Reikan FoCal 2.0 Final Released

[Canon Rumors Guy]

FoCal 2.0 is ready for prime time, we’re excited to release FoCal 2.0 to users and believe it’s the most stable, easiest to use and provides the most accurate calibrations of any version of FoCal to date. Development and testing have put in a huge amount of time to re-write and re-design much of the underlying software as well as updates to the user interface to make FoCal more user friendly.</p>
<p>A host a new features and enhancements to existing features mean that FoCal 2.0 is the most comprehensive way to test and calibrate autofocus on modern Canon and Nikon dSLRs available.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p><strong>FoCal 2 Headline Features</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Compare your results with other FoCal users</strong> – with FoCal 2, you can now compare the results of your tests with the results from thousands of other FoCal users to see how your equipment is really performing. Pro only feature, this area is one we expect to expand on in future FoCal releases.</li>
<li><strong>Review your previous tests</strong> – you can review the detailed results of previous tests you’ve run for comparison. This includes most of the tests you’ve run with FoCal 1 as well. Pro only feature</li>
<li><strong>Improved Reports</strong> – the reports are now more concise, grouping relevant information together and showing more information that matters. Pro only feature</li>
<li><strong>Faster Results</strong> – get accurate results in less time with the new analysis algorithms in FoCal 2. FoCal Plus and Focal Pro both benefit from the same improved Automatic Focus Calibration processing.</li>
<li><strong>More Information</strong> – dig deeper into the performance of your camera and lens with extra information, as well as reviewing more details about each shot taken. FoCal Plus inherits the “Lens Profile” graph display from Focal Pro to make it easier for users to understand what’s happening during the calibration process. FoCal Pro has the following extra information available during calibration, Historic Results, Focus Consistency, Astigmatism Factor, Result Convergence and Image Motion.</li>
<li><strong>User Interface Improvements</strong> – the user interface is easier to understand, with new tabbed windows, more logical operation and comprehensive keyboard control.</li>
<li><strong>Voice Prompts</strong> – FoCal 2 even talks to you! Calibrate any camera without needing to sit looking at the computer screen, changes you might need to make at the camera are spoken out loud.

Free Upgrade – FoCal 2.0 is a free upgrade for all FoCal 1 license holders, so there’s nothing more to pay to get all these new features!</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>FoCal 2 Mac Specific Improvements</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>No Mono Framework Install – FoCal 2 for Mac is now a standalone application with no requirement to install any third party frameworks. Easier installation for users and it’s impossible to install an untested version of Mono!

Digital Signing and Easy Install – FoCal 2 for Mac is now fully digitally signed and the install is graphically guided (just drag and drop from the DMG file!).</li>
<li>Huge focus on reliability – A lot of the work on getting FoCal 2 for Mac ready has been in improving reliability and stability. Changes to the internal code structure, a new development tool chain and extensive pre-release testing.

No need to select camera manufacturer – gone is the need to choose between Canon and Nikon before connecting a camera.</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/2015/10/reikan-focal-2-0-final-released/" target="_blank">Visit Reikan for more information</a>.</p>

 

[pardus]

I am really interested in this but is new to me. Any feedback from users on how well it works?

 

[rpt]

I am really interested in this but is new to me. Any feedback from users on how well it works?

I had the beta and it worked fine. I will upgrade over the weekend.

 

[msatter]

I will have a try of this software and I got the second of three versions and a really not pleased that Canon crippled the product by only allowing assisted manual adjustment in the 5D MKIII. It is a pain to go through the process of manually adjusting the AFMA and having to touch the Camera on each requested change.

I think this is only the case for the 5D MKIII.

I am sure Reikan has solved the crashes during the already lengthy calibrating which made me to de-install previous version of the software.

 

[takesome1]

I downloaded the beta and used it with my 7D II and 5Ds R on the the 500mm II.

Let me say I have used FoCal every since it was introduced. I always check my results against other methods like lens align.

My opinion is that it doesn't sample enough. It runs through -20, -10, 0, +10 and +20 and then gives you its suggest focus setting to switch to. It might ask for a few other settings but not many to sample before it picks a number.

It was far more consistent with its results than the previous versions. It gave me the same suggested settings 5 or 6 times in a row on both bodies.

So I tested it again with lens align to verify. What I found is that on both bodies the setting favored back focus. In 2 out of 10 samples the DOF would fall behind the focus point and those within the DOF would not have been at the optimum point. With lens align the optimum setting was 2 increments difference (+3 vs +5).

So my first impression is that the new version doesn't sample enough to find the optimum setting it is just using the curve, but it is consistent with its results.

 

[iowapipe]

Thank you for the sampling information. I've used LensAlign, and occasionally further fine-tuned in the field when I noticed a slight problem. I've never sent my body/lens in for a custom adjustment (and probably should for best results) and have read many reports on this and other products for automated adjustments. I've not been sold on an automated solution, and it sounds like this isn't worth the purchase yet.

Does anyone think it is definitely worth the purchase for a particular reason?

I downloaded the beta and used it with my 7D II and 5Ds R on the the 500mm II.

Let me say I have used FoCal every since it was introduced. I always check my results against other methods like lens align.

My opinion is that it doesn't sample enough. It runs through -20, -10, 0, +10 and +20 and then gives you its suggest focus setting to switch to. It might ask for a few other settings but not many to sample before it picks a number.

It was far more consistent with its results than the previous versions. It gave me the same suggested settings 5 or 6 times in a row on both bodies.

So I tested it again with lens align to verify. What I found is that on both bodies the setting favored back focus. In 2 out of 10 samples the DOF would fall behind the focus point and those within the DOF would not have been at the optimum point. With lens align the optimum setting was 2 increments difference (+3 vs +5).

So my first impression is that the new version doesn't sample enough to find the optimum setting it is just using the curve, but it is consistent with its results.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I am really interested in this but is new to me. Any feedback from users on how well it works?

I've used it for almost 3 years now and its great.


However, its no miracle. You need to follow the directions carefully, make sure there is more than enough light, make sure your support is rock solid, etc. Many just start using it, and find that results are not consistent because they did not take the care to setup carefully.

 

[takesome1]

I am really interested in this but is new to me. Any feedback from users on how well it works?

I've used it for almost 3 years now and its great.


However, its no miracle. You need to follow the directions carefully, make sure there is more than enough light, make sure your support is rock solid, etc. Many just start using it, and find that results are not consistent because they did not take the care to setup carefully.

All true,

Have you had a chance to use the 2.0 Beta version or the new 2.0?

 

[iMagic]

It works great. BUT, like others have said, you need to absolutely spend the energy and time to have the target printed properly, lit properly, with super stable tripod, etc. Its the setup which is critical. Next, during the tests you must ensure that the tripod does not move. Do not do it on a floor that vibrates for example. Repeat the tests to be sure of the results. Fine tune the tests to get a more refined answer. Watch out for lenses that have some CA. I tested lenses with large amounts of CA wide open and the results were mixed. Finally, be careful to test at the distances you most use the lens. Some lenses focus differently at different distances. For example a macro lens used at macro distances will sometimes give different results than the same lens at normal distances.

 

[cnigul]

How about sigma 50mm art? Has anyone tried FoCal with it?

 

[Dekaner]

Printed targets?

Great discussion - thanks everyone. Do you print your own targets or is it worth buying the official FoCal version?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: Printed targets?

Great discussion - thanks everyone. Do you print your own targets or is it worth buying the official FoCal version?

I print my own on my Epson 3880 with heavy paper. You can have them printed by Costco or a similar service as well. Reikan sells the targets because of the high number of requests. If you are not careful with your printer settings, you get jaggies which look awful.

 

[Sabaki]

Hi everybody

I'd like to buy FoCal but I have a question:

The Canon Service Centre in my province cannot test lenses 400mm and longer as they apparently need a certain testing distance between the lens and target. Would this apply to FoCal as well? My living space is not huge and I do not have access to a corridor of 20m.

Would I be able to calibrate my 400mm lens based on the above?

Kind regards

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Sabaki.
In my experience, you can get a calibration at distances shorter than optimal, but as has been mentioned above, yo really need to calibrate at your most frequently used subject distance, so if you normally shoot small birds in your neighbourhood at 15m then that is where you should calibrate, if you use it for shooting planes at infinity (in terms of the focus scale) then that is where you should be calibrating.

Cheers, Graham.

Hi everybody

I'd like to buy FoCal but I have a question:

The Canon Service Centre in my province cannot test lenses 400mm and longer as they apparently need a certain testing distance between the lens and target. Would this apply to FoCal as well? My living space is not huge and I do not have access to a corridor of 20m.

Would I be able to calibrate my 400mm lens based on the above?

Kind regards

 

[rpt]

Re: Printed targets?

Great discussion - thanks everyone. Do you print your own targets or is it worth buying the official FoCal version?

I print my own on my Epson 3880 with heavy paper. You can have them printed by Costco or a similar service as well. Reikan sells the targets because of the high number of requests. If you are not careful with your printer settings, you get jaggies which look awful.

I print mine at a local printer's.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I've been using the program for years, and let me add to this that I personally like to run the semi-automatic test after the automatic to assure that it has chosen the best result. This allows me to both visually confirm and to run repeated tests of the same AFMA value to assure that it is getting highly repeatable results. This has served me very well.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So my first impression is that the new version doesn't sample enough to find the optimum setting it is just using the curve, but it is consistent with its results.

That's always been my impression with FoCal, which is one reason I acquire the images myself and use the manual analysis mode. I actually oversample – 83 shots per test (three shots at every adjustment value from -10 to +10 and two shots at even numbered values |>10|), but it only takes me ~10 minutes to collect the shots and I get consistent, reliable results.

 

[takesome1]

So my first impression is that the new version doesn't sample enough to find the optimum setting it is just using the curve, but it is consistent with its results.

That's always been my impression with FoCal, which is one reason I acquire the images myself and use the manual analysis mode. I actually oversample – 83 shots per test (three shots at every adjustment value from -10 to +10 and two shots at even numbered values |>10|), but it only takes me ~10 minutes to collect the shots and I get consistent, reliable results.

It seems the new version is sampling even fewer images than previous. Maybe that is why it is "faster".

 

[juicabeth]

you can change in the preferences that it should do more samples, simple config adjustment will help you.

I downloaded the beta and used it with my 7D II and 5Ds R on the the 500mm II.

Let me say I have used FoCal every since it was introduced. I always check my results against other methods like lens align.

My opinion is that it doesn't sample enough. It runs through -20, -10, 0, +10 and +20 and then gives you its suggest focus setting to switch to. It might ask for a few other settings but not many to sample before it picks a number.

It was far more consistent with its results than the previous versions. It gave me the same suggested settings 5 or 6 times in a row on both bodies.

So I tested it again with lens align to verify. What I found is that on both bodies the setting favored back focus. In 2 out of 10 samples the DOF would fall behind the focus point and those within the DOF would not have been at the optimum point. With lens align the optimum setting was 2 increments difference (+3 vs +5).

So my first impression is that the new version doesn't sample enough to find the optimum setting it is just using the curve, but it is consistent with its results.

 

[Viggo]

you can change in the preferences that it should do more samples, simple config adjustment will help you.

I downloaded the beta and used it with my 7D II and 5Ds R on the the 500mm II.

Let me say I have used FoCal every since it was introduced. I always check my results against other methods like lens align.

My opinion is that it doesn't sample enough. It runs through -20, -10, 0, +10 and +20 and then gives you its suggest focus setting to switch to. It might ask for a few other settings but not many to sample before it picks a number.

It was far more consistent with its results than the previous versions. It gave me the same suggested settings 5 or 6 times in a row on both bodies.

So I tested it again with lens align to verify. What I found is that on both bodies the setting favored back focus. In 2 out of 10 samples the DOF would fall behind the focus point and those within the DOF would not have been at the optimum point. With lens align the optimum setting was 2 increments difference (+3 vs +5).

So my first impression is that the new version doesn't sample enough to find the optimum setting it is just using the curve, but it is consistent with its results.

+1, I have set mine to a higher number of test shots and strict af repetition. And I have never needed to adjust manually after testing, I can always trust the outcome.