# Automatic Microfocus adjustment software



## Kent (Dec 16, 2011)

There is a software that soon will be released for automatic Microfocus adjustment branded FoCal . It works with Canon 5D Mark II and Canon 7D. More information available at: http://www.reikan.co.uk/focal/
I have tried it with 3 different lenses and my 5D Mark II and i'm impressed so far.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 16, 2011)

Sweet stuff! I works for me with the Spyder LensCal, but this I will test when it comes along. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 17, 2011)

It sounds interesting. We know that its possible to automate the process, but someone is actually doing it! The file size gets larger, for one thing when your image has more detail, so they might just be adjusting focus until a maximum file size is reached.

In any event, if it works, it would help someone with a large number of lenses to calibrate. Maybe a lens rental company would benefit a lot, if they don't already have custom software.


----------



## EyesOnly (Dec 17, 2011)

How did you get the software?
I'd like to try it too,


----------



## JR (Dec 17, 2011)

Well this seem interesting indeed, but it looks from the website to be more into a BETA stage. I could not get the software to try it from the website per say. I am curious to try it and know how you got an early testing version...


----------



## ejenner (Dec 17, 2011)

I tried this and couldn't get it to work properly. I ended up using this method (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html) and really like it. A bit more manual, but you can clearly see what it is doing and no second guessing some software.

The above software doesn't really show me what it is doing and I don't think it is sensitive enough to the exact focus.

But many people do seem really pleased with it.


----------



## pwp (Dec 17, 2011)

Kent said:


> There is a software that soon will be released for automatic Microfocus adjustment branded FoCal . It works with Canon 5D Mark II and Canon 7D. More information available at: http://www.reikan.co.uk/focal/
> I have tried it with 3 different lenses and my 5D Mark II and i'm impressed so far.



Are you a beta tester for Reikan/FoCal? Would you let the list know when it's ready for prime time?

I've successfully used Michael Tapes LensAlign system http://www.whibalhost.com/lensalign/products.html and the results make the purchase price well worthwhile.

In particular my stellar 70-200 f/2.8isII is now even more accurate, particularly up close at f/2.8, my 50 f/1.4 is now useable and other lenses have all benefited from micro adjustments.

Paul Wright


----------



## Kent (Dec 17, 2011)

There was a couple of early versions avilable for download until a week ago so i have tried it and it works OK.
I have registered for the beta testing and if I'm selected I will update the forum when it is released.


----------



## Kent (Dec 28, 2011)

The software will be released to public 2011-01-02, it's available to order now at a special preorder price.
I ordered my copy today.

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focal/purchase.html


----------



## Picsfor (Dec 28, 2011)

thanks for the tip, i registered for beta testing as well, having 5D2's - i thought this software would be invaluable.
not a bad price either, considering.

Just feel this is something Canon should have been doing...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 29, 2011)

Picsfor said:


> thanks for the tip, i registered for beta testing as well, having 5D2's - i thought this software would be invaluable.
> not a bad price either, considering.
> 
> Just feel this is something Canon should have been doing...



Canon may eventually sell a kit, but count on it costing $600 or more.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 4, 2012)

I received the download link and registration for both my 5D MK II and my 7D Monday. I was too busy to spend much time with it, but did print and read both manuals that came with it. Fairly good manuals for a first edition. I was impressed at the understanding of the Canon AF system that the author demonstrated, and expect to shorten my time to calibrate lenses by a huge amount. Some of the tools included will also help to identify lenses which do not autofocus consistently and let me make a decision as to whether repair is needed.

One thing that is not well covered, is how to physically mount and align the target. Its silent on some of the possibilities. Mounting the target on a wall is one obvious method, but I do not have any walls that happen to be good places to mounnt the target, they need to be well ligkhted, and I need to be able to have a clear view for up to 20 or 30 feet.

So, today, I came up with a tripod mount that will give me freedom to place them, as well as adjust height and perpendicularity to the camera body. I had some heavy lucite photo holders that I never used, that are letter sized, so I printed the targets on Epson Exibition Fiber (heavy) paper and mounted them to the lucite. Then I tapped a 1/4-20 thread into the bottom of the holder so that my tripod quick release would screw into it.

Thats as far as I got today, I did, of course install the software and verify that it recognised my camera properly. So, I'm ready to start testing lenses, I'll tether the camera to my PC in my studio mounted on a sturdy tripod and with the target on another tripod, I'll get them in alignment and see how it goes.

Here are a couple of photos of my target holder.

1. The two targets with the lens align tool between for comparison







2. My 30 year old tripod is excellent for this use, but no good for a DSLR. The target is attached to the lucite with a couple of strips of 2 inch double back tape.






3. The tripod quick release threaded into the lucite stand and attached to the tripod. The tripod is tilted forward so the target is vertical.






4. Tripod with target mounted on a table. I'll sit it on the follr for actual use.






In a day or two, I hope to compare my lens-align settings with those developed by the FoCal Unit.


----------



## JR (Jan 4, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> In a day or two, I hope to compare my lens-align settings with those developed by the FoCal Unit.



I am eager to know your findings as this software promise to be very useful if it works! Good luck!


----------



## scottkinfw (Jan 4, 2012)

I worked mine last night for several lenses on my new 5D2, but haven't tested the lenses yet.

Some notes on function/setup, etc.
I purchased the fully automatic version, and it is slick- way cool to watch it control the camera and watch it graph results.
Before running the program, go to the tools section and have it acquire the target
Best to put a weight on the camera tripod and put it on a very secure floor to minimize vibration
You don't need to purchase the additional target, just print the one off that comes with the license
Windows only
Couldn't get it to recognize my camera on Parallels (not recent version however)
worked great on windows lappy
Prime L's gave rather consistent results
Zoom L's gave some variable results, with different values wide, mid-range, and telephoto end (1DX can handle this)

Hope to check the results this weekend.


----------



## flbs (Jan 4, 2012)

Please let us know your experience with the software. If it is any good it will be interesting for many people.


----------



## pauljv (Jan 4, 2012)

Works fine using VirtualBox/Windows 7 on my Air


----------



## Herb (Jan 4, 2012)

pwp said:


> Kent said:
> 
> 
> > There is a software that soon will be released for automatic Microfocus adjustment branded FoCal . It works with Canon 5D Mark II and Canon 7D. More information available at: http://www.reikan.co.uk/focal/
> ...




What focal length and aperature did you set your 70-200 to when you calibrated the microfocus?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 6, 2012)

I finally started testing my lenses today using the FoCal Pro software. The "Pro" version includes a display of the analysis, which I found to be reassuring. Basically, i see a bell curve with sharpness on the Y axis (vertical) and the ma setting on the X axis (horizontal).

I started by using my 7D and went thru 5 of my lenses which I had adjusted using the Lens Align tool.

I did my 15-85mm zoom first, I had trouble at the wide end, but I was too far away, 4 or 5X more than the 50X focal length that Canon recommends.

Here is what I saw.

15-85mm ma= 0 (was -4)
Tokina 17mm prime= +4 (was 0)
Canon 50mm 1.4= +4 (was 0)
Canon 100mm L= -1 (was 0)
Canon 135mm L= -10 (was 0) - the curve on this lens showed high resolution from ma of -14 to 0 and then went straight down, a strange curve. I ran it 3 times at different distances with similar results.

I have a few more short focal length lenses to do, but the long ones may require me to setup outside, since I only have a 23 foot clear view of the target, and I'd have to do a lot of rearrangement to change that. I can probably get away with 200mm max. at 35 X focal length. 

The software does determine your distance to the target and advise you. I found that being off very much caused errors.

I'll try to take some photos of my setup tomorrow as well.

So far, it really beats the socks off my Lens Align tool, and the performance analysis of the lens AF tells a lot of the story.


----------



## JR (Jan 6, 2012)

Cool, thanks for the update Mt Spokane! I think I will try to get this software myself and give it a try! Keep us posted.


----------



## Kahuna (Jan 6, 2012)

+1 Thanks very much for the honest review Mt Spokane.


----------



## japhoto (Jan 6, 2012)

I pulled the trigger on the pro - version also. I'll be putting it into use tomorrow.


----------



## ddl (Jan 8, 2012)

Using the Pro version - software appears to do what it is advertised to do.

Determines required MA for a lens (once target-camera set up properly) in about two minutes providing there are no issues.

Generally agreed with previous results obtained using other devices. It's nice seing the focus results graphically.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 8, 2012)

Very interested in hearing more. Sounds like most people are going with the Pro. Is it worth i versus the Plus? From what I can see, Pro mainly shows reports of what is going on, or am I missing something.

I have done no micro adjusting, so if this will help run through the process in a more automatic manner and help my images be overall sharper, well worth the investment.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 8, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Very interested in hearing more. Sounds like most people are going with the Pro. Is it worth i versus the Plus? From what I can see, Pro mainly shows reports of what is going on, or am I missing something.
> 
> I have done no micro adjusting, so if this will help run through the process in a more automatic manner and help my images be overall sharper, well worth the investment.



This is the first release of the software, and there are additional features promised. The owners of the Pro version will get any additional features.

I pre-ordered mine and got a discount, and, the new features promised may be useful.

As to making your images sharper, no guarantees there. The software merely adjusts your lens at one focal length and distance, and it may / will still be off at other distances and focal lengths, but usually not by much.

Most blurry images are still the fault of the photographer, fine tuning the lens AF merely improves things a very small amount, which can be seen on wide aperture lenses viewed at 1:1, but most likely cannot be seen on imqages taken at f/5.6 or smaller, since they have enough depth of field to be in focus in spite of a focusing error.


----------



## ddl (Jan 8, 2012)

Pro gives you more automated features, better reporting plus it allows you to write an MA value beyond the limit built into the camera (e.g. beyond +/-20 for the 7D and +/-30 for the 5D) should you need it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 8, 2012)

ddl said:


> Pro gives you more automated features, better reporting plus it allows you to write an MA value beyond the limit built into the camera (e.g. beyond +/-20 for the 7D and +/-30 for the 5D) should you need it.



Does your 5D MK II have a MA of =/- 30? My 5D, 7D, and 1D MK III all have =/- 20.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2012)

Does FoCal actually allow you to *set* an adjustment outside of the -20/+20 range, or does it just report that a greater adjustment is needed? The latter would be simple extrapolation from the testing, whereas the former would seem to require modification of the firmware...


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 9, 2012)

Sounds like this is pretty good software. As a professional amateur (e.g. enthusiast) I'm debating if I want to buy this, but given the feedback so far I think I might as well go for the Pro version. I can afford the ~$80 or so after exchange rates and so on, especially since it does appear that it works quite well. 

Now I'll just have to find a place to print off the target since I only have a cheap laser printer. Hmm...Fed-Ex/Kinkos? Think that'll work if I bring them in some heavyweight matte paper?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 9, 2012)

I finished testing my lenses on my 7D this afternoon, I did not test with extenders. I went ahead and tested my telephoto lenses at short range, I'll have to wait for spring or a warm day to test them outdoors.

Here are the results.

FoCal Lens Calibration Results
Canon 15mm FE +2 
Tokina 17mm f/3.5 +4 
Canon 35mm L +4
Canon 50mm f/1.4 +4
Canon 85mm f/1.8 -12
Canon 100mm L -1
Canon 135mm L -10
Canon 300mm f/4 L IS +0
Canon 15-85mm EF-s +0
Canon 24-105mm L 
24mm +0
50mm -3
105mm -2
Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS 
70mm -5
100mm -3
200mm -3

Canon 100-400mm L IS 
100mm -7
250mm +1
400mm +1


Some screen shots of the analysis bell curves as well as my setup. As you can see from the bell curve of images taken with different MA settings, you don't really need the sophisticated curve fitting software to know which AF setting is best.















100-400mm L at 100mm








100-400mm L at 250mm








This image was at 400mm, I did not put the tripod collar on the lens, and on the wooden floor, it was vibrating. The quality of the AF accuracy was less due to this.


----------



## aldvan (Jan 9, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I started by using my 7D and went thru 5 of my lenses which I had adjusted using the Lens Align tool.
> 
> I did my 15-85mm zoom first, I had trouble at the wide end, but I was too far away, 4 or 5X more than the 50X focal length that Canon recommends.
> 
> ...


That's the problem with MAF, in my experience.
Whenever you try a new method, you get big differences from the previous ones and it is very difficult to get in the real world ultimate evidences that the latest is working better than the previous.
My latest attempt was with LensAlign. I spent some days tuning up my kit (two cameras, 4 lenses), paying the maximum care to alignment etc, getting, time by time, contradictory results. At the end I opted for the ones 'seeming' to work better in the real world, by I'm not sure it was just a psychological decision, since every previous method gave me a similar decent satisfaction. Now I stand on the last one I got with LensAlign telling me that this is ok...


----------



## Old Shooter (Jan 9, 2012)

+1 Mt. Spokane! Thanks for sharing your work with us!


----------



## toto (Jan 9, 2012)

This software is available for Windows only?
Are we accountants or photographers?
It looks really good and I'll buy it if it was available for Mac.


----------



## japhoto (Jan 9, 2012)

toto said:


> This software is available for Windows only?
> Are we accountants or photographers?
> It looks really good and I'll buy it if it was available for Mac.



So you're saying that if one isn't using a Mac, one isn't a photographer?

The Mac version is coming btw...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Does FoCal actually allow you to *set* an adjustment outside of the -20/+20 range, or does it just report that a greater adjustment is needed? The latter would be simple extrapolation from the testing, whereas the former would seem to require modification of the firmware...



The larger adjustment range is a promised feature at some time in the future.

"And the following tests coming shortly after release:  

Storage of test runs for comparison over time 
Out of range testing - take the AF Micro adjustment value outside of the normal +/-20 range for problematic lenses. 
Autofocus Performance Test 
Autofocus Consistency Test 
Lens profiling (sharpness at different apertures, field curvature and more) 
As well as the above features, FoCal Pro will be the version that any new features are added to. So if you want to get the new features sooner, FoCal Pro is the way to go.

So, if its a successful product, we will likely see these features.


The product is not for everyone, you need to be really careful with your setup, and to understand that some lens / body combinations work poorly and testing will show this. Its nothing new, but we can now easily see it, and the new tools in the future will make even more info available. I can see sellers providing a copy of the test curve to show how good their lens actually is. The repeatability of a lens body combination is likely more important than the MA setting, unless its way off.

'


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The larger adjustment range is a promised feature at some time in the future.
> 
> "And the following tests coming shortly after release:
> 
> Out of range *testing* - take the AF Micro adjustment value outside of the normal +/-20 range for problematic lenses.



Yes, I read that, too - that was the point of my question. When I read that, it suggests to me that the _testing_ will be capable of going beyond the normal range, but it does not indicate that it will be possible to actually set an in-camera AFMA outside the normal range. Do you think the latter would be possible without altering the firmware? 

Looking at the plots you posted, I'd bet the shape of the curves would be pretty similar for a given lens, or perhaps class of lenses. So, given sufficient data on those lenses, if a curve is 'trending up but starting to approach a peak' between, say, +14 and +20, but hasn't peaked yet, the software will extrapolate the curve and report that you'd need a +23 adjustment, even though it didn't test +23. Alternatively, since the software can measure the time between initiating focus and focus lock each time, and also the direction, it could apply a 'manual focus' adjustment equal to one AFMA unit for values beyond 20, and measure the sharpness at those expanded settings, providing real data for the plots.

But, I think the only way an out-of-range adjustment could actually be applied and used when the camera isn't connected to FoCal would be a ML-type firmware hack. I'd be very interested to hear other opinions, or examples of other custom functions having their available parameters changed externally.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The larger adjustment range is a promised feature at some time in the future.
> ...



The FoCal software is the production version of the AF-MAC software. If I read it right, the AF-Mac could not save a MA out of the -20 to +20 range, merely test for it, which is likely done as you conjectured. Apparently, that feature was less than production ready, so it was held back for a later date.

I really don't see a point in it, if your lens needs a +30 to correct it, it or your camera or both need to go in for adjustment.

http://www.reikan.co.uk/photography/blog/?p=1561


----------



## Chrisbrn (Jan 9, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I finished testing my lenses on my 7D this afternoon, I did not test with extenders. I went ahead and tested my telephoto lenses at short range, I'll have to wait for spring or a warm day to test them outdoors.
> 
> Here are the results.
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for your input! 
A question please: 
for a zoom lens ie 24-105 L IS, it gives you 3 values at 3 different focal lengths, does the camera store all of them or do you have to choose one of them?


----------



## ddl (Jan 9, 2012)

When I was testing my 7D on the closed beta I ran one test to get an MA value with I believe my Sigma 85mm.

I thought I would try to immediately re-run the test again to see if it came up with the same value. For some reason the test never converged and the focus kept on getting worse.

I killed the test and the MA value on the 7D was something like -92; I had to reset it to 0 and then the test ran to converge back to the originally determined MA value (something like +10 to +15).

So the overwrite possibilty was in the Beta and I assumed it was still in the Pro first production release version (although I haven't tried to find out if it still works).


----------



## ddl (Jan 9, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ddl said:
> 
> 
> > Pro gives you more automated features, better reporting plus it allows you to write an MA value beyond the limit built into the camera (e.g. beyond +/-20 for the 7D and +/-30 for the 5D) should you need it.
> ...



It appears I screwed up as I thought one of the non-7D bodies went +/-30.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2012)

Chrisbrn said:


> for a zoom lens ie 24-105 L IS, it gives you 3 values at 3 different focal lengths, does the camera store all of them or do you have to choose one of them?



You have to choose one. I'd bias the choice toward the long end of the zoom, since that's where DoF will be thinnest and thus AF errors more obvious. 

FWIW, the 1D X will store two AFMA values for a zoom lens. I don't know what it will do with them, i.e. change from one to the other halfway through the zoom range, or progressively change from one to the other over the range.


----------



## Chrisbrn (Jan 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chrisbrn said:
> 
> 
> > for a zoom lens ie 24-105 L IS, it gives you 3 values at 3 different focal lengths, does the camera store all of them or do you have to choose one of them?
> ...



Thank you very much!


----------



## japhoto (Jan 9, 2012)

ddl said:


> ...the MA value on the 7D was something like -92...



I ran into this value as well, but can't really tell if it actually overwrites the MFA - value or if it's just a glitch. It however was a bit of a surprise to find that value in the menu 

So far I'm quite happy with the software, but as an "early adopter" there is problems with stability. Not while testing, that went fine, but the crashes still are pretty frequent. Hopefully that'll change with the future releases.

I did at least two runs on each focal length and on my 24-70 I tested it at 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 70mm and again all of them at least twice. So even though the process is pretty much automated, it still took a fair amount of time. I also saved the test analysis curves for each test and I'm going to do a writeup on my blog about my findings. I'll post a link once it's done, but that's going to take a while since I'm quite busy with other things than photography at the moment.

Anyway, here are the values I got:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5:
- @10mm: -7, -7
- @22mm: -3, -2

All in all pretty consistent results. I had no MAF dialed in for this lens, so I went from 0 to -5. That's close enough of a compromise since DOF isn't really an issue. This may change when I get to try this new value in real life.

Canon EF 24-70mm L f/2.8:
- @24mm: -8, -6 (I wasn't sure about the -6 test run and did a third one, which came at -9)
- @35mm: -10, -5 (same uncertainty here, but I didn't run the third test)
- @50mm: -11, -11 (prediction was at -12, but -11 was the selection)
- @70mm: -14, -15 (I changed to the bigger target here, so I'm not sure about the values)

This again was pretty inconsistent which I did expect from this lens. Good news is that the results weren't all over the chart and it's consistently needing a minus adjustment. I'll have to do more testing with this lens, but since I didn't have anything dialed in, needless to say it's gotten way better. So this one went from 0 to -10. I'll fiddle with this in real situations and do more testing when I have the time.

Canon EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS II:
- @70mm: -2, -2
- @200mm: -2, -2

As consistent as they come, I had this at -3 before, so I'll leave it at -2 and see if it's better.

Canon EF 300mm f/4:
- @300mm (duh): -8 (the only good run)

This focal length combined with the 15m testing range proved problematic to say the least. This would have been better if I had better lighting on the target. I'm guessing there were too much vibrations to get decent readings, so I'll have to do this again with far better light. For the record I was using daylight balanced fluorescent lights on both sides of the target to get an even lighting, but to get a decent shutter speed for the 300mm it wasn't enough.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4:
- @30mm: -2, -2

This one is interesting since I had it at +3 before and +1, +2 and +3 are higher on the chart than -2, but they are way off of the predicted MFA curve. So I was "right" to set it at +3 since it's a sharper option, but it's probably been an inconsistency in the AF - motor. So hopefully this setting of -2 gives consistent results even though it's not as sharp as +3. Will have to try it out in real life.

In conclusion, even though the software makes the testing easy and at least somewhat repeatable, there still are decisions to be made when it comes to setting the "optimal" value for MFA. I can say I'm pleased with the software since it does what it promises and at least gives us a point of reference and the means to do an educated guess about the right value (if there ever is one).

When looking at the testing from a bit further away, there's consistency about every lens needing a minus adjustment, so there was no wild measurement errors or seriously whacked lenses. I'll probably end up doing more testing with much brighter lighting on the target and see if that makes a difference, but so far I'm happy to be pushed in the right direction.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 9, 2012)

I finished with my 5D this morning. The full auto gives repeatable results every time I've tried it. As you can see, there is no direct corelation between settings on the 7D and the 5D MK II. I measured the zooms at 3 different focal lengths, but picked the one I most often used to put in the camera. By looking at the bell curve, its easy to select a value that will do well for all. Even the 100-400mm L has a very wide bell curve and should be fine at 100mm with it set to +4.

Only my od 300mm f/4L was at zero on both bodies. Thats a beatup lens that I expected to be off, so you can't tell by the looks. The 15mm FE also seems to be a ananomoly, I tested it three times, moving the camera and re-aligning, but it always came out the same.

FoCal Lens Calibration Results
7D 5D MK II
Lens 
Canon 15mm FE +2 -15
Tokina 17mm f/3.5 +4 +2
Canon 35mm f/1.4 +4 +5
Canon 50mm f/1.4 +4 -8
Canon 85mm f/1.8 -12 -14
Canon 100mm L -1 -5
Canon 135mm L -10 -3
Canon 300mm f/4 L IS	+0 +0
Canon 15-85mm EF-s	+0

Canon 24-105mm L 
24mm	+0 -6
50mm	-3 -7
105mm	-2 -2
(Set to -4)

Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS 
70mm	-5 -3
100mm	-3 -3
200mm	-3 -3

Canon 100-400mm L IS 
100mm	-7 -5
250mm	+1 +4
400mm	+1 +4
(set to +4)


----------



## japhoto (Jan 9, 2012)

Hey Mt Spokane Photography,

I'd like to ask you if you could give your opinion about my testing and especially about the conclusions I made about it. This was my first run and I haven't done much MFA fiddling this far, so I'd like to know if I'm going in the right direction.

Also, what kind of target illumination system did you have?

Thanks in advance,

Janne


----------



## Freshprince08 (Jan 15, 2012)

Hi guys,

Purchased the "Pro" version over the weekend as well and just had a chance to play with it this evening. I installed it onto Windows 7 via Parallels on my iMac, seems to work absolutely fine! I was concerned that running the virtual machine would mean very slow test times but I was pretty impressed with the performance of the software. I should point out that I'm blessed with a very nicely spec'd machine.

The software is intuitive and easy to use, and like others on here I got repeatable results using the fully automatic calibration. I've only been able to test out a few lenses on my 7D, will get through the others and the 5Dii too sometime this week! I've never microadjusted my lenses before, so I'm interested to see what the real world results will be like. My results are below for anyone interested.

Body: 7D. Distance to target: 3.1m. Measured EV between 9 and 10, target was lit by a continuous video lamp (Redhead).


Lens Focal Length Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 MA Value set EF 85mm f1.885mm+17+17+17
 EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS17mm+1+10+5*35mm+5+5+455mm+5+7+6
 EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS (mk1)70mm-1-1+7100mm+6+6+5135mm+7+8+8200mm+10+10+9

* the instructions recommended turning IS off when testing - I forgot to do this so will have to retest this lens!

As you can see, the MA varies across focal lengths for the zooms, I guess this is expected (interested to hear other peoples experiences). I've set the MA biased towards the longer end, where DOF is more critical. I find most of my shots with the 70-200mm on the 7D are at or below 135mm so it makes sense to optimise for this focal length.

Overall highly recommended


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 16, 2012)

japhoto said:


> Hey Mt Spokane Photography,
> 
> I'd like to ask you if you could give your opinion about my testing and especially about the conclusions I made about it. This was my first run and I haven't done much MFA fiddling this far, so I'd like to know if I'm going in the right direction.
> 
> ...



I noted users having issues with the -91 AFMA in the beta, supposedly he found the issue, but he also pulled out the testing beyond + 20 or -20.

I've used several methods to try AFMA, and my results improved things, but were dependent on my ability to detect visually the difference in focus points, and my old eyes struggle at that. Lens Align had the best results.

There are some images of my lighted table earlier in the thread. The lighting level has been between ev 11 and 11.9 which is nice and bright. I have 12 four foot CRI 98 fluorescent bulbs with electronic ballasts (no flicker) they are about 2 ft or less from the target. four bulbs on each side and four above.

Some things I noticed that affect results:

Vibration is a killer, a really sturdy tripod is needed, and just walking accross the floor of my wood floor studio will mess up the testing.

Use the large target for telephoto lenses and get further back. My space is limited, I could use a long hallway and get 40-50 ft, but I'd have to move a lot of things and setup new lighting, so I haven't bothered for now. Once winter is over, I may setup a long distance setup for testing lenses, but its not a priority.

Most of the tests were running over 30 exposuers, so I set the software to do up to 50 before stopping.

Some lenses are just plain erratic. I have no way of knowing if this is a single lens issue, or if it applies to the lens part number. Once users start sharing their results, that might become apparent, however, different setups may influence results as I found out.

I'm going to be shooting a few thousand low light images at a theatre event this coming week, so it will be interesting to see if the images are sharper. I'll be checking carefully at the start. I've found nothing to complain about in the past, so I'm dealing with a very a small improvement in most cases.


----------



## japhoto (Jan 16, 2012)

Freshprince08 said:


> Body: 7D. Distance to target: 3.1m.



This one stood out for me, didn't you change your camera to target distance at all during the testing?

For example for your 85mm the proper testing distance would be 4.25m and with your 70-200mm @ 200mm it would be 10m etc.

Just a thought.


----------



## candyman (Jan 16, 2012)

SOFTWARE UPDATE: the release of FoCal 1.1


The important updates are as follows:

- Addition of support for the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III and Canon EOS 50D.
- Addition of a new Manual Mode which allows you to analyse images you take yourself, and this works with Canon and Nikon cameras.
- PDF Report generating capability from the Fully Automatic test and Manual Mode tests in FoCal Pro.
- Bug fixes and minor improvements.

FUTURE:
Support for the 1D Mark III and 1D Mark IV is currently being added and will be released for FoCal 1.2, currently planned for release at the end of January


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 16, 2012)

japhoto said:


> Freshprince08 said:
> 
> 
> > Body: 7D. Distance to target: 3.1m.
> ...



The proper testing distance is the distance you use the lens at. I photograph small birds, and get as close as possible. Adjusting the focus a long ways off makes no sense for me, but it is likely what others will use.

I'm pretty cramped right now in my studio and really busy, so I'll re-arrange things at some point so I can have up to about 40 feet of clear view.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> This one stood out for me, didn't you change your camera to target distance at all during the testing?


The proper testing distance is the distance you use the lens at.
[/quote]

Exactly. It's important to note that the testing distance does make a difference in the optimal AFMA value. I'm listening to beep-click-click as FoCal works it's way through a test...but my results so far indicate that testing at 50x focal length (recommended by Canon/FoCal) vs. 25x focal length (recommended by LensAlign) can make up to 5 units difference (i.e. over half of the depth of focus at max aperture).

Other preliminary observations - software has some trouble with fast lenses, e.g. 85/1.2L II, 35/1.4, 135/2, especially at the 50x distance (gives inconsistent results error, but sometimes it succeeds); never an issue with f/2.8 and slower lenses, and while it could be vibration (hardwood floor over basement), with the 85L the shutter speed was 1/4000 s which should be sufficient to avoid any problems with shake. It still has a few bugs (sometimes it reports no change is necessary, while the analysis report disagrees), and it crashes occasionally (twice yesterday, three times so far today). But overall, it's a good program, and will no doubt improve with time.


----------



## Kahuna (Jan 16, 2012)

May I ask a really stupid question....Please 

I see that there have been some fairly significant adjustments made. I understand the adjustment of one "step" varies depending on the max aperature of the lens but I have seen up to +17 adjustment made on an 85mm f1.8. That seems like quite an adjusment. Would you not see this in the photo's IQ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2012)

Kahuna said:


> I see that there have been some fairly significant adjustments made. I understand the adjustment of one "step" varies depending on the max aperature of the lens but I have seen up to +17 adjustment made on an 85mm f1.8. That seems like quite an adjusment. Would you not see this in the photo's IQ?



Without that adjustment, you'd definitely notice it. If you're 'off' by one or two units (or more with a slow lens like f/4 or slower), you'd probably not notice. More than that, or with a fast lens, you'd notice. Not on every shot - with more distant subjects (deeper DoF), errors are less evident. Also, AF is not 100% accurate. On a non-1-series body, with a perfectly calibrated lens you might get 8-9 out of 10 shots having acceptable focus, and 1-2 misses. With a large adjustment needed but not made, those 1-2 misses might actually be hits. 

That sort of thing is a clue that you need adjustment, or need to repeat it. Say you drop your camera and the relative positions of the image and AF sensors are changed, even by a fraction of a millimeter. That means your lenses may no longer focus correctly. In fact, that exact scenario happened to me last October - I was out walking with my two young daughters, my 5DII with 2x II and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II hanging from a BlackRapid strap from the tripod collar. The height and angle were at just the right place to push the lens release button, and the camera twisted and dropped. AFter that, all of my lenses needed an adjustment of about negative 8 units relative to their previous adjustment value. After that incident, I noticed that while I still had some keepers, my OOF rate went up dramatically. Re-adjusting all my lenses corrected that issue. FoCal is easy enough to use, and fast enough (less than 3 minutes per test, with MLU delay increased to 2 s), that I will probably retest lenses every couple of months.


----------



## Freshprince08 (Jan 16, 2012)

japhoto said:


> Freshprince08 said:
> 
> 
> > Body: 7D. Distance to target: 3.1m.
> ...



You're right, this distance isn't ideal, however I'm pretty space limited in my current setup unfortunately! I'll see if I can try a few different distances with some of my wider lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > This one stood out for me, didn't you change your camera to target distance at all during the testing?
> ...



Exactly. It's important to note that the testing distance does make a difference in the optimal AFMA value. I'm listening to beep-click-click as FoCal works it's way through a test...but my results so far indicate that testing at 50x focal length (recommended by Canon/FoCal) vs. 25x focal length (recommended by LensAlign) can make up to 5 units difference (i.e. over half of the depth of focus at max aperture).

Other preliminary observations - software has some trouble with fast lenses, e.g. 85/1.2L II, 35/1.4, 135/2, especially at the 50x distance (gives inconsistent results error, but sometimes it succeeds); never an issue with f/2.8 and slower lenses, and while it could be vibration (hardwood floor over basement), with the 85L the shutter speed was 1/4000 s which should be sufficient to avoid any problems with shake. It still has a few bugs (sometimes it reports no change is necessary, while the analysis report disagrees), and it crashes occasionally (twice yesterday, three times so far today). But overall, it's a good program, and will no doubt improve with time.
[/quote]

Have you tried this with the larger target for the 85L at 50X distance? I haven't, but I am wondering it it would help. The software sometimes has difficulty finding the target, and if I move closer, it does better. 

I've had a number of crashes as well. I was in a hurry, and am still pressed for time (aren't we all), or I would have written up bug reports for repeatable errors.

It is definitely a work in progress, but I've found it usable, even with crashes. Having the analysis curve helps me decide if I want to use their AFMA value, or pick my own, which I have done in a couple of cases.

Apparently, the latest version lets us save the analysis data, but, for now, I'm not goiing to rerun all my lenses on two different bodies just to save the data.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Have you tried this with the larger target for the 85L at 50X distance? I haven't, but I am wondering it it would help. The software sometimes has difficulty finding the target, and if I move closer, it does better.
> 
> Apparently, the latest version lets us save the analysis data, but, for now, I'm not goiing to rerun all my lenses on two different bodies just to save the data.



No, I haven't tried the larger target, although I printed it just in case (and used the small macro target with the 100L, actually). 

Interestingly, I'm running the 135L now, and it had issues finding the target at 25x focal length, but not at 50x. The 135L is also giving the inconsistent results warning (I edited my post above). The 70-200 II is up next.

It does have trouble estimating the distance, and I'm wondering if that's Canon's 'fault' or FoCal's? I know from the EXIF that Canon reports out two relevant values, 'focus distance upper' and 'focus distance lower' (not sure what these mean, if they define the DoF, or are confidence intervals, etc.). But for example, with the 135L it's warning in the Info window that the recommended distance is 6.8 m, and I'm testing at 8.1 m. Now, I'm pretty sure that 135mm x 50 = 6.75 m, and that converts to 266 inches, and I'm also pretty sure that I know how to use a tape measure - I doubt that I've managed to mis-measure by 4.5 feet! Oh well, I'm not bothered by it, but it's worth noting. If it is, in fact, Canon's 'fault' I wonder what that says about the distance information transmitted for E-TTL II flash metering...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've had a number of crashes as well. I was in a hurry, and am still pressed for time (aren't we all), or I would have written up bug reports for repeatable errors.



I'll be submitting one for the no adjustment necessary error. It just reported that the current value of -3 was correct and no adjustment was necessary, when the analysis window clearly shows -8 is the best value (and reports -8 as the optimal value in that window).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I've had a number of crashes as well. I was in a hurry, and am still pressed for time (aren't we all), or I would have written up bug reports for repeatable errors.
> ...



I noted that one multiple times. I thought it was because it failed to find a better setting, even though it predicted a different setting. I also noticed it predicting say a -3 setting, and then setting to a different one. Looking at the bell curve, it appeared to be the right one.

I turn on the analysis window and watch as it clicks the various shutter points. I can easily predict the correct AFMA long before the software does it with its curve fitting. I guess the human brain is still better at things like this than computers.


----------



## japhoto (Jan 17, 2012)

@Mt Spokane Photography,

Thanks for the info on the lighting, I'll have to find a way to improve that aspect at least on the longer distances. My illumination values were at around 8EV with the longer lenses, so testing for example the 300L f/4 proved to be quite difficult.

That also made it seem like the 300mm was the most erratic lens, but I'm pretty sure it's not. It's quite snowy here right now, which improves the light levels, so if the weather is right, I might even do an outdoor winter test with the lens 

For the shutter cutoff setting I also used 50, since 30 never seemed to be enough.

By suggesting the 50xFL "rule" I didn't mean that one should be a slave to that, but it just seemed that it wouldn't be the best option to check all lenses at just one distance from the target. I also photograph small birds quite often, so I did multiple distances with my 70-200II (which always seemed to land on -2).

@neuroanatomist,

I also experienced quite a lot of crashes (haven't tried the new 1.1 out yet). And also the "no correction is required" - bug feature came to be familiar. This is why I did multiple passes to compare the results so that I could pick the best out of them. I don't know if this behavior is due to focus errors on the lens, on the body or does the software take previous runs into account and determine that no correction is needed when the last run was more accurate. It might just as well be just a bug though.

For me the distance was working quite well when working close to the target (checked with a tape measure) but at longer distances it didn't show anything. It also didn't find the medium target anymore when I was testing my 24-70 @ 70mm and 70-200 @ 70mm, so that was at about 3,5m. Again this might have something to do with inadequate lighting on the target, so I'll get back to you on that after testing it with better lights.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2012)

I have completed a few days worth of testing cameras and lenses with FoCal. I have the Pro version, and I'm running it on a 17" MacBook Pro (Core i5, 8 GB RAM) with the software installed on a Parallels virtual machine running XP SP3, allocated one physical core (2 virtual cores) and 3 GB of RAM. Most of the testing was with v1.1, although the first day was done with v1.0 (v1.1 was released the afternoon of the first day I spent running tests). 

My overall impression is very good, with a couple of caveats. The software is easy to use, although there were several random crashes. There are still a few bugs in the software, for example, it sometimes reports that the current adjustment is optimal, when looking at the detailed analysis data shows that a different one is best (supposed to be fixed in the next release). Also, the Zoom view during target setup is based on the last location of Live View AF (i.e. from the last time you use it before lauching FoCal), so for that feature to be useful you need to launch Live View and center the AF rectangle. 

As mentioned above while the testing was very straightforward with f/2.8 lenses and an f/4 lens, faster lenses gave it some trouble, sometimes resulting in a 'inconsistent results obtained so far' message (although allowing it to continue anyway often generated an excellent curve fit). This happened more often with the 5DII than with the 7D.

Setup was straightforward - the target search tool did a good job with most lenses/distances that I tested, although sometimes not, particularly with longer lenses at longer distances with the 5DII. The time taken for a test run was very short - even increasing the mirror lockup to 2 s (default is 1 s), test runs took less than 3 minutes. My setup consisted of the target taped to a wall, lit by three 150 W-equivalent gooseneck lamps pointed at the target from about 2' distance. The FoCal documentation recommends at least 10 EV, although it states that down to 5 EV will work; my lighting setup gave between 11 and 13 EV depending on lens and distance. Camera on tripod, with hotshoe bubble level to square it to the wall and a tape measure on the floor.

Comparing the results to what I obtained manually using the LensAlign Pro for the same lens/focal length/distance, the results were very similar - spot on for fast primes, and within 1-2 units for slower zooms (where there are usually a couple of values that yield good results due to the deeper DoF). If I tested like I have with the LensAlign, the whole process would be much faster with FoCal. It takes me about 45 minutes to calibrate a lens manually (one distance/focal length, 30 minutes for setup, image capture, and tear down, and 15 minutes for comparisons); the same process with FoCal would probably take less than 10 minutes. 

The advantage of FoCal is that it simplifies the procedure to the point where it's simple to test multiple distances and for a zoom lens, multiple focal lengths. Any particular adjustment you make is applicable for that focal length and that distance, and may not be optimal at other distances or zoom settings. With the exception of the 1D X, we're limited to applying a single adjustment value per lens - that means making the best compromise. The more data you have to help judge the best compromise, the better. 

I tested at 50x the focal length (recommended by Canon and FoCal), 25x the focal length (recommended by LensAlign), and for the 100L Macro, I also tested near the MFD using the small focus target. Without moving furniture around, the longest line-of-sight inside my house is ~35 feet, so I didn't test anything longer than 200mm (for which I'd set up outside, but daytime temps have been below freezing, and during the initial tests last weekend they were down in the single digits °F). For zoom lenses, I chose focal lengths loosely based on the zoom ratio, e.g. 3 focal lengths for a 2-3x zoom and 4 focal lengths for a 4x zoom.

Attached below are tabulated results for several lenses on the 5DII and 7D. Several observations occurred to me when looking over the data. First, distance matters - in some cases, testing at 25x vs 50x makes up to a 7-unit difference in the optimal AFMA, which is nearly a full depth of focus for the lens at max aperture, i.e. will be easily noticeable in real-world shots. For zoom lenses, different focal lengths give different results, and the progression is not necessarily linear nor unidirectional for a given lens (so, I wonder again how the 1D X will handle the two values for a zoom). 

On the 7D, the wider zooms seem to have much more spearation between values based on focal length and distance, e.g. comparing the 16-35mm II on the 5DII with a 5-unit gap (-5 at 16mm 50x to 0 at 35mm 25x), the same lens on the 7D has an 11-unit gap (-4 at 16mm 25x to +7 at 35mm 25x). Likewise, the 35mm prime shows a larger differential from testing distance (5 units on the 5DII, 7 units on the 7D). I wonder if this is due to the thinner DoF with the 7D (the distances are the same as with the 5DII, so the shot/framing is different, but under those conditions the APS-C sensor delivers shallower DoF). In general, the fitted curves for the same lenses were steeper on the 7D than on the 5DII, analagous to the difference bewteen a slower and a faster lens.

Other notable findings not evident from the data were that the testing was quite consistent. Borrowing concepts for assay validation from work, I checked intra-run and inter-run variability, and both were quite low - repeating the same same lens/focal length/distance several times in succession yielded the same value (±1 for f/2.8-f/4 lenses), and re-testing after tear down and re-setup the next day yielded the same results. One exception was testing the 100L near the MFD, which gave more variable results; not a real problem since I almost always manually focus for macro anyway. 

One other interesting observation concerned the target itself - for the first lens I tested, I decided to repeat the LensAlign manual method on the spot for a direct comparison to FoCal. After the manual test, on a lark I connected the camera to my Mac and ran FoCal with the camera pointed at the LensAlign. FoCal reported the same adjustment as it had with that lens using the printed FoCal target (which was the same as the manual value, too). Finally, the developer is quite responsive - good support is a critical part of new software!

In selecting an AFMA, I considered both the results at the different distances in terms of DoF for a given focal length, and also the distances which I commonly shoot for those lenses. For example, the value I chose for the 35L is biased toward the closer distance, since that's where DoF will be thinner; I picked the value for the 85L (even though there wasn't much difference) based on the fact that I usually shoot that lens at about 7-8 feet for portraits, which is ~25x the focal length. For lenses like the 70-200 II, which I shoot at varying focal lengths and distances, I selected values biased toward the long end of the zoom range, since that's where DoF will generally be thinnest and focus most critical.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have completed a few days worth of testing cameras and lenses with FoCal...



Thanks Neuro. Your tests with the software are very interesting and well articulated so those of us who are less informed (read: me) can digest it easily. It looks like this software is a must for when I get the 1DX.


----------



## WildBill (Jan 21, 2012)

Neuro,
Great write up and data. I would love to see your LensAlign data added to the chart for comparison purposes.
Bill


----------



## Kahuna (Jan 21, 2012)

I am officially joining the Mt. Spokane and the neuroanatomist fan clubs. Thanks for detailed evaluations and the time spent.

I especially like neuro's "intra-run and inter-run variability" based upon his assay validation as I am an old analytical chemist. Familiar with ICH Q2(R1)Validation of Analytical Procedures?


----------



## JR (Jan 21, 2012)

Wow thanks Neuro for that detailed chart. You mentionned on a few occasion that the software has trouble with fast prime (which is all I have!?!) but yet you seem to have produce some good result.

Were you able to test your fast prime to confirm the settings you got were the right one finally? Beside letting the software continue even if it gave you an error message, any other tips for running fast prime through this puppy?

Thanks for the input!



neuroanatomist said:


> I have completed a few days worth of testing cameras and lenses with FoCal. I have the Pro version, and I'm running it on a 17" MacBook Pro (Core i5, 8 GB RAM) with the software installed on a Parallels virtual machine running XP SP3, allocated one physical core (2 virtual cores) and 3 GB of RAM. Most of the testing was with v1.1, although the first day was done with v1.0 (v1.1 was released the afternoon of the first day I spent running tests).


----------



## sarangiman (Jan 22, 2012)

Neuroanatomist, you say: "I wonder if this is due to the thinner DoF with the 7D (the distances are the same as with the 5DII, so the shot/framing is different, but under those conditions the APS-C sensor delivers shallower DoF)."

Is that due to the smaller pixel size on the 7D? We always say that for the same FOV the DOF will be shallower on a full-frame sensor b/c you'll be using a longer focal length lens. But for your setup, using the same focal length, if I remember correctly, a higher spatial sampling rate (smaller pixel size) would actually lead to smaller DOF... though I wonder about the magnitude of this effect!

Also, I began doing these sorts of thorough tests with a LensAlign and image quantification software (moving to Matlab soon) to determine the best MA for my 85mm primes. I found that judging the results by eye introduced too much subjectivity. Though I haven't completed my tests, it would appear that my Sigma 85/1.4 doesn't even show a clear trend with the microadjustment settings. Meaning it jumps around randomly, rather than showing a clear trend from front-focusing to back-focusing. Not as much so with my Canon 85/1.2. I wonder if this is due to low precision of focus with the Sigma lens.

Therefore, I'm repeating my focus tests 20 times for each MA setting: 10 times throwing off the focus slightly forward, & 10 times throwing it off slightly backward, before refocusing. I have yet to quantitate and graph these results. 

The nice thing is, one can also quantitate DOF using this sort of analysis with the LensAlign. Preliminarily, I've shown that the Sigma at f/1.4 has an equivalent DOF as the Canon at f/1.6 (for the same magnification of subject). Interesting.

BTW I'm using a Canon 5D Mark II. Just having a heck of a hard time determining optimal MA setting with the 85mm primes. No problem with any of my other lenses (35/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8, etc.).

Would definitely be interested in giving FoCal a try.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 22, 2012)

@Bill - I'm posting from my phone, but I'll try to add in the LensAlign data next week. Essentially, not more than 3 units off for slower lenses, and within 1 unit for f/2 and faster, when comparing the same setup (25x focal length, long end for zooms). But, the adjustments I ultimately chose sometimes differed by more. 

@JR - all the lenses are giving sharp results in real-world shooting on the 5DII (haven't tried the 7D yet). No real tips other than let it continue anyway and repeat as necessary. Look at the analysis info plot, tighter data should be more reliable. In my case, I was doing some testing with two toddlers running around - might want to avoid that if you can...

@sarangiman - RE: "_We always say that for the same FOV the DOF will be shallower on a full-frame sensor b/c you'll be using a longer focal length lens._". True - to get the same FoV you need a longer lens on FF, or to be closer with the same lens on FF, and either results in shallower DoF. But for my tests, I kept focal length and distance constant, e.g. 100mm lens and 25x focal length, for both the 5DII and 7D, i.e. the FoV was not the same, it was smaller with the 7D. It means you're not taking the same picture, so you don't usually run into the issue outside contrived tests like this. But, take your favorite DoF calculator (e.g. DoFMaster), pick a focal length, aperture, subject distance, and change only the camera - you'll find that the DoF is thinner with the 7D than the 5DII. 

RE: the Sigma lens, AF consistency does seem to be one of the banes of the brand. With LensAlign, I usually took 8 shots per AFMA - 2 from infinity, then 2 without manually changing focus, then 2 from MFD, then 2 more without manually changing focus. Your observation about the Sigma vs. Canon is interesting - in the TDP review of the Sigma 85/1.4, there's a set of comparisons with the Canon 85/1.2 II, and at the same apertures, the Sigma delivers slightly less OOF blur, consistent with your finding.


----------



## sarangiman (Jan 22, 2012)

@Neuroanatomist: Right, I was just trying to get at a mechanistic explanation for the shallower DOF of the 7D than the 5DII in that scenario, & I think it has to do with the smaller pixel pitch. For example, if you take an image with shallow DOF on your screen, and then resize the window and make it smaller & smaller, you'll see that it starts looking like it has increased DOF... by the time you make it really small, it looks like everything's in focus (within limits, of course), & this exemplifies a similar principle to what I was alluding earlier: the lower the # of pixels you have to render (or sample) the image, the less you're going to display (or record) differences between neighboring areas in the image. This should translate to changes in perceived DOF. Though my guess would be these effects are minimal, which is why you should still get significantly shallower DOF for a given FOV with a larger sensor. If the pixel pitch for the 7D were the same as the 5DII, then in your scenario (keeping the focal length constant), the DOF would have to be the same.

I really like the Sigma lens, but initial results show more erratic focusing than the Canon 85/1.2 (which also sometimes erratically focuses, but not as frequently... granted the 5D/5DII focus system leaves much to be desired). I need to quantitate this before making an informed comment on it though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 22, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> @Neuroanatomist: Right, I was just trying to get at a mechanistic explanation for the shallower DOF of the 7D than the 5DII in that scenario, & I think it has to do with the smaller pixel pitch.



It's the different size of the circle of confusion. You're right that resolution plays a role in perceived sharpness, but magnification is what ultimately determines DoF. The calculators all use a standardized output, e.g. an 8x10" print viewed at 25", for the comparisons. Thus, a 20D would still have shallower DoF than a 5DII at the same focal length/distance/aperture, even though they have the same pixel pitch.


----------



## JR (Jan 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> @JR - all the lenses are giving sharp results in real-world shooting on the 5DII (haven't tried the 7D yet). No real tips other than let it continue anyway and repeat as necessary. Look at the analysis info plot, tighter data should be more reliable. In my case, I was doing some testing with two toddlers running around - might want to avoid that if you can...



Alright thank you John. I will get the software today and get right to it! So curious to see how it will test all my lens since currently I am not using AFMA I have all of the lens set to zero. I dont particularly find any issue with the sharpnest of my lens but maybe it can get even better and I just dont know it! Will report back after...

Thanks again,

Jacques


----------



## Meh (Jan 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > @Neuroanatomist: Right, I was just trying to get at a mechanistic explanation for the shallower DOF of the 7D than the 5DII in that scenario, & I think it has to do with the smaller pixel pitch.
> ...



@sarangiman.... neuro is correct (of course) but allow me to rephrase based on your example of changing size of the screen because that hits the nail on the head... as you stated, as you make the image smaller on screen it appears to increase the DoF. The opposite is true as well, as you increase the size the DoF decreases. Now consider that the APS-C sensor is smaller than the FF sensor. In order to print/view the image at the same size the image from the APS-C sensor has to be enlarged more than the image from the FF sensor, therefore the depth of field is less for the crop sensor (for the same lens, aperture, distance to subject).


----------



## celliottuk (Jan 23, 2012)

I bought the software yesterday. It's buggy. On a Win7 (64 bit, all service packs, PC) and 7d with latest firmware, it crashes out as soon as it tries to open "Liveview" 
I'm sure they'll fix it, but it might be worth waiting until they do before buying it


----------



## Kent (Jan 23, 2012)

Check if Canon EOS utility Remote Shooting works on your computer.


----------



## celliottuk (Jan 24, 2012)

Kent, Eos utility Remote Shooting works fine. I'm gonna send the crash reports to FoCal, I'm sure they will work out what's going on


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 25, 2012)

celliottuk said:


> I bought the software yesterday. It's buggy. On a Win7 (64 bit, all service packs, PC) and 7d with latest firmware, it crashes out as soon as it tries to open "Liveview"
> I'm sure they'll fix it, but it might be worth waiting until they do before buying it



Likely a interference with some other software. That can be difficult to troubleshoot. It works fine on my Dell i7 desktop with win 7 64 bit, and on my Lenovo X200S laptop with a dual core Intel processor with win 7 64 bit. I used it with my 7D and my 5D MK II.

Their have been some hangs due to me changing lenses while its engaged(about 1 in 5 or 10 times), but restarting FoCal (not the computer) clears those.


----------



## Grizzly (Feb 11, 2012)

celliottuk said:


> I bought the software yesterday. It's buggy. On a Win7 (64 bit, all service packs, PC) and 7d with latest firmware, it crashes out as soon as it tries to open "Liveview"



I have about the same configuration as you and it worked fine so far. I had only one crash when the camera was set to video mode. I did not check if the crash is repeatable, since I switched back to normal shooting it works just great.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 11, 2012)

*FoCal AFMA Software Discount*

http://www.fo-cal.co.uk/mbp45


----------



## CHL (Feb 12, 2012)

*Re: FoCal AFMA Software Discount*



scalesusa said:


> http://www.fo-cal.co.uk/mbp45



Thank you for the link. This time I hit "Buy Now". Just need to get a new shutter and then I will try it out....

/Claes


----------



## candyman (Feb 14, 2012)

*UPDATE FoCal:*


*FoCal 1.2* completes support for all AF microadjust capable Canon cameras by adding support for the EOS-1D Mark III and EOS-1D Mark IV. There are also some extra features:

For all versions of FoCal:

- A new method of restoring settings after tests which gives an indication of operation and is more reliable
- Slight tightening of the tolerance for Target Setup
- Slight tweaks to the test report
- Some fixes to Manual Mode to better support non-English versions of Windows

For FoCal Pro:

- An "Expert Mode" panel in the Settings window for FoCal Pro users which allows changing of the defocus method, test aperture and test ISO
- More accurate Target Optimisation functionality which should better remove the effect of small position changes during the test


----------



## candyman (Feb 15, 2012)

*UPDATE FoCal:*


A bug has been identified in FoCal 1.2.0 which affects FoCal Plus users when running the Fully Automatic test. The symptoms are as follows:

- A message box being displayed with "The camera could not be configured for the test. Please retry",
- A message in the Info window "Failed to setup camera: Object reference not set to an instance of an object."

The bug has been found and fixed, and *FoCal 1.2.1 has been released*


----------



## Kent (Apr 3, 2012)

Focal 1.3 is now released and it gives you a lot of new exiting features.

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focal/focal-13.html


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 4, 2012)

But not 5D MK III, so I can't use them yet


----------



## sparda79 (Apr 12, 2012)

I heard that the software allows you to register up to 5 bodies. Is that true?
For those who owns both Canon and Nikon system, do they have to buy a separate license for each system?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 12, 2012)

sparda79 said:


> I heard that the software allows you to register up to 5 bodies. Is that true?
> For those who owns both Canon and Nikon system, do they have to buy a separate license for each system?


 
Just one license covers 5 supported bodies. (a few Canon or Nikon ones)

There is only one version of the software that supports both Canon and Nikon bodies (Just certain ones), so you should be able to register either type of body. 

Yes, You can register 5 bodies, and there is a web page to add and remove bodies as you buy and sell. There is a limit of 10 updates before you have to request a reset. That should be good for a few years. A new registration license is generated each time you update, and you must paste it into the software license section on your pc to be able to use it with new bodies. (I used two updates to figure this out)

The same page also lets you download old and new versions of the software.


FoCal 1.0 (supporting Canon EOS-5D Mark II and 7D)
FoCal 1.1 (adding support for Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III and 50D)
FoCal 1.2.2 (adding support for Canon EOS-1D Mark III and 1D Mark IV)
FoCal 1.3.3 (adding Nikon support and new tests, fixes install/centre focus point issues with 1.3.0)
Focal 1.4.0.96 Early Beta release Supporting 5D MK III - *Pro users only http://www.reikan.co.uk/focal/publicbeta.html*


----------



## DianeK (May 10, 2012)

I am considering this software versus manual evaluation with LensAlign. The only Windows platform computer I have access to is a 13" laptop duocore 2GHz, 4G RAM, running 32 bit Vista (screen 1200X800). Will FoCal even work on this old machine?? I do have my quad-core iMac but I really don't want to install Parallels to run Windows programs (I avoid Windows like the plague).
Thanks
Diane


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2012)

DianeK said:


> I am considering this software versus manual evaluation with LensAlign. The only Windows platform computer I have access to is a 13" laptop duocore 2GHz, 4G RAM, running 32 bit Vista (screen 1200X800). Will FoCal even work on this old machine?? I do have my quad-core iMac but I really don't want to install Parallels to run Windows programs (I avoid Windows like the plague).



Should be fine on that machine with Vista. I run FoCal on a Mac in a Parallels VM, but the OS is WinXP...


----------



## DianeK (May 11, 2012)

Thanks neuro. Stay tuned as I am sure there will be more questions to follow as I start using this program 
Diane


----------



## DianeK (May 11, 2012)

Well, as I predicted, after working with this software yesterday I have a question. I was just working with the Standard version (they mucked up my upgrade to Plus) so I was doing things manually. When I did multiple shots at AFMA=0, rather than get a relatively smooth line I got quite a saw-toothed graph. Ditto when I would do multiple shots at any particular AFMA. Does this indicate that my 7D's auto-focus is screwed up?? In fact for the two lenses I was working with it was almost impossible to come up with a suitable AFMA value because on 2 takes it would improve the image, then on the next 3 it wouldn't and then on the next 3 it would improve and so on and so on. I had the target sufficiently lit with white halogens and was using the recommended 50X distance.

I only bought this used 7D last week and am suspicious I've been "had".

Thanks
Diane


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2012)

DianeK said:


> When I did multiple shots at AFMA=0, rather than get a relatively smooth line I got quite a saw-toothed graph. Ditto when I would do multiple shots at any particular AFMA. Does this indicate that my 7D's auto-focus is screwed up??



There will always be some variability in focus performance. The best AFMA value is going to be an average, which is the real benefit to FoCal. When I was doing AFMA manually, I'd take 8 shots at each AFMA value. Below is an output from the Pro version using the 7D and the 135mm f/2L. You can see that the vertical spread of some AFMA values is pretty wide - the automated cability to take multiple shots is the real advantage of FoCal, IMO.


----------



## DianeK (May 11, 2012)

OK, well looking at some of your vertical spreads on your Pro graph makes me feel a wee bit better. The Plus version does automated multiple exposures so maybe if and when they get my upgrade sorted out (they seem to have "lost" my PayPal payment even though I have twice emailed them the reference #; I'm assuming the reason I've not heard from them since yesterday is because it is the weekend over there??) things will go a little smoother. I don't think the Plus version produces the nice graph you get with the Pro though. I might try again with my 70-300L tomorrow and post a screenshot to have you take a look at.
Thanks!
Diane


----------



## bkorcel (May 11, 2012)

DianeK said:


> OK, well looking at some of your vertical spreads on your Pro graph makes me feel a wee bit better. The Plus version does automated multiple exposures so maybe if and when they get my upgrade sorted out (they seem to have "lost" my PayPal payment even though I have twice emailed them the reference #; I'm assuming the reason I've not heard from them since yesterday is because it is the weekend over there??) things will go a little smoother. I don't think the Plus version produces the nice graph you get with the Pro though. I might try again with my 70-300L tomorrow and post a screenshot to have you take a look at.
> Thanks!
> Diane



It's also imperative to make sure your camera and mount are SOLID! I believe a lot of outliers in my tests are a result of vibration when the shutter actuates. Mirror lockup helps but there is still vibration from the shutter. I plan on retesting a couple of lenses with a more solid mount...like putting the whole thing in a vise or something. Maybe use one of those shooting sleds used to sight in rifles and put it on a concrete floor.

If you have ever seen any of the canon videos, they dont put the lenses on tripods to calibrate them. They use a flat stable V type block that wouldnt move if a bomb went off. While the AF systems on these cameras are an electronic best guess and not 100% perfect every time, you should minimize as much of the external error as possible for best results when calibrating.


----------



## DianeK (May 11, 2012)

Thanks bkorcel. I _was_ thinking of moving the setup to the basement (my husband's halogen floods produce plenty of white light) which has cork laminate over concrete so perhaps less vibration than the main floor.
Diane


----------



## DianeK (May 12, 2012)

Well I did more testing this evening and the results were _much_ more consistent. Don't know what was different as I used the same setup and location as yesterday. But I am feeling more optimistic that my 7D body is OK. The only glitch I had tonight is that FoCal crashed every time I tried to test my EFS 15-85 at 35mm. Every other focal length was stable but 35mm was a no go on several attempts.
Diane


----------



## YellowJersey (May 19, 2012)

Just downloaded FoCal tonight and have been micro adjusting my lenses. So far so good. I test each lens twice to make sure results are consistent, although my batteries died shortly before I finished the second test of the telephoto end of my 24-105. 

The sun had long since set, and I don't have a studio, so I rounded up all the lights in the house that I could to make a makeshift testing environment. I'm going to try it again tomorrow when the light's better to see if I get the same results. 

So far the adjustments are as follows: 
17-40 L W -3 T +3 
24-105 L W +6 T +5

Now, let's see what tomorrow has in store.


----------



## CanonCollector (May 25, 2012)

Easy to use and works really well. The difference was marked on one of my lens. Recommend.


----------



## YellowJersey (May 27, 2012)

Just did a couple of test shots outside with my 24-105. I used FoCal to make the microadjustments. I have to say that I'm impressed with the difference.


----------



## Wideopen (May 30, 2012)

Cant wait till they come out with a MAC version.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 30, 2012)

YellowJersey said:


> Just did a couple of test shots outside with my 24-105. I used FoCal to make the microadjustments. I have to say that I'm impressed with the difference.



really?

i'm sorry but both look pretty blurry to me ???


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 30, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > Just did a couple of test shots outside with my 24-105. I used FoCal to make the microadjustments. I have to say that I'm impressed with the difference.
> ...


 
The shallow depth of field wide open and close up makes that type of image difficult to evaluate. Its not the best to demonstrate a sharp image.

I would post a before and after, but my 24-105mmL was near perfect out of the box.


----------



## YellowJersey (May 31, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > YellowJersey said:
> ...



I can already hear the words "cop out" ringing in my ear, but the jpgs posted do not do it justice. When I look at the RAW files at 100% it's really a noticeable difference. Even looking at them on the back of the camera it's a noticeable jump in sharpness. But, I shall continue to tinker and try to provide some better examples.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 31, 2012)

use a tripod and shoot something that doesnt move 

it'll give you a better idea


----------



## TotoEC (May 31, 2012)

YellowJersey said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



Let's call a spade a 'spade' and not sugarcoat it. The picture is out-of-focus. Period.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 1, 2012)

Adjusted (2nd) copy of the 50 L, shot at f1,6 I think it was, iso 640.







Waaay better than before, it's was, in the words of [email protected], "Softer than your nan's dinner"


----------

