December 22, 2014, 12:49:50 PM

Author Topic: AFMA - Is is really necessary?  (Read 10901 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15237
    • View Profile
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2013, 11:01:37 AM »
Anyone know if I add my 1.4 TC to my 70-200 will the camera store separate AFMA data from it than when I use the 70-20 on it's own?

Yes, a lens + TC is treated as a unique 'lens' for AFMA value storage.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2013, 11:01:37 AM »

East Wind Photography

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
  • EWP
    • View Profile
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2013, 11:28:14 AM »
I think thats only true if it's a canon TC.  Will it save say a Canon lens and Kenko TC combo?

Anyone know if I add my 1.4 TC to my 70-200 will the camera store separate AFMA data from it than when I use the 70-20 on it's own?

Yes, a lens + TC is treated as a unique 'lens' for AFMA value storage.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15237
    • View Profile
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #32 on: June 20, 2013, 11:32:29 AM »
I think thats only true if it's a canon TC.  Will it save say a Canon lens and Kenko TC combo?

Depends on the model and firmware (dot color) of the Kenko TC.  Some don't report their existence at all, so no separate AFMA.  Some that report their existence cause certain Canon camera models (e.g. the 5DIII) to lock up if AMFA is enabled, requiring pulling the battery to reset the camera).
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Scott_McPhee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
  • Canon 5D mark 3 with various L lenses
    • View Profile
    • SJL Photography
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2013, 11:43:09 AM »
Mine is a Canon TC so all good.  :)

Hopefully FoCal will take the hassle out of calibrating my lenses - will do all 3 of mine and the 70-200 with the TC.


East Wind Photography

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
  • EWP
    • View Profile
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #34 on: June 20, 2013, 01:55:00 PM »
I hope you find it hassle free.  For me it has been more work and disappointment (see my post below).  My SpyderCal has been a much better investment in time and $$$.

Mine is a Canon TC so all good.  :)

Hopefully FoCal will take the hassle out of calibrating my lenses - will do all 3 of mine and the 70-200 with the TC.

cayenne

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2013, 03:47:38 PM »
Well, some great comments here on my original post, thanks for the input and opinions.

I've purchased the Plus version of FoCal and will be giving it a go tonight.
From what I read you can't do fully automatic calibration with the 5D3 but it's as close and you can get.

Anyone know if I add my 1.4 TC to my 70-200 will the camera store separate AFMA data from it than when I use the 70-20 on it's own?

I'm looking and reading about this too....I have a 5D3.

I'm curious, since you have to do the adjustments manually, why did you get the PLUS version rather than the standard version?

I read the FAQ page about 'why they say you should still buy the higher versions', but it didn't make much sense to me what else you get out of the plus vs the standard version really.

Curious your thoughts on the Plus version and why you got it...?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne

Scott_McPhee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
  • Canon 5D mark 3 with various L lenses
    • View Profile
    • SJL Photography
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2013, 10:42:06 AM »
I found the program really easy to use - the only issue for me was it needs a bit of PC POWER to run and it wouldn't run on my little notebook so I had to do all the calibration from my main PC - this was a bit of a pain for me due to the minimum recommended distance for calibrating the far end of my 200mm lens.
I had to use a USB lead extender and place the target on the wall at the far end of my hallway to get the distance.

The calibration results I got were as follows:

50mm F1.4 - +1
24-70mm f2.8L II - W:+1 T:+1
70-200 f2.8L II - W:+4 T+1

Surprised at the 70-200 with the +4 at the wide end but the program was easy to use and I am now shooting with these recommended values. (My 24-70 and 70-200 lenses are brand new.)

I went for the Plus version as (hopefully) 5D3 users will get fully automatic calibration soon, although it's not a real pain now as all you have to do is change the AF Microadjustment (ALL) value when prompted buy the software. 

AFMA was always something I avoided doing as the manual method was too hit and miss for me, at least now I can calibrate my lenses on a year to year basis.

Do I notice the differerence after calibration - yes - shots look slightly sharper but I am not sure even a +4 AFMA will produce a very noticable difference on the wide end of my 70-200mmm.

IMO - if you want to calibrate and want to do it easily or have never done it before, FoCal is a good way to go.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 07:28:00 AM by Scott_McPhee »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2013, 10:42:06 AM »

comsense

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2013, 11:08:53 AM »
Do I notice the differerence after calibration - yes - shots look slightly sharper but I am not sure even a +4 AFMA will produce a very noticable difference on the wide end

'Looks' slightly sharper with +\- 1 is definitely a placebo effect. It should not make any difference in non test chart shooting situations and very little even on test charts.

baphomet

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2013, 12:29:10 PM »
one additional question which has something in parallel with AFMA.
When do you say a picture is 100% sharp., at 100% crop, 300%? What is your expectation?
Background, just got my new 5d mark iii, and also thinking about afma.. at 300% crop I can see that the pictures seem not being sharp, at 100% they do, so now, afma or not :) ?

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1320
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2013, 12:55:17 PM »
one additional question which has something in parallel with AFMA.
When do you say a picture is 100% sharp., at 100% crop, 300%? What is your expectation?
Background, just got my new 5d mark iii, and also thinking about afma.. at 300% crop I can see that the pictures seem not being sharp, at 100% they do, so now, afma or not :) ?

No image will be sharp at 300%. Are you kidding? Look at the image about 50-100%. I prefer 50% when I'm doing PP as it's about as big as it will ever be viewed in real life. 100% for AFMA purposes using Lightrooms compare mode.
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

baphomet

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2013, 01:36:45 PM »
one additional question which has something in parallel with AFMA.
When do you say a picture is 100% sharp., at 100% crop, 300%? What is your expectation?
Background, just got my new 5d mark iii, and also thinking about afma.. at 300% crop I can see that the pictures seem not being sharp, at 100% they do, so now, afma or not :) ?

No image will be sharp at 300%. Are you kidding? Look at the image about 50-100%. I prefer 50% when I'm doing PP as it's about as big as it will ever be viewed in real life. 100% for AFMA purposes using Lightrooms compare mode.

thanks :) Just wanted to be on the save side :) thx.

Dick

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2013, 02:23:13 PM »
For fast primes I can say I've benefitted from AFMA.

For everything else it has been complete waste of time. I have actually set every 2.8 & 2.8+ lens to 0 AFMA.
EOS 5D Mark III + 8-15L + some boring L lenses + a 35mm Sigma...

roadrunner

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2013, 02:27:05 PM »
Glad everything worked out for you. I just recently purchased the Lens Align II, which feels like it is built out of recycled cardboard, and sent it back back and purchased FoCal. FoCal works awesome, even in the semi-auto mode with the 5D3. I too purchased the plus version. It's a Godsend for my 7D too, making the whole process super easy.

Many of my lenses showed no visible difference in real world use, like my 24-70LII, but other lenses like my 85mm 1.8 and Sigma 35mm 1.4 were clearly sharper. I think they both used +7 or +8. FoCal is one of the best investments I've made.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 04:02:04 PM by roadrunner »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2013, 02:27:05 PM »

AJ

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 414
    • View Profile
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2013, 03:53:34 PM »
For most lenses it is not necessary.  But my 17-55/2.8 IS would be useless without it.

Scott_McPhee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
  • Canon 5D mark 3 with various L lenses
    • View Profile
    • SJL Photography
Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2013, 07:47:23 AM »
I think a lot of photographers get obsessed by their image sharpness, investing in expensive camera bodies and high end L lenses only to then look at shots at 100%+ and "see" softness.

A lack of sharpness can be down to many other factors other than AFMA - shutter speed, subject movement, ISO noise, out of focus, etc. can all impact on image sharpness.

I would say when I get an unsharp image it's usually down to my fault for not getting everything correct when I am shooting. My focusing is off or my shutter speed hasn't been fast enough to freeze any movement.

I would expect on a expensive body like the 5D3 that you should be able to put virtually any L glass onto it and get sharp results with no AFMA - unless the body or lens is faulty.

It was a worthwhile excercise for me to buy FoCal and calibrate my lenses as it has told me that my lenses are "Okay" quality wise as they only required slight AFMA and I now have an easy method for re-calibrating anc checking in the future.

FoCal does make it easy, especially as I have never done any AFMA before and I managed to calibrate all my lenses in just over an hour at first attempt.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2013, 07:47:23 AM »