Automatic Microfocus adjustment software

[DianeK]

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]

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]

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

[YellowJersey]

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]

Cant wait till they come out with a MAC version.

[wickidwombat]

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]

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 

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]

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 

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.

 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]

use a tripod and shoot something that doesnt move

it'll give you a better idea

[TotoEC]

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 

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.

 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.

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

[Viggo]

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 Kai@DigRev, "Softer than your nan's dinner"