Automatic Microfocus adjustment software

[pauljv]

Works fine using VirtualBox/Windows 7 on my Air 

[Herb]

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

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

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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]

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]

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

[japhoto]

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

[ddl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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...