get the micro-focus adjustement in this camera body.


----------



## Alph (Aug 31, 2010)

MFA is a new technology that admits mismatched tolerances can lead to bad results and that permits users to tailor their results as they see fit. Technologies like these should find their way into all cameras.

I sent an email because the 60D would meet my needs, but MFA is not worth the extra $400 dollars the 7D is here in Canada at the moment and I'll never buy a camera that does not have it, unless it's cheap.

I waited 6 months for the 60D to be announced and I'm now considering replacing my XSI with a T2i to hold me over for another year or 2 until Canon releases something that meets my needs while not making pay for features I do not need.

This may seem like an extreme position, but removing something like MFA is just a way to try and take advantage.

Cheers


----------



## iceeet (Aug 31, 2010)

Woody said:


> The D90 does not have AF microadjustment so Canon figures the 60D does not need it too.
> 
> They fail to realize their (Canon's) QC is pretty awful.
> 
> ...



Same thoughts.

I'm in the middle of a repair process of my newly purchased EF-S 15-85. And because of that, I wrote a mail to Canon China at corresponding web site. The experience told me it will be useless to contact Canon in such way, at least in China.

I guess it might be helpful to do so in Japan, since I always feel Japanese will treat user feedback more seriously than others.


----------



## EF-L (Aug 31, 2010)

I think the Canon is shifting their product line for marketing purposes. I've seen several posts on Japanese Canon forums regard to this.

Rebel (3 digits D series) > 60D (2digit D series) 60D is not just plastic body, it's much lighter and smaller than 50D.
50D > 7D 

EF-S > same
EF > L (70-300L is a good example of the generalization of L grade.)
L > SL (super L ?) 

so, if you are looking for 50D replacement 7D was (or has been) so.


----------



## ShotsForPassion (Aug 31, 2010)

I was waiting for the 60D, but I won't consider it as an upgrade option without AF Microadjustment. 
I wouldn't consider a camera at this price unless it had microadjustment.
The 7D cost too much for my need, I'm not a pro.
I like macro and close-up photography, missing the AF Microadjustment is a total deal-breaker.
Maybe I need to look elsewhere (Nikon... Sony...) to find a decent upgrade for my 400D


----------



## afrank99 (Aug 31, 2010)

*micro AF-adjustment is over-estimated...*

I've spent years using my 20D without it and never missed it.
And now I'm using my 7D without AF adjustment.
It's nice to have it, but I don't feel the need to use it.


----------



## errorka (Aug 31, 2010)

I've asked the Hungarian support. I've got answer in 1 day, which is really nice, but the answer itself...

My questions:

-What was the point for got rid of the AF Microadjustment?
-Is it really possible to get it back with firmware update?
-If yes, is there any plan to release a firmware update?

The answer:

-"Canon doesn't give any information about firmware updates before release" - and they gave me a link for the EOS firmwares.
-"The specifications of the cameras are public only after the official release" - I really don't understand this.

So, I've got the answer in 1 day, but I got no answer 

At least I've tried


----------



## ShotsForPassion (Aug 31, 2010)

*Re: micro AF-adjustment is over-estimated...*



afrank99 said:


> I've spent years using my 20D without it and never missed it.
> And now I'm using my 7D without AF adjustment.
> It's nice to have it, but I don't feel the need to use it.



I respect your opinion 
Anyway, If you don't feel the need to use it, maybe it's because you've always been lucky with your lens 
Or maybe you never do closeup/macro photography. 
I do closeup photography, and I'm not always been lucky wit my lens. I have a sigma lens that back-focus "reliably" in certain condition. So I believe that AF microadjust can help, in my situation.


----------



## MintMark (Aug 31, 2010)

My 50D has micro adjustment, but I tested all my lenses (to the best of my ability) and they all seem fine. Even though I don't need to use the feature now it's a matter of confidence for me to know that if I buy a new body and it doesn't match my lenses, at least there is something I can do to try and improve the situation.

I appreciate that micro adjustment is extra useful to those who buy second hand or third party lenses, but maybe that's not something that Canon wants to hear when we email them. For all we know they want to get rid of it because it encourages people to try Sigma lenses!


----------



## jius (Aug 31, 2010)

Interesting to see the comment from CR on the front page: "Canon has proven in the last 12-24 months that they are listening to customers." Yes they have, but in two ways 1) Took on board customer requests, but releasing it as a new camera and not firmware update (500D vs 550D). 2) Only releasing a firmware update when they had no other choice to release new body for more $$$ or cos they felt they had to to keep order of bodies to justify price (7D vs 5DmkII). 

Overall they listen to customers only when the $$ chi-ching! rings in their heads. So I would guess the microadjustment will be released as desired, but in the form of a 65D/70D, next time round, probably giving some BS about 'learning from their mistakes'. But I really hope I am wrong and they add this feature.


----------



## afrank99 (Aug 31, 2010)

*Re: micro AF-adjustment is over-estimated...*



ShotsForPassion said:


> Or maybe you never do closeup/macro photography.



Actually I do a lot of macro photography - but I almost never use auto focus for it.
For me it's easier and faster to use manual focus in these situations.

YMMV.


----------



## bob (Aug 31, 2010)

@LukeS
<<Understand that the camera hasn't actually released yet, and the specifications can change before it actually arrives at retailers. I totally understand your disappointment but lets not kill our chickens before they hatch.>>

@ELK
<<The pre-production version does not, but we do not know if the production model will.>>

Hmm... a premature delivery... may be...  ;D
Are they going to reconsider the â€˜9AF pointsâ€™, â€˜plastic bodyâ€™, â€˜5.3fpsâ€™ etc?? :'(


----------



## ELK (Aug 31, 2010)

jius said:


> Interesting to see the comment from CR on the front page: "Canon has proven in the last 12-24 months that they are listening to customers." Yes they have, but in two ways 1) Took on board customer requests, but releasing it as a new camera and not firmware update (500D vs 550D). 2) Only releasing a firmware update when they had no other choice to release new body for more $$$ or cos they felt they had to to keep order of bodies to justify price (7D vs 5DmkII).
> 
> Overall they listen to customers only when the $$ chi-ching! rings in their heads. So I would guess the microadjustment will be released as desired, but in the form of a 65D/70D, next time round, probably giving some BS about 'learning from their mistakes'. But I really hope I am wrong and they add this feature.



So, you don't like it when Canon releases new firmwares. You don't like it when Canon releases new cameras either. Very constructive comment, nothing more to say!


----------



## CanonMonkey (Aug 31, 2010)

They aren't going to add it. This is the reply I got from the Canon Support Centre:



> Thank you for contacting Canon.
> 
> With reference to your enquiry regarding the EOS 60D, please be advised that the EOS 60D is not a follow-up of the EOS 50D, but the start of a new line of cameras. The line-up from EOS 30D, EOS 40D and EOS 50D were cameras of a semi-professional character, however the EOS 50D is going to be the last in this line. The new semi-professional camera that Canon offers is the EOS 7D.
> 
> ...



Translation - We've decided to gouge mid range users. If you want any high end features buy the 7D.

Thanks Canon.


----------



## channs (Aug 31, 2010)

Sent my email to canon for microadjustment in 60D....got below response...

Thank you for your E-mail inquiry regarding Canon EOS Digital Cameras.

It is only through our customers comments and suggestions that we are able to manufacture quality products that our customers will be able to use on a consistent basis. The fact that you took the time to write to us is indeed appreciated. Please be assured that your comments have been forwarded to the appropriate Department for their information and review.

Should you require further assistance, please feel free to email us or visit our customer support website at http://www.canon.ca


----------



## MintMark (Aug 31, 2010)

CanonMonkey said:


> They aren't going to add it. This is the reply I got from the Canon Support Centre:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wonder if that is actually the official Canon line, or whether the support person has just been reading internet forums  Canon certainly don't seem to have one voice on the subject.


----------



## garys (Aug 31, 2010)

I have a 7D and a 5DM2, and I now only use microadjustment for diagnostic purposes. When I get a new lens, I make sure that the sharpest AF point is with an adjustment of zero. If it requires microadjustment, I either return the lens or send it for warranty repair. I was also able to figure out that the autofocus on my 7D was defective, because microadjustment resulted in wild variations in accuracy (sometimes it was +5, sometimes -15, same lens, same distance). Needless to say, I had my 7D repaired under warranty.

Without microadjustment, it is harder to tell whether the lens is a tiny bit softer than it should be -- although comparing shots with contrast-based autofocus (i.e. live-view) with shots done with phase autofocus can provide a lot of the same information. The amazingly sharp focus I got with my 7D using contrast based autofocus was how I knew that the phase autofocus on my 7D was defective, and that it wasn't a problem with the lens.

So to the various people posting that microadjustment isn't really necessary, thank you for bringing up that question. It is still a function I want to have, but I'm not really sure it is a function I need to have (particularly if I'm careful to inspect and return any new lens that shows focus errors).


----------



## ShotsForPassion (Aug 31, 2010)

channs said:


> Sent my email to canon for microadjustment in 60D....got below response...
> 
> Thank you for your E-mail inquiry regarding Canon EOS Digital Cameras.
> 
> ...



I've also sent my email to canon, and I've got a similar response :-|


----------



## cendrier (Aug 31, 2010)

Hey there,

Just registered to post this answer I got from a Canon guy :



> Dear xxx :
> 
> Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon
> customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you with the EOS 60D.
> ...


----------



## unexposure (Aug 31, 2010)

I just sent an email to the german press-represantative, asking why they had the feature removed. still waiting for an answer.


----------



## jius (Aug 31, 2010)

ELK said:


> jius said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting to see the comment from CR on the front page: "Canon has proven in the last 12-24 months that they are listening to customers." Yes they have, but in two ways 1) Took on board customer requests, but releasing it as a new camera and not firmware update (500D vs 550D). 2) Only releasing a firmware update when they had no other choice to release new body for more $$$ or cos they felt they had to to keep order of bodies to justify price (7D vs 5DmkII).
> ...



Think you are getting me wrong! I would love to see firmware releases and wish there were more, but what I expect and has happened is that Canon seems to follow the $ rather than the customer. 500D was a classic example. Did Canon release a firmware to give manual controls as many a petition and customer asked? NO! - they just put it all in a new camera. Could they still produce a firmware for manual controls - hell yeah!. Do I think Canon will do this just 'for the love of their customers' NO! 

So my point was that requests/petitions/emails/phone calls to Canon by customers to have Microadjustment added to 60D may very well be answered by Canon, but in the form of a newer model at a later date, as in the 500D case I mentioned. It would be great to see Canon do a firmware update prior to release (as a very possible 60D purchaser myself), however if they do, it will be for the $ not for the love of the customer which was my point. They may listen to customers, but only give a little here and there to keep you hooked on Canon and looking for the next big thing that may or may not come - kind of like the Crack Dealers of the Camera industry. But perhaps with Nikon upping their game perhaps Canon may have to re-think a little.


----------



## Grendel (Aug 31, 2010)

You know, I always wondered why you actually need AF microadjustment. Yes, I know the ffects and I actually got a lens or two that needed that adjustment. But heck, the focusing system measueres trough the lens, if the focus is off it should drive it until the sensors say it's the sharpest possible.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 1, 2010)

Hey everybody, this topic finally got me to register!

Bottom line - if you are not going to buy a 7D but could get a T2i 60D, tell them microadjustment is the defining feature and really matters to you (for me it does). You could mention that the 7D has many features far beyond the cheaper DSLRs but you're too price-restricted to enter that segment. (I figure it wouldn't hurt to be honest; it may help offset whatever marketing research they've been collecting.)

About the cost-versus-benefit discussion - there have been lots of posts back and forth on microadjustment, with some people claiming the costs of adding it to any given camera are unknown, and others saying that it is essentially free. There's no proof either way, but I'm leaning toward it being something that can be added fairly inexpensively. That said, people ought to know that there are reports that some lenses can be corrected in one spot but not another through adjustment - i.e. a zoom that can be corrected either at the wide or tele end but not both simultaneously. So Canon does have a good argument for not including it - hobbyists who use microadjustment without really knowing what they're doing can make things worse for themselves, and either clog up the support hotline or, worse from Canon's point of view, blame the EOS system for a PEBCAC ("problem exists between camera and chair") situation and switch to Nikon, 4/3rds, or back to P&S systems. (The flip side - people who have good lenses and are frugal with camera bodies will be spending money, their own to go to service centers or Canon's to have different lens samples shipped out to find a "match" when microadjustment would take care of the problem with no additional expense to Canon.)

From the business perspective, Canon has a clear motivation here that they will not likely admit outright. This is all about market segmentation. They want you to buy the 7D instead. But if you want to get a 7D, you need the pentaprism and other features. If you have enough money for a 70-300mm L or above, the reasoning goes, you have enough money for a 7D, and they want to provide just one logical choice for you. This reasoning does not convince me, but there you have it.

But there is an equally good reason - more convincing to me - for demanding microadjustment (the logic of keeping it out to "protect" the 7D's segment I'll cover further in a bit - I'll say that, given what the 7D gained for the price added, it's not in danger of being squeezed out any time soon). For the "discerning amateur" or the person who prefers small APS-C cameras for weight and handling - the 60D is an obvious choice after the smaller redesign, and the 60D becomes yet more obvious choice when you can be certain your glass will perform as well as possible after adjustment. (Perhaps Canon is thinking that most people who shoot entry-level DSLRs shoot only kit lenses - I have seen evidence both ways. Personally, since full-frame is currently out of my price range - something to aspire to later - I put my money into lenses and buy the cheapest body that is as functional as possible. I couldn't stereotype the Forums - some of us might be the same, though some of us are also too camera-obsessed and neglect the lenses. I also know some shooters who just buy the Nikon D3000 because it is the cheapest thing in the store that looks like an SLR.)

I would not add my reasoning to any inquiry or statement to Canon - they don't need to hear it, they just need to see that there are enough people who will buy a 60D with microadjustment who would otherwise default to the cheaper T2i, and who are not going to leap segments to the more expensive 7D: Since Canon is playing the market segmentation game, we can as well. Here is my reasoning: I have a T1i (500D). Recently Canon upgraded most of its product lines, and I am left with a realistic choice between the T2i, the 7D, and the 60D. The T2i is an upgrade over the previous model in every respect (well, other than shots per battery, and the number of shots per memory card if you want to get picky - for some reason Consumer Reports rated the T2i below the T1i, which strikes me as ridiculous, considering how important low light performance is to me) and would be the obvious choice for me. The 7D is bulkier and expensive, but has professional features (magnesium frame structure - tangent: To my knowledge all the EOS cameras have "metal bodies," just some have more engineering plastic than others, and the key difference is the type of metal used: Stainless steel versus the heat-dissipating magnesium of the 7D, better for amateur film productions). In the middle, the 60D has some upgraded features, but the sole one that would really bump it over the edge for me, doing landscapes or anything where autofocus is required, would be microadjustment. (Actually, even with landscapes, composing through the viewfinder and using the red AF confirm light should be helped by microadjustment as well.)

If there is enough interest in what may initially seem like a small feature, it may eventually become something that any company would be shamed not to have in their lineup. Make no mistake, on any similarly out-of-alignment lens and camera combo, the 60D as-is is still a slightly up-specced system than the T2i / 550D. But you won't actually be taking better shots with it (disallowing differences in how each camera utilizes the sensor data). Microadjustment would fix this in the instances where a body and lens are considerably out of alignment, and a boon for shooting action and would make people feel much better about buying expensive lenses for the system.

Big picture: After the shakeup, I think we are doing better for product lines than before. This was apparently all plotted out well in advance of the 7D's release. The 7D was considered a revolution (and the name reflected this). The T2i / 550D was considered another great leap forward. So as the 550D stayed in the same segment, and the 7D represented a great upgrade (I think with minimal cost added, though again, Canon wants more of your money, not less) to the 50D segment. Unfortunately as a result the 60D had the unenviable position of seeming to switch places with the 7D. Most camera enthusiasts would have preferred something akin to a 7D Mark II be released, instead of the 60D. As an upgrade to the 550D, it is not bad at all. But, again, I think the microadjustment question is compelling.

I'm not going to disrespect Canon by tearing apart every little feature to say that the 60D's other new features are not compelling over the 550D / T2i's feature set for the price differential. But I will say that when I am counting every dollar towards either a new lens or some other way of improving the images I get, the articulated screen and 5.6 frames per second (3.4 FPS for the 500D / T1i, 3.6 FPS for the 550D, 5.6 FPS for the 60D) and especially the interface differences - quick wheel, top LCD (I love shooting my 500D one-handed, with the other hand on the manual focus TS-E) - don't actually guarantee a better image the way microadjustment does.

I don't see microadjustment taking anything away from the 7D. Yes, the 7D is in a tough spot because it does not have some of the neat features of the 60D, such as the new tilting 3:2 screen, and...well, that's about it, surprisingly. The 7D does everything else just as well and better. I'll take the pentaprism as a needed upgrade - I'll split the difference between the functionality of live view for composing shots on the ground with a tilt-shift lens - 60D advantage - versus shooting dimmer lenses (like the 70-300 L I'm considering) with the viewfinder on the 7D. But the heat-dissipating magnesium body and better battery still make the 7D a no-brainer for shooting video or even just on warm days when you're using the Live View - I've found on my T1i that heat buildup and the battery life really limit the 500D (on top of the crummy noise speckling of the sensor).

What about the future?

I would like to see microadjustment for multiple focal lengths (or possibly even focus distance - I vaguely recall hearing claims that in some cheaper primes microadjustment worked for either close, or infinity focus, but not both, could be wrong) for complete coverage of any given lens with a body.

Canon is going to have to also "get with it" and enable larger, longer video clips in the cameras. Unfortunately, the people who are most likely to use these - people using the 5x0, x0 and 7D series in place of a camcorder - will be left in the cold longer than before. To hell with the 30 minute European import tax on "video recorders;" (which in my mind isn't the main limiting factor); with SDXC out there's no reason the next cameras can't have longer clips no matter the resolution.

On the rumors front, I've been surprised that no DIGIC V processors have been spotted. Maybe that's the 1Ds replacement's big show. It would have the unfortunate effect of making the whole current line seem out-of-date. With the rather limiting range of selectable frame rates, and aliased images from rather severe undersampling of the sensors, the Digic "can't quite do 1080p / 60" IV already feels a bit old-fashioned. (What's up with the lack of 24 / 30FPS for 720p, anyway? My long T1i video segments will be halved on the T2i or above.) Very likely, whoever was postulating the Digic IV was a stopgap instead of the CPU for the entire current line (take away maybe the 1Ds) blew it. Of course, they may well be providing different operating frequences (MHz) for the various products the Digic IV is released in (I would be surprised if not, actually), giving it some lifespan like any typical microprocessor architecture, but this has been completely opaque to us consumers. The next stop for video recording, after 1080p / 60FPS, is 120 FPS for half-time, if you do things the EXILIM way (to be fair high-speed Exilim footage that I've seen looked horrid, with weird aspect ratios and bad detail and noise issues), or better sampling of the sensor.

I hope that they will increase the number of sampling points first.


----------



## ssbuchanan (Sep 1, 2010)

Really? Why don't you just keep the camera you've got?
I think that'll hurt Canon's bottom line more than you complaining about missing features.
Why don't you complain to them that the 500D doesn't have Micro AF adjustment?
Save up for another year and go straight to that full frame camera, and make do with what you've got in the meantime, and stop creating e-waste.

This is such a ridiculous thread.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 1, 2010)

Is there a particular reason for that post? Why you'd join a Forum to make a point of not discussing things is beyond me. Oldest rule of Forums - if you don't buy into something, you can easily move on. Besides, there's a lot of "let's hate on video for diluting the stills experience" type rants that need to be written.

I don't get the few posts that are openly hostile to attempts to make the platform more flexible for everyone. There is no downside for anybody in the EOS user community when people politely but firmly lay out the ground rules of what they will buy and what they won't. Canon is not going to suddenly de-spec a future release (for example) or act out of spite.

But on the 500D - well, it's an odd thing to bring up with low-light performance being a sore spot for me with the T1i. I don't like getting suckered into the update cycle (the T2i was announced before the T1i was a year old!), and I don't get terribly excited over incremental sensor and CPU changes. But the set of features - body and operative - should still be there whenever you or I decide to upgrade. Trying to guess at the crop factor of future cameras when buying EF lenses is bad enough, after all. Canon certainly cares that people are happy with their current systems - but let's be realistic, us consumers have no leverage to get more features for old cameras. The T1i is an old camera - more to the point an old _cheap_ camera, unlike the 5D Mark II which is an even older camera, but one which occupies an important slot in the EOS lineup. Many folks would have loved 30FPS 1080p on the T1i: Maybe it's possible, maybe it isn't. Standardized frame rates for the 720p mode should be possible as they've been introduced on other cameras. No matter - it's not happening. I don't see a "REBEL TEAM" out there cheerleading the camera's success, and I don't see professional demand for better video on it either. Same with microadjustment. In any case, I don't feel like spending too much effort on the previous generation of cameras, but rather try to advocate for the future of the EOS series. I opine in the post above that eventually microadjustment may become a must for any camera to be viewed seriously - especially as Canon's DSLRs are all becoming seen as a "specialist" breed.

Yes, eventually we will probably be arguing for microadjustment (perhaps multiple microadjustment points per lens! Imagine!) on every model of DSLR introduced. And eventually it may be standard (unless Canon either finds a way to eliminate the need for it, or finds a way to make the EF lens mount an everyday camera again so that people who just want to point and shoot start buying DSLRs, which role the compacts seem to have taken on - the reverse of the situation during the releases of all those wacky Kodak formats from the 1960s onward not managing to budge 35mm dominance).

Incidentally, I didn't realize when I wrote that previous post how big the pricing gap is between models. I think it strengthens my argument. There's no way that not including microadjustment in the 60D is going to drive people up to the 7D - or in that, almost as implausibly, by excluding it they give photographers a convincing reason to ditch the 7D. The 7D is half again as expensive as the 60D, body only, so it's not just a matter of people paying $100 or even $300 to get a better system. From the 60D, it's a closer step down to the T2i than up to the 7D. I think that Canon would like to have a more gradual step between the T2i and the 7D, but excluding useful features only makes the gap seem wider. The similarity between the 50D and T1i wasn't helpful either; 50D had a lot of advanced features but didn't receive enough attention for them - like the pentaprism - when the T1i could win over headline features like a movie mode - in retrospect a very primitive one.

Looking at Canon's DSLRs lineup it's noteworthy how some cameras haven't been listed at a lower price since their launches - 7D surely. The T1i, being a cheap camera with no buzz anymore, got its price drop a while back. The $100 more for the T2i reflects that the T1i is the superseded model.

Perhaps this represents a pessimistic view of the market for Canon, or maybe just a realistic one. Or, maybe, it's a bit of market manipulation - taking a respected brand, cheapening the fundamental construction while adding a host of headline features, and then reintroducing the feature set in a new line that is much more expensive. To Canon's credit, the headline features are more likely to be relevant to amateurs and some even to professionals - pentaprism versus tiltable LCD, take your pick [EDIT: 60D has a pentaprism as well, thanks Mark - my point still is valid in that the 7D has the better pentaprism, but it is a smaller difference than I was suggesting]; 7D owners will start clamoring for a swinger in the 7D's replacement too. How many DSLR filmmakers use the viewfinder? Better HDMI output is the more obvious step. To be sure, I didn't want this to turn into a monologue about planned obsolescence taken straight from _Death of a Salesman_, but it's fairly clear what's happened here. Canon wanted to cheapen the DSLR line and hoped nobody would notice (or, if they noticed, not care enough to do something about it).

To be fair to Canon, there is a price savings for the 60D commensurate with the lost features, and it's still a big step up from the 550D. Instead of leaving a gap below the 7D, it is also a $200 upgrade in build over the Txi / 5x0D series cameras, assuming you won't miss the pentaprism or the magnesium body (wha?), and at this price it lets more people in the door than the 50D did. But none of the features really is a definite sell to me, though many are very nice and useful. Microadjustment, though it seems small, would be one. Though for many people it's a non-issue, I think that if you're going to be serious about video, heat buildup is the elephant in the room and there ought to be more models with a magnesium body, not less. Hence the gap.

Canon surely can count on lots of people getting the 60D, but for people with memory about previous series upgrades, the $400 more for the 7D over the 50D's introductory price (which is now a $600 gap) is forcing many photographers into a lower bracket - sticking with the x0 series will surprise some photographers as how much has changed compared to the previous model, for good and ill. Some of it's more functional for the type of shooting many people utilize today - pentamirror and tiltable screen versus pentaprism and a fixed screen - but certainly this shakeup has left many people feeling more uncertain than before when selecting their next model of DSLR.


----------



## unexposure (Sep 1, 2010)

Just found the 60D-manual at us.canon - nothing mentioned about af-microadjust.


----------



## MintMark (Sep 1, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Canon surely can count on lots of people getting the 60D, but for people with memory about previous series upgrades, the $400 more for the 7D over the 50D's introductory price (which is now a $600 gap) is forcing many photographers into a lower bracket - sticking with the x0 series will surprise some photographers as how much has changed compared to the previous model, for good and ill. Some of it's more functional for the type of shooting many people utilize today - pentamirror and tiltable screen versus pentaprism and a fixed screen - but certainly this shakeup has left many people feeling more uncertain than before when selecting their next model of DSLR.



Hi Edwin,

I made it through your posts and I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the trade-offs between models.
The 60D has a pentaprism, just like the 50D. I'm expecting the viewfinders to be identical and this would be a noticeable improvement over the 500D (and definitely over my 1000D). The 7D has an even larger pentaprism for its 100% view.

The 60D uses the same battery as the 7D and gets more shots out of it (1100 vs 800) and this is a big improvement over the 50D battery life.

I think the cameras all have a metal frame inside. The 50D and 7D have outer magnesium alloy body panels and the other cameras have reinforced resin panels. The 60D's internal frame is aluminium rather than steel, to reduce mass I suppose. I hadn't heard of the heat dissipation factor before, but then I don't shoot video with my 50D 

All the information I quoted came from the spec sheets on the Canon UK website.

Mark


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 1, 2010)

Thanks Mark, I thought I had the 60D spec nailed down but apparently not! Thanks for checking it. I could swear I saw it had a pentamirror - but I also see that it does indeed have a pentamirror. That does make the 60D more attractive, though I note that it's not *as good* a pentaprism as the 7D's. But I personally don't mind the 96% coverage; I'm used to it. Any ol' pentaprism is good enough for me. How Canon expects us to compare cameras from the lineup when the relevant data is this specific and buried anyhow is beyond me. Then again, when every new basic camera has the opportunity to unseat the top models with some parts of the feature set, there isn't really any way for Canon to enforce sanity in the segmentation. Apparently price is supposed to be the sole factor making the decision for us, and we take whatever camera we can afford. Apologies those posts are so long - I like to get to the point but it didn't seem that trying to untangle the positioning strategy at Canon was something that could be treated properly with a pithy one-liner. 

Even when not shooting video, live view is very useful for me. I use it almost as much as the viewfinder, because I use it exclusively when the TS-E is bolted on. And when it's warm out, Live View likes to kick off (and at the very least it's heating up the sensor, hurting noise characteristics). In this case, a magnesium metal frame would have better heat dissipation characteristics.

Taking another look at the specs, the 60D's price premium encompasses the magnesium chassis ($200 over the 60D if you look at the 50D's introductory price, but that was back when a dollar was still worth a dollar, right?), more autofocus points, better continuous shooting, and a better viewfinder.


----------



## Joaaso (Sep 6, 2010)

emailed canon norway last week, got an answer today.. all they said was that they had sent my MFA-request to Canon Europe and that they hope it will be added through a firmware update..


----------



## tnargs (Sep 7, 2010)

Are ANY of the posters above, who are complaining about the lack of MA on the 60D, both in the market for the 60D and currently utilising MA in their current camera or in need of MA because they are experiencing focus accuracy problems with their current camera?

i.e. are you actually experiencing a problem?


----------



## Rocky (Sep 7, 2010)

tnargs said:


> Are ANY of the posters above, who are complaining about the lack of MA on the 60D, both in the market for the 60D and currently utilising MA in their current camera or in need of MA because they are experiencing focus accuracy problems with their current camera?
> 
> i.e. are you actually experiencing a problem?


I have a slight back focusing problem with my 20D (i cannot do anything about it due to lack of MA). I do not have problem with my 40D. I am in the market for a new camera. 60D seems a perfect fit for my usage and it is a better value, compared to T2i. I would like to see MA in it just in case.


----------



## LukeS (Sep 7, 2010)

tnargs said:


> Are ANY of the posters above, who are complaining about the lack of MA on the 60D, both in the market for the 60D and currently utilising MA in their current camera or in need of MA because they are experiencing focus accuracy problems with their current camera?
> 
> i.e. are you actually experiencing a problem?



I need it for a few of my prime lens, I have a 1000D (looking to upgrade) and the focus is off on a few lens. It is the lenses not the camera because I tried the lenses on my friends 50D, had the same problem, adjusted the micro adjust feature with a focus chart then boom problem fixed. From that point on I would not buy a camera without the feature and do not want to pay $400 more for the 7D just for MA (the only extra feature on the 7D I need).

Some people do not need it and/or have never used it which is great but for the people who need it, it is a make or break feature that should be on this type of camera considering it is a zero cost feature and it's predecessor had it. I find it very disingenuous of canon to remove this feature.


----------



## tnargs (Sep 7, 2010)

It seems an easy thing to 'manage the risk'. In stages.

Firstly, it is adjustable, just not by the user. It's a Canon service item.

So, if it's the body, it's a free fix under warranty.

If it's a Canon lens not focusing and lens is under warranty, see above. Send body and lens to Canon.

If Canon lens is not under warranty, cheapest option is to sell it and buy another used sample of same lens. It will most likely be fine. Or, spend a bit more, pay Canon to adjust it (camera or lens, whichever).

If it is not a Canon lens, sell it and buy another used sample of same lens. Or replace it with a Canon lens. 

Simple strategies to follow, if, if, if and if, the various possible and unlikely scenarios start to cascade up for you. Most likely none of it will even be relevant.

People seem to be talking about existing lenses they own that they know to not focus properly. Sell 'em, or buy a camera specially for 'em. But why criticize a camera that isn't specially for such lenses?

Seriously, I wonder how many owners who *think* they are advanced camera geeks have made things worse by fiddling with the MA on their cameras? And don't even know it? ;D


----------



## LukeS (Sep 7, 2010)

tnargs said:


> It seems an easy thing to 'manage the risk'. In stages.
> 
> Firstly, it is adjustable, just not by the user. It's a Canon service item.
> 
> ...



I do not understand these arguments; the simplest solution by far is just to implement AF micro adjust in the camera body.

I have a conscience so I can not just sell me lens without telling the buyer that the focus is off which will lower the value and is a huge pain to sell my equipment just to buy the same thing again.

All mass produced items have manufacture tolerances, cameras and lenses are no exception. There are plenty of lenses out there that need a tweak in the AF micro adjust that are otherwise perfectly fine. It is frustrating that people are arguing against having a extra feature in a camera body.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 7, 2010)

I agree with LukeS. The easiest way to solve the body/lens mismatch is to implement Micro Adjustment. As for people that ends up messing it up. It is their problem. Also if it is messed up, they can always bring the body back to the original state ( resetting???)


----------



## gkreis (Sep 7, 2010)

tnargs said:


> Are ANY of the posters above, who are complaining about the lack of MA on the 60D, both in the market for the 60D and currently utilising MA in their current camera or in need of MA because they are experiencing focus accuracy problems with their current camera?
> 
> i.e. are you actually experiencing a problem?



Me. I have a 40D and had to send in my 17-85mm and 10-22mm due to extreme focus issues. The 100mm was right on. I sent my 70-300mm in as well, but I am beginning to realize that is just not a great lens for action photography. I get a 30% keeper rate... ugh....

But I am starting to think I need to look to an EVIL camera for my backup camera and keep my 40D as my primary camera. I waited a long time for the 60D, but it is a bit disappointing. EVIL would also solve the problem of having a smaller camera to take on business trips. Sony has ignited that field and so perhaps the next gen will have the features that will make it appealing. I'd like a 28-100mm equivalent lens on it and it can handle the video tasks as well.

The Canon strategy of moving us all up to a 7D doesn't work for me.... Perhaps moving to a Sony or Panasonic for my backup would give me the nerve to consider a switch on my primary camera one day.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 8, 2010)

tnargs said:


> Seriously, I wonder how many owners who *think* they are advanced camera geeks have made things worse by fiddling with the MA on their cameras? And don't even know it? ;D


That would be an amazing achievement, because you set up microadjustment by locking on a test target in a well-lit space and then compare results. As I mentioned, I've heard people say that their lenses need multiple adjustments throughout the range, but you can certainly fix one end with one value. So long as people know that microadjustment for more than one focal length of a zoom may be needed, if they see better results they are getting the lens into alignment...the better results the process is intended to facilitate in the first place.


chrome_dude said:


> I sent my 70-300mm in as well, but I am beginning to realize that is just not a great lens for action photography. I get a 30% keeper rate... ugh....


Yeah, I'll be avoiding that one. If you spring for the new 70-300mm L please let us know how it turns out!


tnargs said:


> i.e. are you actually experiencing a problem?


Also, this is not the point; MA is a tool that should be provided across the board. Sorry, straw man argument.

And hell if I know, the autofocus with my 50mm f/1.4 on the T1i is so spotty that I end up manually focusing whenever I can anyway. It does seem to consistently focus wrong around infinity though.


----------



## Joaaso (Sep 8, 2010)

tnargs said:


> Are ANY of the posters above, who are complaining about the lack of MA on the 60D, both in the market for the 60D and currently utilising MA in their current camera or in need of MA because they are experiencing focus accuracy problems with their current camera?
> 
> i.e. are you actually experiencing a problem?


My sigma 30 was backfocusing, had to send it in with the body (450D) for calibration... My 85/1.8 was a perfect match with my 450D right out of the box, but on my friends 7D it's backfocusing quite a lot -so who knows how it'll behave on a 60D if I buy it..!?


----------



## Rocky (Sep 9, 2010)

Canon should add the micro adjustment to the 60D. It is a good tool to have. In fact Canon may actually saving money on the warranty work. So let us keep on emailing Canon and urge them to add it on.


----------



## unexposure (Sep 9, 2010)

I just got an answer from the german canon helpdesk, on questioning, why the removed MFA, whether they think about including it via firmware update and what the new product-placement will be.

Here the (free) translation of the answer - sorry for my bad engrish ;-)

_Our japanese mother canon inc. has decided, to release the EOS 60D as camera targeting the beginners- and semiprofessional-market. Considering this, it's design in functionallity is more leaned on the beginners-models rather than it was in it's predecessor the EOS 50D. When 50D hit the market, it was the only binding-part between beginnsers-models, such as EOS 500D and professional-models such as EOS 5D MKII. Now we have the EOS 7D as another camera in the semiprofessional segment, which is more targeting the professional market than the beginners market. The EOS 60D will now be the connection of the beginners-models and the semi-pro to professional market._

_We decided to not include some of the functionallity of the EOS 50D into the EOS60D. Microfocusadjustment is one of them._

_However, we will inform the right section of your wish on having the function to be in an upcoming upgrade. But we can't say whether and when it will be the case._

In other words: It's true, they split the 50D into a slightly more professional and a slightly more beginners model.


----------



## ShotsForPassion (Sep 11, 2010)

tnargs said:



> Are ANY of the posters above, who are complaining about the lack of MA on the 60D, both in the market for the 60D and currently utilising MA in their current camera or in need of MA because they are experiencing focus accuracy problems with their current camera?
> 
> i.e. are you actually experiencing a problem?



Yes I'am.
My 400D + Sigma 17-70mm consistently back-focus in closeup shots.
My first Sigma 17-70 lens has been in servicing for 6 monts (2 weeks after buying) before they decided to send me a new one... so sigma service are out of question, I've paid my lens to take shots, not to wait substitution o fix.
So MicroAf adjustment is what I need to take sharp-hobbist-closeup photos. 8)
I was hoping for the 60D, but now I don't see a camera that fits my need in canon lineup :-(
No microAF, and IMO too much megapixel (18 megapixel = too much noise on APS-C)


----------



## paeataa (Sep 14, 2010)

I a totally newbie in DSLRs. I do not know what the AF Microadjustment is and why it's so necessary. Anyone care to explain to me?

Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2010)

paeataa said:


> I a totally newbie in DSLRs. I do not know what the AF Microadjustment is and why it's so necessary. Anyone care to explain to me?
> 
> Thanks!



AF Microadjustment is a capability to calibrate the cameras AF system for specific lenses (data on up to 20 lenses can be stored). This corrects for front- or back-focusing that can occur in some lenses, due to manufacturing tolerances. See the lensrentals.com article, "This lens is soft and other myths," for a description of the problem that AF Microadjustment solves. It's worth noticing that even if you have this problem, most consumer zoom lenses have narrow apertures and thus such a deep depth of field that you'd never notice the problem.


----------



## paeataa (Sep 15, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> AF Microadjustment is a capability to calibrate the cameras AF system for specific lenses (data on up to 20 lenses can be stored). This corrects for front- or back-focusing that can occur in some lenses, due to manufacturing tolerances. See the lensrentals.com article, "This lens is soft and other myths," for a description of the problem that AF Microadjustment solves. It's worth noticing that even if you have this problem, most consumer zoom lenses have narrow apertures and thus such a deep depth of field that you'd never notice the problem.



This is very helpful. Thanks!


----------



## LukeS (Sep 15, 2010)

The Nikon D7000 has AF micro adjust or as Nikon calls it finetune along with a whole host of other things the 60D does not. Canon is going to have to do something to compete, most likely drop the price.

We should keep the pressure on them to add back AF micro adjust.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 17, 2010)

*Can someone actually has used micro adjustment share their REAL experience?*

In this tread, a lot of people like to have micro adjustment in 60D. Some people says they don't need it. Some people actually says the micro adjustment will even mess up even more on the focusing issue. Can someone share their real life experience on using micro adjustment??? Thanks


----------



## MintMark (Sep 17, 2010)

OK, my real life experience is that I spent an afternoon testing about eight lenses with my 50D, a mixture of zooms and primes, all Canon. I could not detect any consistent front or back focus with any of them and left all the settings at zero.

I did learn about the sorts of features that need to be under the AF point for reliable focusing.

It wasn't very exciting...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2010)

*Re: Can someone actually has used micro adjustment share their REAL experience?*



Rocky said:


> In this tread, a lot of people like to have micro adjustment in 60D. Some people says they don't need it. Some people actually says the micro adjustment will even mess up even more on the focusing issue. Can someone share their real life experience on using micro adjustment??? Thanks



First off, read Roger's (lensrentals.com) article on the issue. I haven't heard of AF microadjustment messing up autofocus - I suppose that if it's not done properly, it could. 

Personally, I use AF microadjustment, and that feature was one of the reasons I upgraded from a T1i to a 7D (my then-new 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS was backfocusing). As I stated above, most consumer zoom lenses have narrow apertures and thus such a deep depth of field that you'd never notice the problem (unless the lens has a close MFD and you shoot at the close distance). 

I have many lenses with wider apertures, meaning shallow DoF wide open, and in unadjusted lenses, I do notice a difference. Even on some lenses with variable/slow apertures, such as the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO, there are issues solved by adjustment - my copy of that lens was noticeably backfocusing (i.e. I'd focus on the eye of a frog in a pond, and the area of critical focus would be somewhere along his back, with his eye a little soft). With lenses like the 85mm f/1.2L II, DoF is so shallow that you immediately notice an AF problem.

I've calibrated 12 lenses on my 7D, and 11 of them have had some amount of adjustment applied. Obviously, the amount of AF microadjustment needed will be different for each unique camera and lens combo, so these numbers are useless to anyone else, but to give you an idea here they are:

â€“5	EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
+1	EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
+2	EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
+2	EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
+6	EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM + 1.4x
â€“7	EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
â€“3	EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
â€“1	EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
â€“1	EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Â±0	EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
â€“2	EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
+2	EF 300mm f/4L IS USM

I use the LensAlign Pro to do my AF microadjustment calibrations. DataColor is coming out with something similar. Going back to the statement above, about AF microadjustment messing up AF, I suspect if you were 'just eyeballing it' when doing the adjustment, it might not be very effective.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 17, 2010)

Neuroanatomist, Thanks . Someone in this thread also claims that for zoom lens, when you adjust for one focal length and distance, the other focal length, even distance may get messed up. Have you seen that happened to you? Excuse me for asking too much question. After waiting for my 20D/40D replacement for awhile, I am ready for another body. So far I do not "see" focusing problem on my 40D. I do have a slight problem with the 20D. I can either buy the 7D or the 60D. Therefore I try to get as much information as I can. Is there anything that you do not like the 7D??? Thanks again.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2010)

Rocky said:


> Neuroanatomist, Thanks . Someone in this thread also claims that for zoom lens, when you adjust for one focal length and distance, the other focal length, even distance may get messed up. Have you seen that happened to you? Excuse me for asking too much question. After waiting for my 20D/40D replacement for awhile, I am ready for another body. So far I do not "see" focusing problem on my 40D. I do have a slight problem with the 20D. I can either buy the 7D or the 60D. Therefore I try to get as much information as I can. Is there anything that you do not like the 7D??? Thanks again.



My pleasure. I have read that calibration of zooms can be an issue, but I haven't had a problem. The usual method is to calibrate at the long end (which is where the DoF will be shallowest for a given subject distance) - that's what I do. On some lenses (17-55, 70-200 II), I have checked the wide end and found it to be the same adjustment as the long end.

Anything I don't like about the 7D? It's not full frame.  Otherwise, it's a great camera.


----------



## Grendel (Sep 17, 2010)

For a zoom I usually take measurements across the range and eyeball what MFA would benefit (if necessary. Using LensAlign Pro as well.) Putting more weight on the long end makes sense for short to medium distance shooting since the DOF will be thinner.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 18, 2010)

Neuroanatomist, Thanks again. So far you have given the most complete REAL experience and insight on microadjustment in this forum. Thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2010)

Rocky said:


> Neuroanatomist, Thanks again. So far you have given the most complete REAL experience and insight on microadjustment in this forum. Thanks



Glad to help, Rocky. Good luck with your decision!


----------



## ShotsForPassion (Sep 18, 2010)

LukeS said:


> The Nikon D7000 has AF micro adjust or as Nikon calls it finetune along with a whole host of other things the 60D does not. Canon is going to have to do something to compete, most likely drop the price.
> 
> We should keep the pressure on them to add back AF micro adjust.



Yeah, and it also has LESS megapixel, that is good 'cause will give better performance in hi-iso.
Now I' really start to think about switching to nikon, after all I only have 400D + Sigma 17-70mm + Flash Metz 48-AF1... 
If I switch to a D7000+18-105mm I'm only going to lose my flash... about 200â‚¬, not too much.
Let's wait some real deep D7000 review...


----------



## gkreis (Dec 1, 2010)

ShotsForPassion said:


> Yeah, and it also has LESS megapixel, that is good 'cause will give better performance in hi-iso.
> Now I' really start to think about switching to nikon, after all I only have 400D + Sigma 17-70mm + Flash Metz 48-AF1...
> If I switch to a D7000+18-105mm I'm only going to lose my flash... about 200â‚¬, not too much.
> Let's wait some real deep D7000 review...



Well.. the DP review at http://www.dpreview.com/news/1012/10120104nikond7000review.asp makes it clear that this is a camera with IQ to be reckoned with! Oh... the images are lovely. I mean really clean! Canon, look out. The dark shadows at high ISO hold up very well in in the D7000, especially well in the RAW shots. Nice.

I just have too much in lenses (for my budget) to hop over to Nikon just yet, so I'll wait for an upgrade from my 40D. The 50D wasn't it and they left out MF in the 60D! Oh well... keeps more money in the bank I guess.


----------



## canonman (Dec 13, 2010)

The Microadjustment feature is only useful with wide aperture prime lenses. One good example is the Sigma 30mm 1.4 EX. If you use the microadjust feature with a zoom, then you will probably mess up the focus even more. As you zoom the lens in and out the variables of focus change. 

However, companies like Sigma will oftentimes help you out if you send both the camera and lens to them. They will calibrate it to perfection.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2010)

canonman said:


> The Microadjustment feature is only useful with wide aperture prime lenses. One good example is the Sigma 30mm 1.4 EX. If you use the microadjust feature with a zoom, then you will probably mess up the focus even more. As you zoom the lens in and out the variables of focus change.



Wide aperture primes only? Shhhhhhhh...don't tell that to my 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS lens that was noticeably backfocusing throughout the zoom range on my 7D, and was optimally corrected over the whole range by an AFMA of -7. Actually, there's no need for hush-hush, since I sold the lens so it'll never know.


----------



## bvukich (Dec 14, 2010)

canonman said:


> In conclusion, do you need microadjust? I really dont think so.



It is fully within your rights to use, or not use, available features as you see fit; just as it is fully within ours to whine about those which are not.


----------



## canonman (Dec 14, 2010)

True, you can whine and cry...nitpick that is within your rights. However, it seems funny to me that one would totally reject the 60D because it lacks this one feature. Most do not use it or need to use it. Those who do use it spend hours and hours and then end up sending the lens to the depot when they find they cant correct it themselves. Those who report successful use are those usually using cheap primes. I dare anyone here to grab a 7d and then try to go through the microadjust feature...that is those who have not done it before. Tell me how long it takes you to get it right that is if you get it right.

What about the improvements on the 60d like you can get 40% more photos on one charge of the battery? What about how its lighter then the 7d? What about how its in improvement on the 7d? One trueism is that whether you take photos or video with the 7d or the 60d, most people would be pressed to tell them apart. To most people, it would appear as the same camera...I bet to most pros it would appear as the same camera.


----------



## fman (Dec 14, 2010)

canonman said:


> However, it seems funny to me that one would totally reject the 60D because it lacks this one feature. Most do not use it or need to use it.



I don't think that some folks reject the 60D just because of one (in my view rarely used) feature. The 60D generally fell short of expectations. It does not mean that it has no improvements over e.g. the 50D or 550D. Better battery life is good, but please do not overrate it. No matter how long the battery lasts it will run out of juice at some point of time. Thus not having a spare battery is not an option for any serious photographer. A longer battery time is a good change though.

Same goes to the articulating LCD. Very nice, especially for macro shooters. For serious videographers/cinematographers an external monitor or LCD viewfinder is equally if not more important. It's just too bad that HDMI output drops to 480p during recording (unlike 7D).

Back to this AF microadjustment. Most people can leave without it, but what would it cost to Canon (especially that it already exist in other bodies)? A SW feature, close to zero cost. People not opting to use it just could leave it at zero.
Canon bodies tend to have less powerful SW than others. Compare 60D e.g. with D7000. E.g. more preset WB options, built-in intervalometer etc. So AF removal is just a step pointing to the wrong direction.
A very strong indication of missing features is the mere existence of Magic Lantern (not yet for 60D). Just google a bit.

Why 60D has generally fell short of expectations (even though having some improvements)? Canon is no longer leading the high ISO low noise race even in the semi-pro class. When replacing CF with SD, D7000 got 2 SD slots, while 60D has got only one. The very useful AF selection joystick has gone. Instead the SET button is competing now with other functions for center AF point selection (or you have to push en extra button).

I don't want to beat on this anymore. After all 60D is not a bad cam, just maybe people with some good glasses were expecting a bit more. Fanboys will keep being happy; others may seek something better or keep what they have.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2010)

canonman said:


> I do not wish to be a conspiracy theorist but there is something wrong with this thread.



Well, yes, there is..._now_.



canonman said:


> True, you can whine and cry...nitpick that is within your rights.



Within yours too, apparently, as it is also within your rights to read internet forums and repost what you're read there as The Truth. Since the internet has convinced you that AFMA is close to useless, I'm sure you also believe that alien abductions are commonplace, that the New World Order controls global society, etc. I notice that you said you do not wish to be a conspiracy theorist...but you didn't say that you _aren't_ one...



canonman said:


> However, it seems funny to me that one would totally reject the 60D because it lacks this one feature.



You must be spending quite a bit of time laughing, these days... 

Seriously, though, I think this feature gets brought up a lot because there's no _technical_ reason for Canon not to have included it - it's 'free' in the sense that no hardware is required and the firmware code is already written. So the lack of AFMA gets brought up (and bashed) frequently because it makes a pretty clear marketing statement that the 60D is the upgrade path from a Rebel, not from the 50D.



canonman said:


> Most do not use it or need to use it. Those who do use it spend hours and hours and then end up sending the lens to the depot when they find they cant correct it themselves. Those who report successful use are those usually using cheap primes.



Cheap primes, right. I guess my EF 85mm f/1.2L II falls into that category? It needed +5 AFMA before producing sharp images at f/1.2 with autofocus on my 5DII. I suppose my 24-105mm f/4L IS and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lenses are also cheap primes?

The only time I found I couldn't correct the AF issue myself was when I had a T1i. 

Also, you say 'just send it to the depot' like it's an easy solution. It's costly to do that, and not everyone has multiple bodies and/or can afford to be without their camera for the 1-2 weeks (or more) that it would take. Not to mention having to do it again for each new lens (and if the 'experts' adjust both lens and body, you'd better have sent all your other lenses in too, and that would be even more expensive). 



canonman said:


> I dare anyone here to grab a 7d and then try to go through the microadjust feature...that is those who have not done it before. Tell me how long it takes you to get it right that is if you get it right.



Ok, you weren't daring me, since I've done it before. FWIW, it takes me about one hour to calibrate a new prime lens on both bodies (7D and 5DII), and about 90 minutes to calibrate a new zoom lens, including setup and takedown. And yes, I get it right. Even with zoom lenses. 60-90 minutes. How much time and expense would it take to send two bodies and 10 lenses to Canon every time I add a lens?



canonman said:


> What about the improvements on the 60d like you can get 40% more photos on one charge of the battery? What about how its lighter then the 7d? What about how its in improvement on the 7d?



More battery life is nice. But as was pointed out already, one battery is never enough (well, maybe for a Kindle where you charge it once a month). Get a battery grip, and you get a 100% improvement. Lighter? Wow, then the 60D must be way better than a 1DIV, because the latter so heavy. Besides weight and battery life, how is the 60D better than the 7D? I'll take a more robust body, weather sealing, much better AF, faster frame rate, deeper buffer, a 100%/1x VF, more shutter life, etc., and I'll 'suffer' with the extra 145 g.

Oh wait, I just realized the 60D's main improvement on the 7D - it offers *awesome* in-camera processing effects:







I especially like TOY CAMERA... 



canonman said:


> One trueism is that whether you take photos or video with the 7d or the 60d, most people would be pressed to tell them apart. To most people, it would appear as the same camera...I bet to most pros it would appear as the same camera.



You could certainly say the same about the T2i and the 60D, or the T2i and the 7D. They're using the same basic sensor. But by extension, this is true across the board. Make a 4x6" print of the same static scene shot with a Rebel XS and a 1DsIII and you'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart. 



Here's an idea, canonman...instead of reading what other people write and restating it here as if it were the gospel, why don't you share some of your personal experience. You state that you, "...use Canon cameras and lenses nearly everyday." Instead of daring others, have you tried AFMA? Of course, if what you read on forums has convinced you that it's useless, why waste your time? Or, maybe the New Yawwwwk abrasiveness has rubbed away your expectation of what constitutes a sharp image...

As for me, my personal experience is that AMFA is an extremely useful feature.


----------



## canonman (Dec 14, 2010)

I will tell you my personal experience. My personal experience is that its not needed. I have never used it nor would I want to mess with it because I simply don't have the time. There was a time a few years back when cameras did not even come with it. How did you deal with it when it was not there? I know how you dealt with it...the process was to send your gear to the repair depot. There are plenty of workshops around NYC and what we would do is use a local workshop. 

I think you will find most, if not all, Canon L lenses to be tack sharp and to work well with most any Canon model. 

I think Dpreview said it best when they said they did not need the adjustment even with their own most demanding lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60D/page9.asp

"We had few problems with AF accuracy though, even when using the hugely demanding EF 50mm F1.2 L USM lens. Naturally, there is always the risk that playing with fine adjustment might cause more problems than it solves, but the simple fact that there is no longer any capability to fine-tune AF might be a deal-breaker for some users."

Lastly, my experience is that many problems are oftentimes the result of the photographer not the camera.


----------



## Grendel (Dec 14, 2010)

canonman said:


> 3) Micro-adjusting a lens is not a quick process. Most users report spending all day doing it. Some users end up setting it back at zero as their pictures come out even more messed up then before.



Doesn't take me more than 60min to create a profile for a zoom. Less than it would take me to ship a lens to Canon. Also I can actually use the lens right away vs. waiting two weeks to get it back. Saves time & money, even after buying a LensAlign tool.



canonman said:


> In conclusion, do you need microadjust? I really dont think so.



*Shrug* Your milage obviousely varies, but having MA in my 7D & 5DII saved me a _lot_ of time & money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2010)

canonman said:


> I think you will find most, if not all, Canon L lenses to be tack sharp and to work well with most any Canon model.



I suppose that depends on your definition of 'well.' If I autofocus on a subject's eye with my 85L, and get blurry eyelashes but absolutely tack sharp nose hairs or earlobes, that's not 'working well,' especially for a 20x30" print.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 15, 2010)

canonman said:


> There was a time a few years back when cameras did not even come with it. How did you deal with it when it was not there? I know how you dealt with it...the process was to send your gear to the repair depot.


Of course, this is the whole reason microadjustment existed in the first place - they doubtless wanted to free up the service queue for people who actually had problems that truly needed the service desk.

If DSLRs are going to be touted as quality instruments, people ought to have the ability to at least work out the kinks. With leaving out microadjustment, Canon is saying you're not welcome to go the service route to adjust a lens to match a given body, and you're also not welcome to do it yourself. So basically piss off if you want focus accuracy but aren't coming in with loads of cash and a willingness to carry a heavier body. That sort of marketing technique stinks...but I still love ya, Canon, even though you do it all the time.

On lenses that change focus distance when focal length is change, I'd expect that the relationship between focus distance and focal length may not only not be linear, but may not be a smooth curve either, especially if it's some lens with a cheap rattling plastic geartrain. Beyond that, I'll admit that I'm not quite sure why lenses should front- or back-focus, aside from the AF chip being misaligned (which also seems suspicious), so why the through-lens focusing shouldn't work every time (even at different focal lengths) is a bit beyond me. You'd think that with the light coming through the image, and without having to worry about infrared shift or lens movement, that it'd be consistent.


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 15, 2010)

Ok, so I have a few questions for neuroanatomist:

1) You now have a 5D2 in addition to your 7D. Have you retested your lenses with you new body? Do you find a constant offset from your adjustments for 7D? In principle I think you should be able to, and that would mean it would be sufficient to only measure one lens, say a sensitive one like your 85/1.2L, and then apply the difference between the MA for that lens and 7D and MA for 5D2 to all other lenses to have the calibration to 5D2 without having to remeasure all lenses. I don't know if this works in practice, however, as it assumes the MA scale is linear which it may not be (I don't know). It would therefore be interesting to read your experience!

2) Have you tried to use an interference image on a computer screen as a focus target instead of the LenAlign Pro? I mean as detailed in this post by Keith Cooper.

3) Have you attempted to check whether there is a distance dependence to the optimal MA for your lenses? I've seen recommended distances for measurements to be 25-50 times the focal length, but I'm curious how well the adjustment works for other distances as well.

Something that would simplify MA would be to have a "calibration wizard" where you 1) autofocused on a target and 2) set the optimal focus manually (using live view). The camera should then be able to compute the corresponding MA itself. (This could even be generalised to MA as a function of distance.) This would ideally decrease the time required for a lens calibration to a few minutes instead of an hour. 

Another thing I would love to see is focus bracketing. It was available on my Canon G2, but I haven't seen it since.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> 1) You now have a 5D2 in addition to your 7D. Have you retested your lenses with you new body? Do you find a constant offset from your adjustments for 7D? In principle I think you should be able to, and that would mean it would be sufficient to only measure one lens, say a sensitive one like your 85/1.2L, and then apply the difference between the MA for that lens and 7D and MA for 5D2 to all other lenses to have the calibration to 5D2 without having to remeasure all lenses. I don't know if this works in practice, however, as it assumes the MA scale is linear which it may not be (I don't know). It would therefore be interesting to read your experience!



I have tested the lenses on the 5DII (and I retested them on the 7D at the same time). The theory seems plausible, but the practice turned out different. 

For example, in my case:


The 16-35mm f/2.8L II requires an adjustment on the 5DII that is 4 units negative relative to the adjustment on the 7D.
The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II requires an adjustment on the 5DII that is 4 units negative relative to the adjustment on the 7D.
The 85mm f/1.2L II requires an adjustment on the 5DII that is 2 units positive relative to the adjustment on the 7D.
The 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS requires an adjustment on the 5DII that is 6 units positive relative to the adjustment on the 7D.
The 24-105mm f/4L IS requires the same adjustment value on both my 7D and my 5DII.

I had thought there would likely be systematic differences - a particular camera was x units off of 'true', and a particular lens was y units off of 'true', in theory if you knew those values for a given camera and lens you could predict what the AMFA should be for the combination of them. But in practice, that's not the case - each combination (at least with the bodies and lenses at my disposal) seems unique. So, from a theoretical standpoint it's a mystery - since AF is achieved by iterative feedback between lens and body, that may play into it. From a pragmatic standpoint, it's irrelevant - I will just continue to do an AFMA for each body+lens combo I have...



epsiloneri said:


> 2) Have you tried to use an interference image on a computer screen as a focus target instead of the LenAlign Pro? I mean as detailed in this post by Keith Cooper.



I gave it one try - I found that I could move the camera back and forth a considerable distance without seeing a visible change in the moire pattern on the camera LCD (differences that would move the DoF 'window' on the LensAlign). Partly that's an issue with making judgements based on the on-camera LCD...more on that later.

The other issue with that method (and with focusing on any image as a target) is the alignment of the target with the camera's sensor. Ideally, you want the target to be completely flat and perfectly parallel to the sensor. That's really a main function of the LensAlign tool - the sighting gates that allow you to align the target to the camera. If not for that, I could just prop a ruler against a wall and have saved a few bucks. 



epsiloneri said:


> 3) Have you attempted to check whether there is a distance dependence to the optimal MA for your lenses? I've seen recommended distances for measurements to be 25-50 times the focal length, but I'm curious how well the adjustment works for other distances as well.



I have haven't done an exhaustive test, but I checked with the 85L at the MFD, 25x focal length, and 50x focal length and all three measurements were within one AFMA unit (e.g. the adjustment values were something like +5/+4/+5). That's within the tolerance of the process, I think.



epsiloneri said:


> Something that would simplify MA would be to have a "calibration wizard" where you 1) autofocused on a target and 2) set the optimal focus manually (using live view). The camera should then be able to compute the corresponding MA itself. (This could even be generalised to MA as a function of distance.) This would ideally decrease the time required for a lens calibration to a few minutes instead of an hour.



I'm not convinced that would work as accurately. The limitation on the Live View method is the resolution of the LCD on the camera. With that method, you are in large part judging best focus by the sharpness of the 10x magnified image on the camera display. How many times does something look nice and sharp even when zoomed all the way in on the on-board LCD, but when you transfer the image to your computer you find that it's a little off. 

I know that Live View focusing at 10x is a common practice - I use that for macro and TS-E shooting. But there are two problems with using it for AFMA. The first is that 10x Live View (at least on the 5DII and 7D) is magnified beyond 1:1 (it's 1.14:1 for the 5DII and 1.23:1 for the 7D) - I'm not sure what algorithms Canon uses for the interpolation, but regardless, upscaling is bad for sharpness. 

The second issue is that _viewing_ an image at 10x on the LCD to judge sharpness is not the same thing as _focusing_ using 10x Live View, at least not for me. When I focus using Live View, it's an active, iterative process with visual feedback (just like the camera's autofocus, only I'm a lot slower) - I move the ring back and forth a few times to make sure I'm centered on the region where I want critical focus. If you AF on a point then switch to 10x Live View and see if it's sharp, that's static viewing; if you then rack the focus to check if the AF hit the spot, how do you know you're ending up at the same point? I think the only way to know for sure is to actually take the shot with AF then take the shot with MF 10x Live View, and view them on a larger display. Not just one shot, either. AF accuracy should be normally distributed (in the statistical sense) around the point of best focus - but a normal distribution doesn't mean spot on that best point every time. So you still need to take multiple shots. Ultimately I think the best way to judge is not to compare AF vs. 10x Live View MF on a single shot (or without a shot at all), but rather to apply stepwise adjustments and compare the results over several shots. Once you factor in the need to do that multiple times at each adjustment setting, I'm not sure that using AF and 10x Live View MF offers any time savings for AFMA, compared to just shooting the target with AF at a range of adjustment settings. 

That's an advantage to a tool like the LensAlign - you're setting AFMA based on a DoF scale, so that the plane of focus is centered on an angled ruler that's precision-aligned to the focus target. I find that my quick reviews on the LCD (to make sure I've got the optimal adjustment bracketed within +10 to -10) usually give an estimate that's close to the final chosen setting (but not always exact, usually within 1 or 2 units). The ruler means you're partly judging by sharpness, but really by the location of the region of sharpness as it moves along the ruler from setting to setting, as opposed to within-shot sharpness. Of course, after selecting and applying an AFMA to a lens, I always re-check the sharpness of AF shots in a 'real-world' setting (often my daughters eyelashes) - but again, that's checking at 100% on the computer.

That's why the 'unofficial but Chuck Westfall-recommended so as official as unofficial gets' procedure for AFMA involves viewing images at 100% on your computer to judge sharpness.




epsiloneri said:


> Another thing I would love to see is focus bracketing. It was available on my Canon G2, but I haven't seen it since.



Indeed, that would be nice, especially for macro shooting!


----------



## canonman (Dec 15, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> If DSLRs are going to be touted as quality instruments, people ought to have the ability to at least work out the kinks.



My shower broke recently. I could have gone down to Home Depot and "worked out the kink", however, I know that there is a trick to every trade and it may look easy to do, but wait until you start fixing the plumbing and you end up screwing it up even more. 

The microadjust may seem like a whambam 2-minute type deal...just adjust it up a few notches and done...however, it is just not that easy. Hey, if you want to spend all day adjusting that cheap Canon 50mm 1.8 or that Sigma 1.4 then be my guest, but is it worth it to spend 10 hours to finetune a prime? How much is your time worth? 

As a professional photographer, when you get a call then you have to answer it. If you dont answer it, then they move to the next guy on the list. Now if you do answer and your equipment is out of focus and you mess up a job, then that will ruin your rep. The microadjust was put on the camera so you can temporarily fix your gear in an emergency situation, but its not a permanent fix or a substitute for a qualified repair lab. 

Finetune your gear with the microadjust, but don't forget to tell us how long it took you and if after a week of shooting you didnt put the settings back to the original because your pictures were not right. I don't mess with such things because there is a trick to every trade. I am a photographer not a camera/lens engineer. Let the experts handle these matters.


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 15, 2010)

Thanks for your reply!



neuroanatomist said:


> From a pragmatic standpoint, it's irrelevant - I will just continue to do an AFMA for each body+lens combo I have...



Except that it would simplify things a lot if it worked that way... you wouldn't have to measure each lens/body combination. Too bad it doesn't!



> The other issue with that method (and with focusing on any image as a target) is the alignment of the target with the camera's sensor. Ideally, you want the target to be completely flat and perfectly parallel to the sensor. That's really a main function of the LensAlign tool - the sighting gates that allow you to align the target to the camera. If not for that, I could just prop a ruler against a wall and have saved a few bucks.



Actually, I have figured out a very simple way of achieving perfect alignment. Just take a flat mirror and fix it flat against the screen. Then make sure you see the reflection of the camera centered through the viewfinder, where you want it to be centered on the screen. This will ensure that the screen is perpendicular to the optical axis. I don't have a convenient flat mirror at home, so I use a CD that I tape onto the screen (it's reflective and flat enough). I haven't actually started to measure MAs yet, just wanted to poll your experience before I do.

I have found that live view manual focus works very well for me (on the 7D), I don't seem to have the problems you do. Best focus seems well defined, though I sometimes find that the focus ring could be more precise. Very seldom do I find the focus even slightly off in manually focused images. Much more common is slight motion blur (even with tripod). Contrast AF using live view usually also works as well (on well-lit objects). Both methods are always as accurate or better than AF-sensor AF (albeit much slower).

Non-integer up-scaling likely removes some contrast in the image, but the optimal focus probably still produces the sharpest image, even in the up-scaled version. Usually I find even the best resolution to be quite coarser than the pixel resolution of the sensor. This may in part be due to the anti-aliasing filter on the sensor.



> If you AF on a point then switch to 10x Live View and see if it's sharp, that's static viewing; if you then rack the focus to check if the AF hit the spot, how do you know you're ending up at the same point?



Hmmm, I don't think I understand... I imagine the procedure as follows:

1) AF focus on a target, say a properly aligned focus target. The camera registers what it thinks is the best focus.
2) Without moving the camera or the focus tagert, go to 10x live view and manually focus to what *you* think is the best focus, push a button or something for the camera to register what your preferred focus is.
3) The camera makes use of info from 1 and 2 to compute MA.

No need to go back to what the AF thought best... or am I misunderstanding? This procedure of course assumes that you are better than the AF at focusing (under static conditions), but in my case I've found that to always be the case. Alternatively, one could let the camera itself compare the AF between the AF sensors and the live view contrast AF, and compute MA under the assumption that live view AF is more accurate. That would be even simpler, and according to my experience, live view contrast AF _is_ nearly always accurate (but slower). Contrast AF is not affected by front/back focus issues, since it uses the actual detected image for AF, so it would be perfect to correct for AF sensor MA. I can imagine setting up the camera on a tripod and align it to a focus target, select "calibrate AF" from a camera menu, and then let the camera automatically cycle through 10 AF measurement cycles (say), computing the best MA. Why not, Canon?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2010)

canonman said:


> My shower broke recently. I could have gone down to Home Depot and "worked out the kink", however, I know that there is a trick to every trade and it may look easy to do, but wait until you start fixing the plumbing and you end up screwing it up even more.



Sure. If my lens wasn't stopping down to the selected aperture for the shot or the IS wasn't working, I'd send it in to Canon. There a significant difference between "repair" and "adjustment." If the water coming out of your shower head was a little too cold even when turned all the way to Hot, would you call a plumber and pay a few hundred dollars for him to twist the little red knob on your water heater to a higher setpoint? I know I wouldn't.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> Actually, I have figured out a very simple way of achieving perfect alignment. Just take a flat mirror and fix it flat against the screen. Then make sure you see the reflection of the camera centered through the viewfinder, where you want it to be centered on the screen. This will ensure that the screen is perpendicular to the optical axis. I don't have a convenient flat mirror at home, so I use a CD that I tape onto the screen (it's reflective and flat enough). I haven't actually started to measure MAs yet, just wanted to poll your experience before I do.



Makes sense, sounds worth trying.



epsiloneri said:


> I have found that live view manual focus works very well for me (on the 7D), I don't seem to have the problems you do. Best focus seems well defined, though I sometimes find that the focus ring could be more precise. Very seldom do I find the focus even slightly off in manually focused images. Much more common is slight motion blur (even with tripod). Contrast AF using live view usually also works as well (on well-lit objects). Both methods are always as accurate or better than AF-sensor AF (albeit much slower).



Live View MF works just fine for me. My point was that if you take a picture (i.e. with AF) then zoom it to 10x on the review, it might look sharp - but when you view it at 100% on your computer, you may find the focus was off a bit. The difference is that when focusing you are actively setting the focus manually, you're in effect performing iterative focus bracketing, which is quite accurate. Just viewing an image is not as accurate, since it you don't know if it would be just a little sharper if you had turned the focus ring fractionally. 



epsiloneri said:


> This procedure of course assumes that you are better than the AF at focusing (under static conditions), but in my case I've found that to always be the case.



This is true with Live View, not necessarily through the VF (especially with fast lenses and a standard focusing screen, since in the VF you're seeing the DoF of ~f/2.5 even with a much faster lens).



epsiloneri said:


> Hmmm, I don't think I understand... I imagine the procedure as follows:
> 
> 1) AF focus on a target, say a properly aligned focus target. The camera registers what it thinks is the best focus.
> 2) Without moving the camera or the focus tagert, go to 10x live view and manually focus to what *you* think is the best focus, push a button or something for the camera to register what your preferred focus is.
> ...



No, I was. I was putting it in terms of what is possible now...if Canon were to implement this in firmware, it could work as you describe (and would be great!). In particular, the automatic contrast AF compared to phase AF routine would be wonderful - Canon could even sell a branded focus target!


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 19, 2010)

The deal is...for people (like me and others in this thread) who are happy to compose images and focus manually with Live View, autofocus accuracy obvious isn't as big a deal as it might be for people who need accurate results quickly - like sports shooters. If I had one of the early 1D Mark IIIs I would pronounce it nearly perfect for everything...if I was using it for landscapes where the infamous autofocus problems would mean precisely nothing. Perhaps it's a sign of differing needs that some people consider the AF issues on that camera fixed, while others say (and have provided evidence) that it actually never did get up to their standards, even after a fix.

So, in the (IMHO) unlikely event that you shoot nothing but landscapes and still life where you manually focus (and that has described my shooting thus far), Canon would be right on the money to say you don't need AF microadjustment - Live View is what you use and the rest is needless expenditure. But almost everybody uses AF now and then, however, and it's especially when shooting at times when quick, good technique is key that I suspect AF microadjust pays off.


----------



## Alex 007 (Mar 29, 2011)

Hello!

I'm a newer Canon owner from Terra santa...Israel. Decided to own for the first time a canon brand DSLR...(Own a Pentax 10K, Nikon D300/ Fuji S3/KM Minolta 7D & a Sony A900), now added a Canon...selected specially the 60D ONLY with one specific lens a 1,4/50mm prime USM lens...for snap porttrits from my first Grandson.''

However...noticed that the focus isn't 100% accurately wide open with my combo 60D?.

Was acquired here in the biggest "Gray" photo store en Tel-Aviv...the body is officially market for US/Canada...my selected lens is specifically market for the Japaneses market...can made photos to assure to all of you what got it?.

Why such good "Combination"...don't produce astonishing 100% perfectly in focus sharpness?.

BTW...had another issue...internally built in flash, don't "Pop Up"...after...that I remove my "Nikon" brand shoe cover???. Fortunally read what happen with a "Micro-Switch"...white one behind the shoe lengt...that "Stuck" it...so with a little scrowdriver I lift such "Micro-Switch"...behind the flash shoe...& return to work again...NOW...don't guard/slide my "Nikon" brand shoe keeper clean. As again will happen such "Micro-Switch" failure???! 

Thanks for your cute/guru responses.

Peace,

Alex 007


----------



## kubelik (Mar 29, 2011)

alex, you've lost me in the second half regarding the nikon shoe... but in terms of the 60D and 50 f/1.4 combo:

as lots of people have noted, it's easy for a wide-aperture standard or wide angle prime to have AF that's just a wee bit off. out of all my canon lenses, the 50 f/1.4 is the only one I had to use microadjust on. since you have a 60D, you don't have the microadjustment feature available to you. I'd recommend you contact your local Canon service center and see if they're willing to provide calibration services for you (I assume they'll do it, but I also assume they'll charge you money for it)

since it sounds like you're not a novice dslr shooter I won't raise the usual concern of "do you realize that all dslr images need sharpening applied because of the AA filter" ... but otherwise that would have been my second comment.


----------



## kubelik (Mar 29, 2011)

canonman said:


> Finetune your gear with the microadjust, but don't forget to tell us how long it took you and if after a week of shooting you didnt put the settings back to the original because your pictures were not right. I don't mess with such things because there is a trick to every trade. I am a photographer not a camera/lens engineer. Let the experts handle these matters.



I applied microadjustment fairly casually in the middle of a very protracted and boring event (I was not a hired shooter for the event, just a spectator) by taking photos at various distances from different subjects, judging how far the focus was off, and then applying adjustment settings and re-shooting, continuing until I was happy.

probably took me about 10 minutes (which was disappointing, I was hoping it'd distract me longer) and I've been very happy with my 50 f/1.4's AF accuracy on my 5D Mark II since then.

I understand that not everyone wants to use their microadjust function -- nobody is forcing anyone else to. but making it sound like it's horribly difficult or possibly damaging in unneccessarily alarmist and can turn some folks off to what is really a pretty straightforward, innocuous, and useful feature.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2011)

kubelik said:


> alex, you've lost me in the second half regarding the nikon shoe...



I assume he means something like THIS (Amazon link). That one, like most of the 3rd party hotshoe covers sold for (and listed as compatible with) Canon dSLRs, press the microswitch at the front of the hotshoe and 'trick' the camera into thinking an external flash is mounted, which disables the pop-up flash. 

Richard Franiec sells hotshoe covers specifically designed for Canon cameras that do not press the microswitch. They are available HERE, and it looks like he ships internationally. He also makes a very nice little grip for the S90/S95 which provides a more secure and ergonomic feel to that great little camera. That grip was how I became aware of his well-made custom products.

Alex, I agree that it sounds like you've got a slightly miscalibrated lens/camera combo, and such things are usually most evident with wide aperture prime lenses (since narrower apertures result in deeper depth of field, which masks the effect of a slight misfocusing). If you have time to shoot in Live View with Live AF or manual focus, that will take care of critical focus (Quick AF will not, since that still uses the AF sensor). Else, as kubelik stated, with a 60D there's no do-it-yourself option to microadjust the AF system lens by lens, so you'd need Canon Service to perform the adjustment (and you'd need to send in the body and the 50mm f/1.4 lens in to them, along with all your other lenses, because if they adjust the body to match the 50/1.4, then your other lenses might no longer be correctly adjusted).


----------



## Admin US West (Mar 29, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Richard Franiec sells hotshoe covers specifically designed for Canon cameras that do not press the microswitch. They are available HERE, and it looks like he ships internationally. He also makes a very nice little grip for the S90/S95 which provides a more secure and ergonomic feel to that great little camera. That grip was how I became aware of his well-made custom products.



That grip sounds like a big improvement for those of us with large hands. I sold my S90 because my hands were too large. Unfortunately, I cannot push some of the buttons, I have to hold my fingers carefully so my fingernail pushes the button, and about 50% of the time, the wrong one got pushed.

However, I'm glad that there are choices, many, if not most will have no problem with the button size and spacing.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2011)

> alex, you've lost me in the second half regarding the nikon shoe...





> I assume he means something like THIS (Amazon link). That one, like most of the 3rd party hotshoe covers sold for (and listed as compatible with) Canon dSLRs, press the microswitch at the front of the hotshoe and 'trick' the camera into thinking an external flash is mounted, which disables the pop-up flash.



I think there's a little more to it than that.

There is a design flaw with the 7D (probably with the 60D too) where the small microswitch on the hot shoe mount can get bent and come into contact with the small metal contacts that are designed to tell the camera that an external strobe is on the camera. This can happen when the foot of a strobe (or in Alex's case, the foot of a hot shoe protector) pushes the metal contact against the microswitch and then when the strobe or hot shoe protector is removed the metal contacts continue to push against the microswitch and complete the circuit making the camera believe a flash is mounted in the shoe. 

This then prevents the camera's built-in flash from popping up when you press the button to pop up the flash. 

It's a real problem with the 7D because if you can't get the pop up flash to pop up, you can't use it to trigger an off-camera flash. 

I learned about this the hard way and found it mentioned on several discussion boards. The solution, as Alex 007 said, is to use a very small jeweler's screwdriver to separate the metal contact strip from the microswitch. Apparently, Alex had this problem using a Nikon-brand hot shoe cover/protector. Not a big surprise to me as the contact strips on the Canon seems to be very thin and easily bent just enough out of shape to accidentally complete the circuit. 

Fortunately, I only had this problem once and it was at home where I had a jeweler's screwdriver handy.


----------

