Reikan FoCal Pro with 40 STM

[Botts]

Hello everyone,

I just started using the Mac beta of FoCal with my 6D.  It worked swimmingly with my 70-200mm f/4L IS, and after 4 or 5 tries with my 50mm f/1.4.

However, with my 40mm STM, it has not worked at all.  The COF during the focus consistency check is 97.1%.  The analysis is all over the place though.

Has anyone got a 40STM to work properly with FoCal?  If so, did you have to do anything special to get it to work?

[East Wind Photography]

Look like what I get with most of my L series lenses using the later versions of FoCal.  I had to drop back to V 1.4 to get decent results.

Hello everyone,

I just started using the Mac beta of FoCal with my 6D.  It worked swimmingly with my 70-200mm f/4L IS, and after 4 or 5 tries with my 50mm f/1.4.

However, with my 40mm STM, it has not worked at all.  The COF during the focus consistency check is 97.1%.  The analysis is all over the place though.

Has anyone got a 40STM to work properly with FoCal?  If so, did you have to do anything special to get it to work?

[neuroanatomist]

I started calibrating my lenses on my 1D X before it was supported, and I had to use Manual Mode.  I found that easy enough, so I've done all my lenses that way (if full auto was supported, I'd do that, but I can take my 83 shots in ~10 minutes, and that's about how long the MSC mode took the one time I tried it). 

Here's the 40/2.8 on the 1D X at 50x focal length (Manual Mode analysis on the Mac version).  Note the 1/1000 s shutter - I find that a stable setup (solid tripod, ideally on a concrete not wood/carpet floor) and LOTS of light are necessary for a consistent result - my tests are generally in the 11-12 EV range.

[Botts]

I started calibrating my lenses on my 1D X before it was supported, and I had to use Manual Mode.  I found that easy enough, so I've done all my lenses that way (if full auto was supported, I'd do that, but I can take my 83 shots in ~10 minutes, and that's about how long the MSC mode took the one time I tried it). 

Here's the 40/2.8 on the 1D X at 50x focal length (Manual Mode analysis on the Mac version).  Note the 1/1000 s shutter - I find that a stable setup (solid tripod, ideally on a concrete not wood/carpet floor) and LOTS of light are necessary for a consistent result - my tests are generally in the 11-12 EV range.

Thanks for the help Neuro.

I'm running EV 8.5.  I'll boost my lighting and try again tonight.   I'm also going to try manual mode.

[AudioGlenn]

I just AFMA'd my 40mm today with FoCal and got "excellent" result confidence.   

What I did notice (and I didn't put this all together til now), the 2nd lens I tried, my 35mm f/1.4 L, couldn't get decent results after 3 attempts.  I'm wondering if the battery (which was at 80% after I was finished with the 40mm) or camera body temp had something to do with the ability to get good results.

When I used FoCal before, the first lens I tried always got "excellent" results (shown on the printout under "result confidence").  but none of the lenses after that ever got that rating (usually good to poor but never excellent).

[East Wind Photography]

As with me the results vary even when testing the same lens multiple times.  For me it's not just about being 1 or 2 units away from each other.  My results vary up to + or - 5 units from one test to the other.  Very inconsistent.  I use a V block support for lens and camera on concrete floor and always use EV > 11.  Yet AFMA varies from one test to the next.

The other thing I dont agree with in the test results is selecting the AFMA that gives the most consistent results.  I've found that the most consistent results dont always produce the highest resolution shots.  So why would you want consistent out of focus images?  Instead I look on the charts for the highest resolution results and aim for that setting (not always what FoCal recommends).  Focus consistency is important but it's hogwash if the results are poor.  We are looking to produce the highest resolution images, not the most consistent out of focus image.

I just AFMA'd my 40mm today with FoCal and got "excellent" result confidence.   

What I did notice (and I didn't put this all together til now), the 2nd lens I tried, my 35mm f/1.4 L, couldn't get decent results after 3 attempts.  I'm wondering if the battery (which was at 80% after I was finished with the 40mm) or camera body temp had something to do with the ability to get good results.

When I used FoCal before, the first lens I tried always got "excellent" results (shown on the printout under "result confidence").  but none of the lenses after that ever got that rating (usually good to poor but never excellent).

[Botts]

I just AFMA'd my 40mm today with FoCal and got "excellent" result confidence.   

What I did notice (and I didn't put this all together til now), the 2nd lens I tried, my 35mm f/1.4 L, couldn't get decent results after 3 attempts.  I'm wondering if the battery (which was at 80% after I was finished with the 40mm) or camera body temp had something to do with the ability to get good results.

When I used FoCal before, the first lens I tried always got "excellent" results (shown on the printout under "result confidence").  but none of the lenses after that ever got that rating (usually good to poor but never excellent).

After boosting my lighting to EV 10.5 it worked like a charm.

I redid my 50mm and got good results again.  I redid the 70-200mm f/4IS and got excellent results that matched the first time.

I also moved my tripod + 30 pounds of weight from carpet to hardwood.  That also really helped it appears.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My 40mm worked well with Focal.  Somethings wrong with your lens or your setup.

[East Wind Photography]

But looks like for you running focal is a moot point as AFMA from -1 to 5 gives the same results.

Nothing wrong with my set up.  I used the same setup to shoot 20 shots of a newspaper and the AF was consistent across almost all of the 20 shots.  This issue is with focal and their change in algorithm.

My 40mm worked well with Focal.  Somethings wrong with your lens or your setup.

[AudioGlenn]

Question:  Is FoCal really necessary after Canon calibrates all your stuff to work together?  I just got all my stuff back from them and everything seems better without any AFMA at all!

[East Wind Photography]

I would generally say no you don't.  However if you have more than one body you may need it.  Also FoCal does have quite a few features above just AFMA calibration.  Aperture sharpness is one of them as well as verifying your equipment is still calibrated.  Calibrations can drift over time.

But if AFMA is all you are concerned about then you don't need focal if canon got it all set up for you.

Question:  Is FoCal really necessary after Canon calibrates all your stuff to work together?  I just got all my stuff back from them and everything seems better without any AFMA at all!

[Mt Spokane Photography]

But looks like for you running focal is a moot point as AFMA from -1 to 5 gives the same results.

Nothing wrong with my set up.  I used the same setup to shoot 20 shots of a newspaper and the AF was consistent across almost all of the 20 shots.  This issue is with focal and their change in algorithm.

Thats normal.  There is very little difference in sharpness at the top of the curve, so being off by a couple of points with AFMA doesn't really affect sharpness, and can't be seen at the scale of the plot.Some lenses have a sharper peak and some are flatter.
 
When you look at the actual numbers returned at those top points, the +2 point of the curve is a little sharper, but not enough to worry about.  Most people could not see the difference.
Here are the numbers:
AFMA= -4  527
AFMA= -1  852
AFMA= 0   853
AFMA= +2  872
AFMA= +3  865
AFMA= +4  818

[paolotaverna]

I just purchased Reikan FoCal, and now I'm like all confused

I ran 3 test with my 1dX and 50 F1.2 and I got : 7, 10 and 9...and when I then take random pictures I seem to get better focus with 0 value!!!

i'll have to see what is not normal.


1- Where do you enter the value of the value - on the chart sheet? In my case I put in the Large Target width (in the preferences pane)
2- The distance is like 2.2 meters
3- My ev is lower than wished but still is within specs.

anyhow...not as quick win as I thought... I just seem to get soft focus with my 50 at 1.2....but now that my 0AF adjustment value...just puts lots of confusion in my head :-) 

[helpful]

When shooting with live view, image quality degrades as the sensor heats up. This is just a guess as to why the first lens might be producing excellent results, and following lenses poorer results

Another issue is that you need to place the target closer with the 40mm lens than with the 70-200 because the AF sensor needs a sufficiently large target relative to the field of view of the lens. Usually it is positioned at a distance that is a fixed multiple of the focal length, like 50x (which would be 2000mm or about six and a half feet).

[East Wind Photography]

Yes I'm finding the new versions to be pretty inconsistent.  Others swear by the consistency but like you in actual tests my AFMA is pretty different from what's calculated and I don't get consistent results across most of my lenses...vastly different AFMA from one test to the next.

It's a good starting point but the acid test is in the results!

I just purchased Reikan FoCal, and now I'm like all confused

I ran 3 test with my 1dX and 50 F1.2 and I got : 7, 10 and 9...and when I then take random pictures I seem to get better focus with 0 value!!!

i'll have to see what is not normal.


1- Where do you enter the value of the value - on the chart sheet? In my case I put in the Large Target width (in the preferences pane)
2- The distance is like 2.2 meters
3- My ev is lower than wished but still is within specs.

anyhow...not as quick win as I thought... I just seem to get soft focus with my 50 at 1.2....but now that my 0AF adjustment value...just puts lots of confusion in my head :-)