Is FoCal worth ~$150?

[LovePhotography]

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.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I purchased the "pro" version of Focal recently and I am very impressed with it. I liked that the computer was performing the calculations instead of relying on my old eyes like other focus calibration systems.

The instructions are not the clearest, but that is becoming common place with today's software industry. It does take a while to set up and if you are callibrating the longer FL lenses you will need some space.

I took the target data files and took then to a printshot and had them printed and mounted on foam board. That seemed to work well and was not expensive at all.

Since I only have the one version, I can't opine whether the other versions of FoCal are just as good as the "pro". I sprung for the pro and did not feel I was ripped off.

I would download the manuals and give them a good read before making the decision. I can often learn more about a piece of software reading the manual than reading marketing stuff on a webpage.

Good luck with it.

 

[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).

 

[Marsu42]

Is FoCal worth the time, effort and money?

I don't have focal, but I'd say before spending that lot of money (if you don't have stacks lying around) 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.

For what I do and with f4-f2.8 lenses, +-1 afma doesn't make a difference anyway and afma also varies with subject distance, so for many it's about getting in roughly the right afma region anyway... I'm not much of a geek in this point.

 

[caruser]

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

How annoying is it in practice with the 1DX (given that it doesn't do everything automatically)?

 

[keithcooper]

IMHO - no

But then again I've long regarded any solution costing more than a few sheets of finely ruled graph paper as too expensive...

Putting my marketing hat on, I can see that there is a large enough sub-set of photographers obsessed with what I regard as spurious levels of measurement and precision, that there is a good chance of making money off them, so good luck to the developers ;-)

As with any such tech, opinions will vary from snake oil to essential tool - YMMV as they say ;-)

 

[Thorse]

Is it possible to use FoCal with an 600D/T3i - I know I can't do any micro-adjustments, but i mean to compare different lenses, finding sweet-spots and so?

/Thorse

 

[Orangutan]

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.

 

[Steve]

I think it would depend on what $150 means to you versus just spending the time to AFMA by hand. For me, the money means more than the couple of hours total it took for all of my lenses but YMMV. AFMA isn't some occult sorcerers trick; its just guess and check "better? or worse?" adjustment until you get it as close as possible. You don't need a program to do it, though the program might speed up the process. I'd say give it a shot on your own and if it gets frustrating then look into buying a solution.

 

[Loswr]

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

How annoying is it in practice with the 1DX (given that it doesn't do everything automatically)?

Not bad. I got the 1D X before it was supported at all, and started using Manual Mode analysis (taking pics myself, loading images into FoCal for analysis). That's easy enough that I've just kept doing it that way even after there was some level of support (as much as Canon's SDK permits).

 

[Loswr]

I think it would depend on what $150 means to you versus just spending the time to AFMA by hand. For me, the money means more than the couple of hours total it took for all of my lenses but YMMV. AFMA isn't some occult sorcerers trick; its just guess and check "better? or worse?" adjustment until you get it as close as possible. You don't need a program to do it, though the program might speed up the process. I'd say give it a shot on your own and if it gets frustrating then look into buying a solution.

As someone who's done a fair bit of manual analysis (and written a tutorial on the subject), I find FoCal much easier to use. Sometimes it's challenging judging between a set of images, quantification makes it a more robust process.

 

[Marsu42]

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.

 

[Steve]

As someone who's done a fair bit of manual analysis (and written a tutorial on the subject), I find FoCal much easier to use. Sometimes it's challenging judging between a set of images, quantification makes it a more robust process.

Right, totally, its just a matter of whether that added convenience/level of precision is worth the money or not. For me, a student with basically no money, its not worth it. At the other end, for a full time, well paid working professional its probably a different story. I'm not sure where LovePhotography falls on that scale.

The other thing is that its a program that a lot of people will only use once, or very very occasionally when they get a new lens. I would think it would be a great program to buy if you frequently rented lenses or consistently upgraded.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I was able to pre-order FoCal before it came out initially, I didn't realize that the price had risen so much.

If all your sigma lenses work with their box, that is a better solution for them. You likely do not need adjustment or AFMA for ultra wide lenses, since the depth of field is so great. FoCal doesn't work all that well with ultra wides because focus errors make very little difference in sharpness.

I'd suggest first doing a controlled test with each lens, Place the camera on a sturdy tripod, use a remote shutter release, and make sure there is no vibration at all. Be sure to cover the viewfinder eyepiece to keep stray light out.

Tkle a photo of a target at your most used distance for that lens, and at 25-50X the focal length of the lens using the phase detect. Reset the lens to infinity(or mfd) before each shot, and take 10 or more shots in very bright light.

Then, do the exact same thing using live view and live autofocus (You can do both phase detect and live view for each setup). Compare the images between the phase detect and live AF. If there is enough difference to bother you, you need to use AFMA. If not, don't waste the time or money.

 

[LovePhotography]

I was able to pre-order FoCal before it came out initially, I didn't realize that the price had risen so much.

If all your sigma lenses work with their box, that is a better solution for them. You likely do not need adjustment or AFMA for ultra wide lenses, since the depth of field is so great. FoCal doesn't work all that well with ultra wides because focus errors make very little difference in sharpness.

I'd suggest first doing a controlled test with each lens, Place the camera on a sturdy tripod, use a remote shutter release, and make sure there is no vibration at all. Be sure to cover the viewfinder eyepiece to keep stray light out.

Tkle a photo of a target at your most used distance for that lens, and at 25-50X the focal length of the lens using the phase detect. Reset the lens to infinity(or mfd) before each shot, and take 10 or more shots in very bright light.

Then, do the exact same thing using live view and live autofocus (You can do both phase detect and live view for each setup). Compare the images between the phase detect and live AF. If there is enough difference to bother you, you need to use AFMA. If not, don't waste the time or money.

Wow! And, thank you! Sounds like a lot of work, but good learning curve.

 

[keithcooper]

... For me, a student with basically no money, its not worth it. At the other end, for a full time, well paid working professional its probably a different story....

As someone relying on accurate sharp images for my job, I fall into the second category, and still don't think it's remotely worth it.

Given how often I change camera bodies or buy new lenses, I can think of far better ways to spend $150 for the business.

It's really not that much effort to do some experiments - trust what you find, rather than any 'received wisdom' on the matter.

Same goes for that old photo folklore of hyper focal focusing ;-)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

... For me, a student with basically no money, its not worth it. At the other end, for a full time, well paid working professional its probably a different story....

As someone relying on accurate sharp images for my job, I fall into the second category, and still don't think it's remotely worth it.

Given how often I change camera bodies or buy new lenses, I can think of far better ways to spend $150 for the business.

It's really not that much effort to do some experiments - trust what you find, rather than any 'received wisdom' on the matter.

Same goes for that old photo folklore of hyper focal focusing ;-)

I'd tend to agree with that.


I've found a couple of lenses out of dozens that were way off, my 85mm f/1.8 and my 35mmL. Canon adjusted the new 35mmL, and I used AFMA for the 85mm. If I had had FoCal when I bought the 85mm lens, I'd have had it adjusted, since it took -17 to adjust. There were big differences from camera body to camera body as well.

I rechecked my table of AFMA values and found that my 15mm F/E needed a AFMA of -15 on my 5D MK II, but a +2 on my 7D, so the hyper focal stuff did not bear out. I might run it again on my 5D MK III and save the curve to see the shape (Broad or peaked). Generally, a +/- 3 makes very little difference in sharpness.



I pre-ordered the pro version for far less in late 2011 or early 2012, and I thought the price was steep. I've managed to get a reasonable amount of use from it, and once I printed targets that were good quality, than its fairly fast to test a lens / body. I've also found that I can manually do a adjustment and get into the close enough range in less time by viewing at 10X on the LCD.

$150 seems extreme to me.

I'm expecting Canon to release cameras that have the adjustment built in. There have been two patents in the past year doing some types of AF optimization, and the dual pixel technology seems to produce very accurate AF if you use live view.

 

[Loswr]

I also ordered FoCal Pro when it was new, cost was about half of what it is today. Some of the other features are quite handy (aperture sharpness test, multipoint focus test, etc.). Those are things that can be done manually, too...but the time savings with automation are substantial.

 

[caruser]

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

How annoying is it in practice with the 1DX (given that it doesn't do everything automatically)?

Not bad. I got the 1D X before it was supported at all, and started using Manual Mode analysis (taking pics myself, loading images into FoCal for analysis). That's easy enough that I've just kept doing it that way even after there was some level of support (as much as Canon's SDK permits).

Ok thanks that sounds good enough, I've been thinking about pulling the trigger for a while now.

 

[iMagic]

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.