5d3 and FoCal errors

[sturdiva]

Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this, but I recently purchased the FoCal software to help with autofocus adjustments and am running into an error (and not getting any responses trying to use their support). I'm hoping someone else on this forum has run into a similar problem and might have a solution (or ideas to try).

When running the MSC test the program is giving me the following error:

`A failure occured trying to focus. The reported error is: DoPhaseDetectAF: Action timeout'

Exposure on the target is ~1/25 f/2.8 iso 100 and when depressing the shutter button the camera is able to acquire focus quickly without problem.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Exposure on the target is ~1/25 f/2.8 iso 100

What lens? 1/25 s sounds like you need more light...

 

[fegari]

I'm myself quite interested in this post. Have the SAME error with my 5D3 and the only answer I got is pasted below despite having purchased the top version of the software. Haven't got any further feedback after explaining I had already paid attention to those requirements.

Then I stopped trying because on one hand whenever I did I'd loose the camera's AF capability(!) and had to reset to factory values. On the other hand because I had to re-arrange half of my flat (yes, a small one ) to do each test setup... By the way, in my case was with the Canon 70-200 IS F4, the only AF lens I had at the time. Maybe this weekend I'll get the necessary motivation to try again...

Anyway, if it helps you this is what I got a few weeks ago until the emails stopped:

This message means the camera is being asked to focus and after a certain amount of time has not reported that it has achieved focus. This could be due to a few things:

- not using the correct focus point (you can check this with the Target Setup utility),
- poor flickering lighting (e.g. mains LED or fluorescent lighting),
- unstable camera support (even solid tripods can wobble a little with longer telephoto lenses, but you shouldn't really have an issue at 200mm),
- lens focus issues

The best way to check is to disconnect the camera from the computer while not running any FoCal test, and try to manually focus on the target and see if the camera succeeds. If there is an issue, you can move the camera a little closer to the target, or slightly shift the focus position a little.

With a 200mm lens you can run the test at anything over around 5m (this document explains testing distance in a little more detail: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11469157/FoCal/Docs/FoCal%20Test%20Distance_1.0.pdf It may be worth trying close to 5m rather than at 10m.

Strangely, this lens has also caused some problems in the Reikan lab with regards to focusing, but we have a copy with a known focus drive issue which needs to be repaired.

 

[sturdiva]

Exposure on the target is ~1/25 f/2.8 iso 100

What lens? 1/25 s sounds like you need more light...

Tried with both the 50 1.8 and the 24-70 2.8

I'll try it again when I get home with more light, see if that makes a difference.

 

[Invertalon]

Disable under the "Test" tab in settings, the focus peak determination. Make sure it is on "None".

Focus peak causes the program to crash every time.



I am getting kind of tired with FoCal to be honest... It never is accurate for me, regardless of what it tells me... My Canon 85 1.8 I bought, it told me +8 seriously, four or five times are various distances. Was "Excellent" fit and EV of +10... Tripod sturdy, measured and squared up and all that.

Real world shooting? Flat out sucked. Considerable backfocus.

Now I just got my Sigma 35 yesterday.... Do the calibration again, multiple times... +9 or +10 each and every time, near MFD, 25x FL, 50x FL and beyond. Always the same. The images look great on the program, so it should be right... No way. Again, considerable back focus in real-world shooting. Set it back to 0 and much improved. Looks like it only needs 0-5 somewhere, so I put it at +3 until I take enough shooting to pick a direction (or none).

Again, with a 70-200 II as well... Right after it came back from calibration from Canon along with my 5D3, it tells me +4T and +8W or something. Well guess what.... Backfocusing. Put back to 0 and everything looked better.


Not sure why this program is acting the way it does for me... But I can't even trust it anymore. I may seriously go back to lens align, at least I was able to do my lenses accurately each and every time. Not sure what is up with it now. Back when I had the 5D2 and the program just came out it worked fantastic. Once they start adding all these features, the new targets, etc... Went downhill fast for me and how well it works.

 

[sturdiva]

Just tried again with about as much light as I can get on the target (1/125, f/2.8, iso 100). Same error. I don't think it's a focusing issue, as it doesn't even appear to try to focus (the distance scale on the lens doesn't change at all during the process).

 

[bigmag13]

I had the same problems with my purchase of FoCal. those guys across the pond were the worst with tech response. I just flat out asked for a refund of my money and received it!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I had the same problems with my purchase of FoCal. those guys across the pond were the worst with tech response. I just flat out asked for a refund of my money and received it!

That's unfortunate. Sounds like they may have grown popular to fast for them to handle. I was an early user, when I had issues, I had ongoing email exchanges (very fast replies) with Rich, the founder/developer.

 

[Invertalon]

Agree'd... Too much too fast. I guess it went from a hobby/interest to all about $$$... Sadly.

Even though they support a ton of cameras now, endless features and "tests", I find the reliability and accuracy have tanked. I have been a user since the beta days with the 5D2 only, and it was VERY accurate. Never had a single problem and saw great results using it. Now, it tends to make my lenses worse.

Oh well... I am thinking about going back to lens align, honestly. That is how bad the AF calibration feature has gotten for me. Wildly inaccurate regardless of anything I do. And I am testing the best I can seriously do...

I measure center of target and make sure my lens is at exact height... Level tripod, level camera (using in camera level)... Making sure I am square with target. Using (2) 500W halogen lights as recommended. Printed on matte photo paper using a high quality $500 Canon printer... Running the test near MFD, 25x FL, 50x FL and even more... EV is always +10 or more. Tried outdoor shade lighting as well with no artificial lighting... I don't know what else I could possibly do to get better results. Yet, the MA values it gives me with "excellent" fit continue to just suck. When I first used this program, I would always get great results. Now, I don't trust it at all. Especially fast primes.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I did all of my 1D X calibrations with FoCal, the results were quite good (benchmarked against LensAlign for a couple of lenses, the 24-105L and 85L II, IIRC), and hold up with real world shooting. But...I did the image capture myself, since there was no 1D X support at that point, and then when there was (when I was calibrating my new 600 II), I tried the Mac beta version for the first time, it didn't work (bug since fixed), so I shot that manually too. I used FoCal's manual mode. To be honest, the fit calls by FoCal ranged from good down to poor, I suppose because I oversampled (83 shots per test), but visually, it was obvious from the curve what was the correct AFMA. I did have to eliminate a few obvious outliers (camera shake, presumably, from bumping the tripod).

Given that there's no full auto for the 1D X, it's easier just to shoot the test shots manually (takes me ~10 minutes for the 83 shots, so testing a zoom lens at 4 focal lengths and 2 distances takes less than 1.5 hrs). I have done some of the other tests tethered (multipoint focus, for example).

 

[sturdiva]

I did all of my 1D X calibrations with FoCal, the results were quite good (benchmarked against LensAlign for a couple of lenses, the 24-105L and 85L II, IIRC), and hold up with real world shooting. But...I did the image capture myself, since there was no 1D X support at that point, and then when there was (when I was calibrating my new 600 II), I tried the Mac beta version for the first time, it didn't work (bug since fixed), so I shot that manually too. I used FoCal's manual mode. To be honest, the fit calls by FoCal ranged from good down to poor, I suppose because I oversampled (83 shots per test), but visually, it was obvious from the curve what was the correct AFMA. I did have to eliminate a few obvious outliers (camera shake, presumably, from bumping the tripod).

Given that there's no full auto for the 1D X, it's easier just to shoot the test shots manually (takes me ~10 minutes for the 83 shots, so testing a zoom lens at 4 focal lengths and 2 distances takes less than 1.5 hrs). I have done some of the other tests tethered (multipoint focus, for example).

How do you do the tests manually? Des this require one of the more advanced versions?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I recall reading of issues with quick cal in ver 1.7, turn it off until a fix is out. There is a beta version, if you have pro that is making some changes. I haven't tried it with my 5D MK III. They are trying to get the beta version released, but there is lots of testing to be done, even then, some bugs will be found.

 

[e-d0uble]

I'm not terribly pleased with this software either. As much as I hate to contribute to a gripe thread, I will. Each time I try to AFMA my 50mm f/1.2 with focal, the software crashes. With all of my other lenses the software works just fine, but who knows if they're properly calibrated as I've had wildly varying results with the same lenses. I submitted a ticket long ago regarding the issue with the 50mm and received no response.

 

[neuroanatomist]

How do you do the tests manually? Des this require one of the more advanced versions?

Possibly - I have the Pro version.

 

[scottkinfw]

I too have had bad results with 5d3- front and back focus, with lots of crappy lost shots.

Thanks for posting.

sek

Disable under the "Test" tab in settings, the focus peak determination. Make sure it is on "None".

Focus peak causes the program to crash every time.



I am getting kind of tired with FoCal to be honest... It never is accurate for me, regardless of what it tells me... My Canon 85 1.8 I bought, it told me +8 seriously, four or five times are various distances. Was "Excellent" fit and EV of +10... Tripod sturdy, measured and squared up and all that.

Real world shooting? Flat out sucked. Considerable backfocus.

Now I just got my Sigma 35 yesterday.... Do the calibration again, multiple times... +9 or +10 each and every time, near MFD, 25x FL, 50x FL and beyond. Always the same. The images look great on the program, so it should be right... No way. Again, considerable back focus in real-world shooting. Set it back to 0 and much improved. Looks like it only needs 0-5 somewhere, so I put it at +3 until I take enough shooting to pick a direction (or none).

Again, with a 70-200 II as well... Right after it came back from calibration from Canon along with my 5D3, it tells me +4T and +8W or something. Well guess what.... Backfocusing. Put back to 0 and everything looked better.


Not sure why this program is acting the way it does for me... But I can't even trust it anymore. I may seriously go back to lens align, at least I was able to do my lenses accurately each and every time. Not sure what is up with it now. Back when I had the 5D2 and the program just came out it worked fantastic. Once they start adding all these features, the new targets, etc... Went downhill fast for me and how well it works.

 

[acoll123]

Glad I put off getting this - waiting for the Mac version to come out. Just curious, are any of you that are having these problems using the Mac version?

Thanks,

Andy

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I bought it when it first came out a year ago, and each new version has worked better than the previous. Sure, there are a few minor bugs, but most of the time, the issues have been mine.
Correct setup, plenty of bright light, absolutely no vibration or movement, concrete floor is far better than a wooden one.
Some lenses are problem lenses, they just do not perform repeatedly or well. In some cases, its the lens design, the cheap 50mm lenses are never going to do well. The "L" lenses do very well.
I've found that the 5D MK III gives much better results than my 5D MK II's did, and that is borne out by the data sent in from testers.
If your setup is perfect - stable, bright light, viewfinder blocked, firm floor with no vibration, accurate target alignment, then AF issues are likely a problem camera or problem lens. Both can be problems, we just never had a way to test before.
Overall, it works well and is repeatable for me, but the devil is in the details of a good setup.

As far as computer issues, I've had none on my Lenovo Windows 7 64 bit laptop or old Dell XPS-420 desktop that was upgraded to Windows 7 64 bit. Having a lot of older equipment increases the probability of drivers conflicting, or software conflicts. Those just have to be worked thru, there is a infinite number of combinations of hardware and software, so no amount of testing will guarantee that it works for everyone. I'm now in the process of testing out my new Dell XPS 8500 with Windows 8 64 bit. FoCal is installed and running fine, but I've not done a full AFMA using it. I most likely will not in the near future.

 

[al2]

I am in the middle of a long data gathering process using FoCal, 3 Canon bodies and 10 different lens. I run each autofocus calibration test at least 3 times to assure getting the best setting. I have found that ocasionally Focal will produce one test with very different results from the others, this happens very rarely but it does happen. Generally, the results have been very consistent for any camera/lens combination at any particular distance.

I test each camera/lens combination at 4 distances: 50xFL, 100xFL, 150xFL and 200xFL. This is a lot of testing, but the results from what I thought was a "problem" lens caused me to rigorously test some of my other lenses. Then my curiosity kicked in, so now it's a project. The sheer volume of testing has forced me to use a very efficient testing procedure. The downside of this method is that right now I have a LOT of data, but no complete data for any camera/lens combination.

The results indicate that depending on the distance there can be a great difference in the calibration setting. I have an EF 24 F1.4L II when mounted on my 7D is -4 at 50FL, 4 at 100FL and 1 at 150FL. I have not run the test at 200FL yet. If I used the setting for the "normal" 50FL I'm sure I would hate this lens if I regularly used it at longer distances. I have not yet begun to think about what the proper setting for this lens should be. The bad news is that this is not the only lens that is starting to show this kind of characteristic. On the other hand, maybe I just have a bunch of bad cameras and lenses.

Part of my motivation for my testing is that I've often wondered why some people will say a lens is fantastic and others will say it is crap. Maybe, they are just using it at different distances.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I have not been enthralled with the later versions. Running multiple tests with the same lenses have given me widely varying AFMA values. In most cases I can't get the tests to complete. I use a 5DIII and all L glass (7 lenses ranging from 8-15mm to 600mm F/4). I used to get better results with the early versions around V1.4 but it took a while requiring lots of shots.

I don't really trust it anymore. I've become quite accustomed now to taking test shots at various AFMA values and using the rear screen to review image detail (you need to set up the profile to shoot in RAW and display the image flat, no adjustments or sharpening in camera.)

Every new version, I test out with my equipment and the results seem to get worse instead of better. For the amount of time required to run the 5DIII through MSC mode, have it fail, and try several times only to get different results, it's just not worth it.

My time is valuable and I'd rather be out shooting pictures of real life instead of wearing down my shutter trying to get it to work consistently. I get great results doing it manually and now just use FoCal to "play" when I have nothing else better to do. Wish they would just keep it simple instead of introducing more issues into the sw and algorithms.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Maybe you are just wearing out your bodies and lenses taking all of those test shots!!

I am in the middle of a long data gathering process using FoCal, 3 Canon bodies and 10 different lens. I run each autofocus calibration test at least 3 times to assure getting the best setting. I have found that ocasionally Focal will produce one test with very different results from the others, this happens very rarely but it does happen. Generally, the results have been very consistent for any camera/lens combination at any particular distance.

I test each camera/lens combination at 4 distances: 50xFL, 100xFL, 150xFL and 200xFL. This is a lot of testing, but the results from what I thought was a "problem" lens caused me to rigorously test some of my other lenses. Then my curiosity kicked in, so now it's a project. The sheer volume of testing has forced me to use a very efficient testing procedure. The downside of this method is that right now I have a LOT of data, but no complete data for any camera/lens combination.

The results indicate that depending on the distance there can be a great difference in the calibration setting. I have an EF 24 F1.4L II when mounted on my 7D is -4 at 50FL, 4 at 100FL and 1 at 150FL. I have not run the test at 200FL yet. If I used the setting for the "normal" 50FL I'm sure I would hate this lens if I regularly used it at longer distances. I have not yet begun to think about what the proper setting for this lens should be. The bad news is that this is not the only lens that is starting to show this kind of characteristic. On the other hand, maybe I just have a bunch of bad cameras and lenses.

Part of my motivation for my testing is that I've often wondered why some people will say a lens is fantastic and others will say it is crap. Maybe, they are just using it at different distances.