The 60D Needs AF Microadjustment

[bvukich]

In conclusion, do you need microadjust? I really dont think so.

It is fully within your rights to use, or not use, available features as you see fit; just as it is fully within ours to whine about those which are not.

 

[canonman]

True, you can whine and cry...nitpick that is within your rights. However, it seems funny to me that one would totally reject the 60D because it lacks this one feature. Most do not use it or need to use it. Those who do use it spend hours and hours and then end up sending the lens to the depot when they find they cant correct it themselves. Those who report successful use are those usually using cheap primes. I dare anyone here to grab a 7d and then try to go through the microadjust feature...that is those who have not done it before. Tell me how long it takes you to get it right that is if you get it right.

What about the improvements on the 60d like you can get 40% more photos on one charge of the battery? What about how its lighter then the 7d? What about how its in improvement on the 7d? One trueism is that whether you take photos or video with the 7d or the 60d, most people would be pressed to tell them apart. To most people, it would appear as the same camera...I bet to most pros it would appear as the same camera.

 

[fman]

However, it seems funny to me that one would totally reject the 60D because it lacks this one feature. Most do not use it or need to use it.

I don't think that some folks reject the 60D just because of one (in my view rarely used) feature. The 60D generally fell short of expectations. It does not mean that it has no improvements over e.g. the 50D or 550D. Better battery life is good, but please do not overrate it. No matter how long the battery lasts it will run out of juice at some point of time. Thus not having a spare battery is not an option for any serious photographer. A longer battery time is a good change though.

Same goes to the articulating LCD. Very nice, especially for macro shooters. For serious videographers/cinematographers an external monitor or LCD viewfinder is equally if not more important. It's just too bad that HDMI output drops to 480p during recording (unlike 7D).

Back to this AF microadjustment. Most people can leave without it, but what would it cost to Canon (especially that it already exist in other bodies)? A SW feature, close to zero cost. People not opting to use it just could leave it at zero.
Canon bodies tend to have less powerful SW than others. Compare 60D e.g. with D7000. E.g. more preset WB options, built-in intervalometer etc. So AF removal is just a step pointing to the wrong direction.
A very strong indication of missing features is the mere existence of Magic Lantern (not yet for 60D). Just google a bit.

Why 60D has generally fell short of expectations (even though having some improvements)? Canon is no longer leading the high ISO low noise race even in the semi-pro class. When replacing CF with SD, D7000 got 2 SD slots, while 60D has got only one. The very useful AF selection joystick has gone. Instead the SET button is competing now with other functions for center AF point selection (or you have to push en extra button).

I don't want to beat on this anymore. After all 60D is not a bad cam, just maybe people with some good glasses were expecting a bit more. Fanboys will keep being happy; others may seek something better or keep what they have.

 

[Loswr]

I do not wish to be a conspiracy theorist but there is something wrong with this thread.

Well, yes, there is...now.

True, you can whine and cry...nitpick that is within your rights.

Within yours too, apparently, as it is also within your rights to read internet forums and repost what you're read there as The Truth. Since the internet has convinced you that AFMA is close to useless, I'm sure you also believe that alien abductions are commonplace, that the New World Order controls global society, etc. I notice that you said you do not wish to be a conspiracy theorist...but you didn't say that you aren't one...

However, it seems funny to me that one would totally reject the 60D because it lacks this one feature.

You must be spending quite a bit of time laughing, these days...

Seriously, though, I think this feature gets brought up a lot because there's no technical reason for Canon not to have included it - it's 'free' in the sense that no hardware is required and the firmware code is already written. So the lack of AFMA gets brought up (and bashed) frequently because it makes a pretty clear marketing statement that the 60D is the upgrade path from a Rebel, not from the 50D.

Most do not use it or need to use it. Those who do use it spend hours and hours and then end up sending the lens to the depot when they find they cant correct it themselves. Those who report successful use are those usually using cheap primes.

Cheap primes, right. I guess my EF 85mm f/1.2L II falls into that category? It needed +5 AFMA before producing sharp images at f/1.2 with autofocus on my 5DII. I suppose my 24-105mm f/4L IS and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lenses are also cheap primes?

The only time I found I couldn't correct the AF issue myself was when I had a T1i.

Also, you say 'just send it to the depot' like it's an easy solution. It's costly to do that, and not everyone has multiple bodies and/or can afford to be without their camera for the 1-2 weeks (or more) that it would take. Not to mention having to do it again for each new lens (and if the 'experts' adjust both lens and body, you'd better have sent all your other lenses in too, and that would be even more expensive).

I dare anyone here to grab a 7d and then try to go through the microadjust feature...that is those who have not done it before. Tell me how long it takes you to get it right that is if you get it right.

Ok, you weren't daring me, since I've done it before. FWIW, it takes me about one hour to calibrate a new prime lens on both bodies (7D and 5DII), and about 90 minutes to calibrate a new zoom lens, including setup and takedown. And yes, I get it right. Even with zoom lenses. 60-90 minutes. How much time and expense would it take to send two bodies and 10 lenses to Canon every time I add a lens?

What about the improvements on the 60d like you can get 40% more photos on one charge of the battery? What about how its lighter then the 7d? What about how its in improvement on the 7d?

More battery life is nice. But as was pointed out already, one battery is never enough (well, maybe for a Kindle where you charge it once a month). Get a battery grip, and you get a 100% improvement. Lighter? Wow, then the 60D must be way better than a 1DIV, because the latter so heavy. Besides weight and battery life, how is the 60D better than the 7D? I'll take a more robust body, weather sealing, much better AF, faster frame rate, deeper buffer, a 100%/1x VF, more shutter life, etc., and I'll 'suffer' with the extra 145 g.

Oh wait, I just realized the 60D's main improvement on the 7D - it offers awesome in-camera processing effects:

I especially like TOY CAMERA...

One trueism is that whether you take photos or video with the 7d or the 60d, most people would be pressed to tell them apart. To most people, it would appear as the same camera...I bet to most pros it would appear as the same camera.

You could certainly say the same about the T2i and the 60D, or the T2i and the 7D. They're using the same basic sensor. But by extension, this is true across the board. Make a 4x6" print of the same static scene shot with a Rebel XS and a 1DsIII and you'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart.



Here's an idea, canonman...instead of reading what other people write and restating it here as if it were the gospel, why don't you share some of your personal experience. You state that you, "...use Canon cameras and lenses nearly everyday." Instead of daring others, have you tried AFMA? Of course, if what you read on forums has convinced you that it's useless, why waste your time? Or, maybe the New Yawwwwk abrasiveness has rubbed away your expectation of what constitutes a sharp image...

As for me, my personal experience is that AMFA is an extremely useful feature.

 

[canonman]

I will tell you my personal experience. My personal experience is that its not needed. I have never used it nor would I want to mess with it because I simply don't have the time. There was a time a few years back when cameras did not even come with it. How did you deal with it when it was not there? I know how you dealt with it...the process was to send your gear to the repair depot. There are plenty of workshops around NYC and what we would do is use a local workshop.

I think you will find most, if not all, Canon L lenses to be tack sharp and to work well with most any Canon model.

I think Dpreview said it best when they said they did not need the adjustment even with their own most demanding lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos60D/page9.asp

"We had few problems with AF accuracy though, even when using the hugely demanding EF 50mm F1.2 L USM lens. Naturally, there is always the risk that playing with fine adjustment might cause more problems than it solves, but the simple fact that there is no longer any capability to fine-tune AF might be a deal-breaker for some users."

Lastly, my experience is that many problems are oftentimes the result of the photographer not the camera.

 

[Grendel]

3) Micro-adjusting a lens is not a quick process. Most users report spending all day doing it. Some users end up setting it back at zero as their pictures come out even more messed up then before.

Doesn't take me more than 60min to create a profile for a zoom. Less than it would take me to ship a lens to Canon. Also I can actually use the lens right away vs. waiting two weeks to get it back. Saves time & money, even after buying a LensAlign tool.

In conclusion, do you need microadjust? I really dont think so.

*Shrug* Your milage obviousely varies, but having MA in my 7D & 5DII saved me a lot of time & money.

 

[Loswr]

I think you will find most, if not all, Canon L lenses to be tack sharp and to work well with most any Canon model.

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'well.' If I autofocus on a subject's eye with my 85L, and get blurry eyelashes but absolutely tack sharp nose hairs or earlobes, that's not 'working well,' especially for a 20x30" print.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

There was a time a few years back when cameras did not even come with it. How did you deal with it when it was not there? I know how you dealt with it...the process was to send your gear to the repair depot.

Of course, this is the whole reason microadjustment existed in the first place - they doubtless wanted to free up the service queue for people who actually had problems that truly needed the service desk.

If DSLRs are going to be touted as quality instruments, people ought to have the ability to at least work out the kinks. With leaving out microadjustment, Canon is saying you're not welcome to go the service route to adjust a lens to match a given body, and you're also not welcome to do it yourself. So basically piss off if you want focus accuracy but aren't coming in with loads of cash and a willingness to carry a heavier body. That sort of marketing technique stinks...but I still love ya, Canon, even though you do it all the time.

On lenses that change focus distance when focal length is change, I'd expect that the relationship between focus distance and focal length may not only not be linear, but may not be a smooth curve either, especially if it's some lens with a cheap rattling plastic geartrain. Beyond that, I'll admit that I'm not quite sure why lenses should front- or back-focus, aside from the AF chip being misaligned (which also seems suspicious), so why the through-lens focusing shouldn't work every time (even at different focal lengths) is a bit beyond me. You'd think that with the light coming through the image, and without having to worry about infrared shift or lens movement, that it'd be consistent.

 

[epsiloneri]

Ok, so I have a few questions for neuroanatomist:

1) You now have a 5D2 in addition to your 7D. Have you retested your lenses with you new body? Do you find a constant offset from your adjustments for 7D? In principle I think you should be able to, and that would mean it would be sufficient to only measure one lens, say a sensitive one like your 85/1.2L, and then apply the difference between the MA for that lens and 7D and MA for 5D2 to all other lenses to have the calibration to 5D2 without having to remeasure all lenses. I don't know if this works in practice, however, as it assumes the MA scale is linear which it may not be (I don't know). It would therefore be interesting to read your experience!

2) Have you tried to use an interference image on a computer screen as a focus target instead of the LenAlign Pro? I mean as detailed in this post by Keith Cooper.

3) Have you attempted to check whether there is a distance dependence to the optimal MA for your lenses? I've seen recommended distances for measurements to be 25-50 times the focal length, but I'm curious how well the adjustment works for other distances as well.

Something that would simplify MA would be to have a "calibration wizard" where you 1) autofocused on a target and 2) set the optimal focus manually (using live view). The camera should then be able to compute the corresponding MA itself. (This could even be generalised to MA as a function of distance.) This would ideally decrease the time required for a lens calibration to a few minutes instead of an hour.

Another thing I would love to see is focus bracketing. It was available on my Canon G2, but I haven't seen it since.

 

[Loswr]

1) You now have a 5D2 in addition to your 7D. Have you retested your lenses with you new body? Do you find a constant offset from your adjustments for 7D? In principle I think you should be able to, and that would mean it would be sufficient to only measure one lens, say a sensitive one like your 85/1.2L, and then apply the difference between the MA for that lens and 7D and MA for 5D2 to all other lenses to have the calibration to 5D2 without having to remeasure all lenses. I don't know if this works in practice, however, as it assumes the MA scale is linear which it may not be (I don't know). It would therefore be interesting to read your experience!

I have tested the lenses on the 5DII (and I retested them on the 7D at the same time). The theory seems plausible, but the practice turned out different.

For example, in my case:

• The 16-35mm f/2.8L II requires an adjustment on the 5DII that is 4 units negative relative to the adjustment on the 7D.
• The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II requires an adjustment on the 5DII that is 4 units negative relative to the adjustment on the 7D.
• The 85mm f/1.2L II requires an adjustment on the 5DII that is 2 units positive relative to the adjustment on the 7D.
• The 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS requires an adjustment on the 5DII that is 6 units positive relative to the adjustment on the 7D.
• The 24-105mm f/4L IS requires the same adjustment value on both my 7D and my 5DII.

I had thought there would likely be systematic differences - a particular camera was x units off of 'true', and a particular lens was y units off of 'true', in theory if you knew those values for a given camera and lens you could predict what the AMFA should be for the combination of them. But in practice, that's not the case - each combination (at least with the bodies and lenses at my disposal) seems unique. So, from a theoretical standpoint it's a mystery - since AF is achieved by iterative feedback between lens and body, that may play into it. From a pragmatic standpoint, it's irrelevant - I will just continue to do an AFMA for each body+lens combo I have...

2) Have you tried to use an interference image on a computer screen as a focus target instead of the LenAlign Pro? I mean as detailed in this post by Keith Cooper.

I gave it one try - I found that I could move the camera back and forth a considerable distance without seeing a visible change in the moire pattern on the camera LCD (differences that would move the DoF 'window' on the LensAlign). Partly that's an issue with making judgements based on the on-camera LCD...more on that later.

The other issue with that method (and with focusing on any image as a target) is the alignment of the target with the camera's sensor. Ideally, you want the target to be completely flat and perfectly parallel to the sensor. That's really a main function of the LensAlign tool - the sighting gates that allow you to align the target to the camera. If not for that, I could just prop a ruler against a wall and have saved a few bucks.

3) Have you attempted to check whether there is a distance dependence to the optimal MA for your lenses? I've seen recommended distances for measurements to be 25-50 times the focal length, but I'm curious how well the adjustment works for other distances as well.

I have haven't done an exhaustive test, but I checked with the 85L at the MFD, 25x focal length, and 50x focal length and all three measurements were within one AFMA unit (e.g. the adjustment values were something like +5/+4/+5). That's within the tolerance of the process, I think.

Something that would simplify MA would be to have a "calibration wizard" where you 1) autofocused on a target and 2) set the optimal focus manually (using live view). The camera should then be able to compute the corresponding MA itself. (This could even be generalised to MA as a function of distance.) This would ideally decrease the time required for a lens calibration to a few minutes instead of an hour.

I'm not convinced that would work as accurately. The limitation on the Live View method is the resolution of the LCD on the camera. With that method, you are in large part judging best focus by the sharpness of the 10x magnified image on the camera display. How many times does something look nice and sharp even when zoomed all the way in on the on-board LCD, but when you transfer the image to your computer you find that it's a little off.

I know that Live View focusing at 10x is a common practice - I use that for macro and TS-E shooting. But there are two problems with using it for AFMA. The first is that 10x Live View (at least on the 5DII and 7D) is magnified beyond 1:1 (it's 1.14:1 for the 5DII and 1.23:1 for the 7D) - I'm not sure what algorithms Canon uses for the interpolation, but regardless, upscaling is bad for sharpness.

The second issue is that viewing an image at 10x on the LCD to judge sharpness is not the same thing as focusing using 10x Live View, at least not for me. When I focus using Live View, it's an active, iterative process with visual feedback (just like the camera's autofocus, only I'm a lot slower) - I move the ring back and forth a few times to make sure I'm centered on the region where I want critical focus. If you AF on a point then switch to 10x Live View and see if it's sharp, that's static viewing; if you then rack the focus to check if the AF hit the spot, how do you know you're ending up at the same point? I think the only way to know for sure is to actually take the shot with AF then take the shot with MF 10x Live View, and view them on a larger display. Not just one shot, either. AF accuracy should be normally distributed (in the statistical sense) around the point of best focus - but a normal distribution doesn't mean spot on that best point every time. So you still need to take multiple shots. Ultimately I think the best way to judge is not to compare AF vs. 10x Live View MF on a single shot (or without a shot at all), but rather to apply stepwise adjustments and compare the results over several shots. Once you factor in the need to do that multiple times at each adjustment setting, I'm not sure that using AF and 10x Live View MF offers any time savings for AFMA, compared to just shooting the target with AF at a range of adjustment settings.

That's an advantage to a tool like the LensAlign - you're setting AFMA based on a DoF scale, so that the plane of focus is centered on an angled ruler that's precision-aligned to the focus target. I find that my quick reviews on the LCD (to make sure I've got the optimal adjustment bracketed within +10 to -10) usually give an estimate that's close to the final chosen setting (but not always exact, usually within 1 or 2 units). The ruler means you're partly judging by sharpness, but really by the location of the region of sharpness as it moves along the ruler from setting to setting, as opposed to within-shot sharpness. Of course, after selecting and applying an AFMA to a lens, I always re-check the sharpness of AF shots in a 'real-world' setting (often my daughters eyelashes) - but again, that's checking at 100% on the computer.

That's why the 'unofficial but Chuck Westfall-recommended so as official as unofficial gets' procedure for AFMA involves viewing images at 100% on your computer to judge sharpness.

Another thing I would love to see is focus bracketing. It was available on my Canon G2, but I haven't seen it since.

Indeed, that would be nice, especially for macro shooting!

 

[canonman]

If DSLRs are going to be touted as quality instruments, people ought to have the ability to at least work out the kinks.

My shower broke recently. I could have gone down to Home Depot and "worked out the kink", however, I know that there is a trick to every trade and it may look easy to do, but wait until you start fixing the plumbing and you end up screwing it up even more.

The microadjust may seem like a whambam 2-minute type deal...just adjust it up a few notches and done...however, it is just not that easy. Hey, if you want to spend all day adjusting that cheap Canon 50mm 1.8 or that Sigma 1.4 then be my guest, but is it worth it to spend 10 hours to finetune a prime? How much is your time worth?

As a professional photographer, when you get a call then you have to answer it. If you dont answer it, then they move to the next guy on the list. Now if you do answer and your equipment is out of focus and you mess up a job, then that will ruin your rep. The microadjust was put on the camera so you can temporarily fix your gear in an emergency situation, but its not a permanent fix or a substitute for a qualified repair lab.

Finetune your gear with the microadjust, but don't forget to tell us how long it took you and if after a week of shooting you didnt put the settings back to the original because your pictures were not right. I don't mess with such things because there is a trick to every trade. I am a photographer not a camera/lens engineer. Let the experts handle these matters.

 

[epsiloneri]

Thanks for your reply!

From a pragmatic standpoint, it's irrelevant - I will just continue to do an AFMA for each body+lens combo I have...

Except that it would simplify things a lot if it worked that way... you wouldn't have to measure each lens/body combination. Too bad it doesn't!

The other issue with that method (and with focusing on any image as a target) is the alignment of the target with the camera's sensor. Ideally, you want the target to be completely flat and perfectly parallel to the sensor. That's really a main function of the LensAlign tool - the sighting gates that allow you to align the target to the camera. If not for that, I could just prop a ruler against a wall and have saved a few bucks.

Actually, I have figured out a very simple way of achieving perfect alignment. Just take a flat mirror and fix it flat against the screen. Then make sure you see the reflection of the camera centered through the viewfinder, where you want it to be centered on the screen. This will ensure that the screen is perpendicular to the optical axis. I don't have a convenient flat mirror at home, so I use a CD that I tape onto the screen (it's reflective and flat enough). I haven't actually started to measure MAs yet, just wanted to poll your experience before I do.

I have found that live view manual focus works very well for me (on the 7D), I don't seem to have the problems you do. Best focus seems well defined, though I sometimes find that the focus ring could be more precise. Very seldom do I find the focus even slightly off in manually focused images. Much more common is slight motion blur (even with tripod). Contrast AF using live view usually also works as well (on well-lit objects). Both methods are always as accurate or better than AF-sensor AF (albeit much slower).

Non-integer up-scaling likely removes some contrast in the image, but the optimal focus probably still produces the sharpest image, even in the up-scaled version. Usually I find even the best resolution to be quite coarser than the pixel resolution of the sensor. This may in part be due to the anti-aliasing filter on the sensor.

If you AF on a point then switch to 10x Live View and see if it's sharp, that's static viewing; if you then rack the focus to check if the AF hit the spot, how do you know you're ending up at the same point?

Hmmm, I don't think I understand... I imagine the procedure as follows:

1) AF focus on a target, say a properly aligned focus target. The camera registers what it thinks is the best focus.
2) Without moving the camera or the focus tagert, go to 10x live view and manually focus to what you think is the best focus, push a button or something for the camera to register what your preferred focus is.
3) The camera makes use of info from 1 and 2 to compute MA.

No need to go back to what the AF thought best... or am I misunderstanding? This procedure of course assumes that you are better than the AF at focusing (under static conditions), but in my case I've found that to always be the case. Alternatively, one could let the camera itself compare the AF between the AF sensors and the live view contrast AF, and compute MA under the assumption that live view AF is more accurate. That would be even simpler, and according to my experience, live view contrast AF is nearly always accurate (but slower). Contrast AF is not affected by front/back focus issues, since it uses the actual detected image for AF, so it would be perfect to correct for AF sensor MA. I can imagine setting up the camera on a tripod and align it to a focus target, select "calibrate AF" from a camera menu, and then let the camera automatically cycle through 10 AF measurement cycles (say), computing the best MA. Why not, Canon?

 

[Loswr]

My shower broke recently. I could have gone down to Home Depot and "worked out the kink", however, I know that there is a trick to every trade and it may look easy to do, but wait until you start fixing the plumbing and you end up screwing it up even more.

Sure. If my lens wasn't stopping down to the selected aperture for the shot or the IS wasn't working, I'd send it in to Canon. There a significant difference between "repair" and "adjustment." If the water coming out of your shower head was a little too cold even when turned all the way to Hot, would you call a plumber and pay a few hundred dollars for him to twist the little red knob on your water heater to a higher setpoint? I know I wouldn't.

 

[Loswr]

Actually, I have figured out a very simple way of achieving perfect alignment. Just take a flat mirror and fix it flat against the screen. Then make sure you see the reflection of the camera centered through the viewfinder, where you want it to be centered on the screen. This will ensure that the screen is perpendicular to the optical axis. I don't have a convenient flat mirror at home, so I use a CD that I tape onto the screen (it's reflective and flat enough). I haven't actually started to measure MAs yet, just wanted to poll your experience before I do.

Makes sense, sounds worth trying.

I have found that live view manual focus works very well for me (on the 7D), I don't seem to have the problems you do. Best focus seems well defined, though I sometimes find that the focus ring could be more precise. Very seldom do I find the focus even slightly off in manually focused images. Much more common is slight motion blur (even with tripod). Contrast AF using live view usually also works as well (on well-lit objects). Both methods are always as accurate or better than AF-sensor AF (albeit much slower).

Live View MF works just fine for me. My point was that if you take a picture (i.e. with AF) then zoom it to 10x on the review, it might look sharp - but when you view it at 100% on your computer, you may find the focus was off a bit. The difference is that when focusing you are actively setting the focus manually, you're in effect performing iterative focus bracketing, which is quite accurate. Just viewing an image is not as accurate, since it you don't know if it would be just a little sharper if you had turned the focus ring fractionally.

This procedure of course assumes that you are better than the AF at focusing (under static conditions), but in my case I've found that to always be the case.

This is true with Live View, not necessarily through the VF (especially with fast lenses and a standard focusing screen, since in the VF you're seeing the DoF of ~f/2.5 even with a much faster lens).

Hmmm, I don't think I understand... I imagine the procedure as follows:

1) AF focus on a target, say a properly aligned focus target. The camera registers what it thinks is the best focus.
2) Without moving the camera or the focus tagert, go to 10x live view and manually focus to what you think is the best focus, push a button or something for the camera to register what your preferred focus is.
3) The camera makes use of info from 1 and 2 to compute MA.

No need to go back to what the AF thought best... or am I misunderstanding?

Alternatively, one could let the camera itself compare the AF between the AF sensors and the live view contrast AF, and compute MA under the assumption that live view AF is more accurate. That would be even simpler, and according to my experience, live view contrast AF is nearly always accurate (but slower). Contrast AF is not affected by front/back focus issues, since it uses the actual detected image for AF, so it would be perfect to correct for AF sensor MA. I can imagine setting up the camera on a tripod and align it to a focus target, select "calibrate AF" from a camera menu, and then let the camera automatically cycle through 10 AF measurement cycles (say), computing the best MA. Why not, Canon?

No, I was. I was putting it in terms of what is possible now...if Canon were to implement this in firmware, it could work as you describe (and would be great!). In particular, the automatic contrast AF compared to phase AF routine would be wonderful - Canon could even sell a branded focus target!

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The deal is...for people (like me and others in this thread) who are happy to compose images and focus manually with Live View, autofocus accuracy obvious isn't as big a deal as it might be for people who need accurate results quickly - like sports shooters. If I had one of the early 1D Mark IIIs I would pronounce it nearly perfect for everything...if I was using it for landscapes where the infamous autofocus problems would mean precisely nothing. Perhaps it's a sign of differing needs that some people consider the AF issues on that camera fixed, while others say (and have provided evidence) that it actually never did get up to their standards, even after a fix.

So, in the (IMHO) unlikely event that you shoot nothing but landscapes and still life where you manually focus (and that has described my shooting thus far), Canon would be right on the money to say you don't need AF microadjustment - Live View is what you use and the rest is needless expenditure. But almost everybody uses AF now and then, however, and it's especially when shooting at times when quick, good technique is key that I suspect AF microadjust pays off.

 

[Alex 007]

Hello!

I'm a newer Canon owner from Terra santa...Israel. Decided to own for the first time a canon brand DSLR...(Own a Pentax 10K, Nikon D300/ Fuji S3/KM Minolta 7D & a Sony A900), now added a Canon...selected specially the 60D ONLY with one specific lens a 1,4/50mm prime USM lens...for snap porttrits from my first Grandson.''

However...noticed that the focus isn't 100% accurately wide open with my combo 60D?.

Was acquired here in the biggest "Gray" photo store en Tel-Aviv...the body is officially market for US/Canada...my selected lens is specifically market for the Japaneses market...can made photos to assure to all of you what got it?.

Why such good "Combination"...don't produce astonishing 100% perfectly in focus sharpness?.

BTW...had another issue...internally built in flash, don't "Pop Up"...after...that I remove my "Nikon" brand shoe cover???. Fortunally read what happen with a "Micro-Switch"...white one behind the shoe lengt...that "Stuck" it...so with a little scrowdriver I lift such "Micro-Switch"...behind the flash shoe...& return to work again...NOW...don't guard/slide my "Nikon" brand shoe keeper clean. As again will happen such "Micro-Switch" failure???!

Thanks for your cute/guru responses.

Peace,

Alex 007

 

[kubelik]

alex, you've lost me in the second half regarding the nikon shoe... but in terms of the 60D and 50 f/1.4 combo:

as lots of people have noted, it's easy for a wide-aperture standard or wide angle prime to have AF that's just a wee bit off. out of all my canon lenses, the 50 f/1.4 is the only one I had to use microadjust on. since you have a 60D, you don't have the microadjustment feature available to you. I'd recommend you contact your local Canon service center and see if they're willing to provide calibration services for you (I assume they'll do it, but I also assume they'll charge you money for it)

since it sounds like you're not a novice dslr shooter I won't raise the usual concern of "do you realize that all dslr images need sharpening applied because of the AA filter" ... but otherwise that would have been my second comment.

 

[kubelik]

Finetune your gear with the microadjust, but don't forget to tell us how long it took you and if after a week of shooting you didnt put the settings back to the original because your pictures were not right. I don't mess with such things because there is a trick to every trade. I am a photographer not a camera/lens engineer. Let the experts handle these matters.

I applied microadjustment fairly casually in the middle of a very protracted and boring event (I was not a hired shooter for the event, just a spectator) by taking photos at various distances from different subjects, judging how far the focus was off, and then applying adjustment settings and re-shooting, continuing until I was happy.

probably took me about 10 minutes (which was disappointing, I was hoping it'd distract me longer) and I've been very happy with my 50 f/1.4's AF accuracy on my 5D Mark II since then.

I understand that not everyone wants to use their microadjust function -- nobody is forcing anyone else to. but making it sound like it's horribly difficult or possibly damaging in unneccessarily alarmist and can turn some folks off to what is really a pretty straightforward, innocuous, and useful feature.

 

[Loswr]

alex, you've lost me in the second half regarding the nikon shoe...

I assume he means something like THIS (Amazon link). That one, like most of the 3rd party hotshoe covers sold for (and listed as compatible with) Canon dSLRs, press the microswitch at the front of the hotshoe and 'trick' the camera into thinking an external flash is mounted, which disables the pop-up flash.

Richard Franiec sells hotshoe covers specifically designed for Canon cameras that do not press the microswitch. They are available HERE, and it looks like he ships internationally. He also makes a very nice little grip for the S90/S95 which provides a more secure and ergonomic feel to that great little camera. That grip was how I became aware of his well-made custom products.

Alex, I agree that it sounds like you've got a slightly miscalibrated lens/camera combo, and such things are usually most evident with wide aperture prime lenses (since narrower apertures result in deeper depth of field, which masks the effect of a slight misfocusing). If you have time to shoot in Live View with Live AF or manual focus, that will take care of critical focus (Quick AF will not, since that still uses the AF sensor). Else, as kubelik stated, with a 60D there's no do-it-yourself option to microadjust the AF system lens by lens, so you'd need Canon Service to perform the adjustment (and you'd need to send in the body and the 50mm f/1.4 lens in to them, along with all your other lenses, because if they adjust the body to match the 50/1.4, then your other lenses might no longer be correctly adjusted).

 

[Admin US West]

Richard Franiec sells hotshoe covers specifically designed for Canon cameras that do not press the microswitch. They are available HERE, and it looks like he ships internationally. He also makes a very nice little grip for the S90/S95 which provides a more secure and ergonomic feel to that great little camera. That grip was how I became aware of his well-made custom products.

That grip sounds like a big improvement for those of us with large hands. I sold my S90 because my hands were too large. Unfortunately, I cannot push some of the buttons, I have to hold my fingers carefully so my fingernail pushes the button, and about 50% of the time, the wrong one got pushed.

However, I'm glad that there are choices, many, if not most will have no problem with the button size and spacing.