Is FoCal worth ~$150?

[keithcooper]

I would suggest that $150 is a reasonable amount (at least for me) to at least verify my other techniques (manually guessing using test shots and then also using DotTune) were in the ball park. In the end, depending on the lens, it took some time to verify the results of the testing methodology for each technique until I was satisfied. Probably I overdid it, but I feel better for doing it.

I'm minded to wonder if trusting your own experiments and measurements would be worth even more than the $150?

The whole process of using such software seems such an exercise in spurious precision, that it still mystifies me every time I get asked about it when doing talks at clubs and the like (I include it in a similar vein to many CIS ink setups for desktop printers).

 

[Loswr]

The whole process of using such software seems such an exercise in spurious precision...

Perhaps. However, AFMA affects every AF shot you take, so doing it incorrectly can be problematic. I've run across many people who have done AFMA incorrectly (e.g. testing at the MFD for a lens commonly used at a much greater distance).

Honestly, it doesn't matter how you arrive at the correct value for your lens(es), as long as you do arrive at that correct value. Sort of like driving a car with a manual transmission vs. automatic - both will get you there, but if you don't knw how to drive a stick shift, you're in for a jerky, bumpy, gear-grinding ride.

 

[East Wind Photography]

It is worth 150.00 but not for the reason that you think. As far as a tool for calculating your optimal afma, it's not worth it. In order to accurately calculate afma, you have to have near perfect calibration conditions which most people don't have unless you have a studio, 300w halogen lights, and perhaps a football field to run your tests. The real value in foCal are the other features which allow you to calculate which f stop yields the highest resolution of fine detail, identifies inconsistencies in your lens af system, and finally which of your af points are out of spec with the center point.

I personally set my afma manually using a newspaper on a wall and then review which afma settings yield the best results. I then tweak it a little in the field depending on lighting, distance, etc. After a bit it becomes very easy to determine which setting is best.

The other features though are much more difficult to do manually and are best suited for the software.

One thing to consider with focal is the hit it takes on your shutter. I've had enough issues trying too get afma set right using the software that I easily added 2000+ shutter actuations to each of my cameras. If you want to go that route, I would suggest using the software in manual afma mode and import the photos into the software rejecting the outliers.

It is a very useful piece of software but you need to determine your needs before purchasing as it may not live up to your expectations as a primary afma tool. There are other means of doing it which for me have produced better results.

 

[Orangutan]

Do you know if dot_tune will tell me if my 60D is out of whack?

Yes, I know.

Feel free to tell me to RTFM (or just try it), which I'd planned to do.

Nononono, what are we here for ? Canon (thanks!) removed the whole afma firmware part from 50d->60d, there's no way to recover it even with ML. This means the 60d has not only no gui to set afma, it lacks any ability to tell you about it.

Thanks, that'll save me wasted time and effort.

 

[East Wind Photography]

The whole process of using such software seems such an exercise in spurious precision...

Perhaps. However, AFMA affects every AF shot you take, so doing it incorrectly can be problematic. I've run across many people who have done AFMA incorrectly (e.g. testing at the MFD for a lens commonly used at a much greater distance).

Honestly, it doesn't matter how you arrive at the correct value for your lens(es), as long as you do arrive at that correct value. Sort of like driving a car with a manual transmission vs. automatic - both will get you there, but if you don't knw how to drive a stick shift, you're in for a jerky, bumpy, gear-grinding ride.

Actually I think there is no correct value other than the one you need at the distance you are shooting, the light intensity you have, and the type/color/temperature of the lighting on game day. Even ambient temperature can change your afma. To say there is an absolute correct afma setting for all circumstances is a bit of a stretch.

I've also seen some canon lenses straight out of the box that will not focus at infinity if you afma using the FoCal guidelines. Surely you could find one out of a batch that needs adjustment but I've seen it with several copies on different lenses. Could be bad lens design but the variability is there. You need to afma at different focus distances and choose the correct one for your shooting conditions....or just keep a notebook and switch your settings when doing close ups then landscapes.

Wether or not you trust focal to get you that optimal afma setting, it will reveal these inconsistencies so you can decide wether to sell or return that new lens for something else.

 

[zlatko]

I have a 6D, ef 15, ef 8-15, Sigma 24-105 Art, ef 70-200 2.8 II, 2 x TC III, and soon 300 2.8 IS II. Will someday have ef 16-35 f/4 and Sigma 50 1.4 Art.

Is FoCal worth the time, effort and money?
http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/why/about-focal/

Will it work with TC's? Are the adjustments made to the body or lens? Are the adjustments specific to each lens?

I'd rather buy the box than download since I upgrade computers pretty frequently.

Opinions appreciated.

There's a box version? Is there a disadvantage to getting the download?

The Pro version is £69.95, or about $112.50. I bought it 2 years ago for around $108. A lot of money, but does the job very well.

The adjustments are made to the body, not the lens.

 

[Canon1]

Yes... Worth every penny...

 

[mnclayshooter]

Re: Is FoCal worth ~$150?

Is getting the sharpest possible images from thousands of dollars worth if gear worth $150?

The adjustment is made to the body, it's specific to each lens, a lens + TC combo is treated as a separate lens.

I have the Pro version, I've used it on most of my lenses (all my AF lenses except the EF-M lenses).

Not wanting to step on toes, but I think this is true only if your TC is a "reporting" TC - meaning that the camera recognizes that the TC is present. Some third-party TC's don't report to the camera, thus your AFMA will only apply to the lens. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I own non-reporting TC's and would LOVE to know how to get a work-around for this.

 

[Loswr]

Re: Is FoCal worth ~$150?

Is getting the sharpest possible images from thousands of dollars worth if gear worth $150?

The adjustment is made to the body, it's specific to each lens, a lens + TC combo is treated as a separate lens.

I have the Pro version, I've used it on most of my lenses (all my AF lenses except the EF-M lenses).

Not wanting to step on toes, but I think this is true only if your TC is a "reporting" TC - meaning that the camera recognizes that the TC is present. Some third-party TC's don't report to the camera, thus your AFMA will only apply to the lens. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I own non-reporting TC's and would LOVE to know how to get a work-around for this.

You're absolutely correct - only reporting TCs count.

 

[Woody]

I now use Dot Tune under Magic Lantern. Automates the entire process and takes statistical average based on multiple tries. Far more accurate than what I can do manually. Most importantly, it's free.

I also have FoCal but the package now sits in my storage cabinet untouched since I started using Dot Tune.

 

[Old Shooter]

FoCal has recently added hard targets to their store... If you don't want to fool around with printing and mounting a target, you can order them ready-to-go from them...

I have had the Pro version ever since I bought my 5DIII... There are several features that make the Pro version handy... As Neuro said, I think the aperture sharpness test is the bomb and I now have optimum aperture recorded for all of my lenses... I don't know if the 6D will let you store two values like the 5DIII, but when you're working with a zoom it is really nice...

If you buy, read every page of every document! It is not the most logical flow of user information - but all of it plays into the end result...

 

[pwp]

Where is the $150 price coming from? I'm seeing FoCal Pro at the Reikan website for £69.95. http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/versions/focal-pro/

Converted to USD https://www.google.com.au/#q=70+pounds+to+dollars I'm seeing $112.48

Am I missing something here?

-pw

 

[horshack]

you can also try Magic Lantern's free dot_tune module which also automatically adjusts afma. Opinions are divided abut how precise it is, but for me (using a 6d) it's working just fine.

Do you know if dot_tune will tell me if my 60D is out of whack? I'm very much aware that the 60D does not support AFMA, but it would be nice to have it call to my attention how far out of tune it is.

Feel free to tell me to RTFM (or just try it), which I'd planned to do.

Thanks.

You can use an abridged version of the DotTune process to see if your 60D+lens is out of calibration (ie, would require AFMA if there was support for it). To do this, perform the initial steps of the DotTune process, including setting up a target, focusing on the target in Live View, and then exiting Live View and do a single viewfinder AF confirmation check and see if you get a solid green confirmation. If the confirmation waivers then your 60D+lens combo would benefit from AFMA (again, if AFMA was supported).

 

[dcm]

If you have to ask, then you likely would benefit from it. If you were already sure your lenses were their sharpest with your body by some method you were using, you probably wouldn't be asking. If you get some OOF shots and wonder whether its the camera, lens, or AFMA then it might be worth checking out.

FoCal is most beneficial for fast and/or long lenses where you have a narrow DOF. As an engineer I appreciate the statistical approach and quantitative experimental method that you can dial up or down depending on the certainty you want in the results to trade off shutter count. I could do it all myself qualitatively or use other tools, but I value my time and use FoCal so I can focus on other things.

I have a pair of 6Ds with zoom lenses ranging from 8mm to 600mm, some fast primes, and both tele extenders. It is fully automated with the 6D and lets you set two values (wide/tele) for your zooms and separate values with extenders. The addition of the second body made me appreciate it even more since there were differences in the AFMA between the bodies. FoCal can help you ensure you are getting the most from your expensive glass and give you some additional insights, like the sharpest f stops for each lens, performance of autofocus points, etc.

 

[keithcooper]

FoCal has recently added hard targets to their store... If you don't want to fool around with printing and mounting a target, you can order them ready-to-go from them...

Once again, I doff my cap to their marketing efforts ;-)

 

[Jamesy]

I have owned FocalPro for a couple of years and it seems to work well. That said, the Dot Tune method is free and worthy of investigation - although I have not tried it. No need to put ML on your camera.

Check out the extensive thread here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1187247

Twenty minute How-to video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zE50jCUPhM

 

[Marsu42]

Am I missing something here?

Checking facts isn't fair game, this is a rumor website :-> !

 

[Canon1]

Actually, one thing worth mentioning is that FoCal does let you know when your gear is not operating properly. You will get errors during the test, or you will get a completed test that rather than showing a nice bell curve of IQ throughout the AFMA range it will look like buck shot scatter. When this type of thing happens you know you have something wrong with your gear that no AFMA setting will cure.

While this is rare, it has happened to me before. I had a 300 f2.8IS that worked perfectly for a couple of years. (I originally and successfully calibrated it with FoCal when I bought it). I then had a suspicion that I was having some problems. Not as many images were achieving the tack sharp focus I had enjoyed. So, I ran it on FoCal and got testing consistency errors along with huge variability across the AFMA range. I sent the lens in to canon and they had to replace an IS motor. FoCal confirmed it for me.

Another instance was with my 5DIII. I have two of these bodies, and immediately when I purchased them I ran them through FoCal with my lenses. Originally they were within about 5% of IQ of each other at optimal AFMA on any given lens. After over a year I began to suspect that one of the bodies was having some trouble. Totally gut instinct... it wasn't like one just stopped working. So, again I ran both bodies through FoCal and sure enough, the body had a problem. Instead of being within 5% of each other, there was over 30% IQ loss on the body in question. I sent it in to canon and they "fixed" it. When I got it back, I ran the test again, and Canon had done absolutely nothing to fix the actual problem. So I sent it back, this time with all the FoCal printouts. A few days later my camera came back with some hardware work and it was fixed.

FoCal is an excellent tool for calibrating AFMA, but it is also an excellent tool at helping to diagnose when there are problems with your gear. Is it worth $150 to me? At least....

 

[Max Rockbin]

Googling around for AFMA on my 70D, I ran across a method by Arash Hazeghi that uses the Canon EOS Utility to determine micro-adjustment. It doesn't work with every camera, but if your camera can trigger autofocus via the remote control in the utility, it's probably your best AFMA option, and VERY worth trying before you lay out $ on the FoCal thingy. This method is probably about as easy. You won't get a lot of graphs, but you won't get a 150 page manual to go with your $150 outlay either.

Check out this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3056917861&feature=iv&src_vid=Pjef8w5I7VY&v=E9fqWcgtHWA

Or the site of the author of the technique:
http://arihazeghiphotography.com/MA-web/

It's really much simpler and much less time consuming than other techniques. People who've used it found the results very repeatable, which apparently isn't true of some other methods.
I tried it on a couple of my lenses and then tried repeating it. I got exactly the same result (which - lucky me - was a very minor adjustment).

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I sent it in to canon and they "fixed" it. When I got it back, I ran the test again, and Canon had done absolutely nothing to fix the actual problem. So I sent it back, this time with all the FoCal printouts. A few days later my camera came back with some hardware work and it was fixed.

Yikes! Some service huh? I hope they did not charge you for the first "fix".