Reikan FoCal - Automatic AF Micro adjustment software

[HDNitehawk]

John

Taking a look at your results, it is no wonder people have trouble doing this with cereal boxes and yard sticks.
I would have a problem just picking what number to use as an average.

Looking at your results with the 5D II and the 70-200mm they are similar to the results that I was seeing with the lensalign. If you were to graph the AF performance in relation to the lens length, initially to me it seems the lens has an elongated S curve the optimum AF point follows. The designers of the lens obviously know this. I wonder what point on the lens did they use to determine what point would be the zero point for optimum AF performance. Say if they use the point where the lens is extended to 145mm it would give the best average for the lens throughout. It would be nice to have this information, maybe if someone were to ask nicely Canon would tell us the best point to establish an AF adjustment point is at XXXmm......probably not....

Rick

[neuroanatomist]

FWIW, here are the results from a few more lenses tested on the 7D:

Lens	Focal length	50x AFMA	25x AFMA	Selected AFMA
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM	70mm	5	4	2
	135mm	1	3
	200mm	1	2
EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM	85mm	1	-2	-1
EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM	100mm	2	3	2
	~MFD: 0 or 4 (n=2)
EF 135mm f/2L USM	135mm	5	1	3

This just leaves the 100-400mm and the 70-200mm with 1.4x and 2x TCs, holding off until it's a bit warmer outside...

[AndrewIC]

The sorts of data which can now be collected are making even the two-point AFMA on the 1D-X seem needlessly primitive. With the right software one can get a whole heap of AFMA data in, what, maybe an hour per lens--body combination? Distilling this down to one pair of AFMA values (or worse, a single AFMA value) is then in a needless compromise, especially given it's only a software issue. I agree with John's observation that the correction is non-linear. My preference would be to be able to provide to the camera exactly the sort of grids being posted in this thread -- the AFMA given a focal length and distance-to-subject -- and have it extrapolate between points.

(The cynic in me wonders if the AFMA feature is deliberately crippled. At the risk of opening a can of worms, third-party lenses seem to need more correction, so a comprehensive AFMA mechanism would allow any deficiences to be compensated for. Or, even with Canon lenses, if they calibrate them after the warranty period, they pocket a nice fee.)

[Bill_in_WA]

Like many others in this thread I have been contemplaating the calibration of my 7D and 5D MKII to my 6 Canon lenses. While both LensAlign and SpyderLensCal have performed well for many people I was hoping that there might be something better on the horizon. Once again I wrote to Bryan and, once again, he had a great suggestion... FoCal... and this thread.
Have read the theory of FoCal until my eyes glazed over and have found the information on the site and in this thread very illuminating. One question I did have came to mind when I read the posting from John relative to doing a calibration with a 1.4X TC attached to his 70/200. I am going to both admit and show my ignorance by asking how, exactly, would the camera AFMA go about identifying a lens with a TC on it and how would it be listed/registered within the index of AFMA lens in the camera?
I have long thought that both my 100-400 and 70/200 have been a bit soft with the TC (and the 100-400 by itself). FoCal may just be woth its weight in gold to a "non-techie" "sort-of techie" like myself. Thanks for any help or suggestions any of you may make.
Bill

[HDNitehawk]

One question I did have came to mind when I read the posting from John relative to doing a calibration with a 1.4X TC attached to his 70/200. I am going to both admit and show my ignorance by asking how, exactly, would the camera AFMA go about identifying a lens with a TC on it and how would it be listed/registered within the index of AFMA lens in the camera?
I have long thought that both my 100-400 and 70/200 have been a bit soft with the TC (and the 100-400 by itself). FoCal may just be woth its weight in gold to a "non-techie" "sort-of techie" like myself. Thanks for any help or suggestions any of you may make.
Bill

The camera knows you have the TC on, as long as it is a Canon TC.
I always thought the same when using the TC with zoom lenses that the TC was to "soft". The 70-200mm II might be close to performing acceptable with the TC on but I have never had a need for it, really I have only found the 1.4x acceptable on the super telephotos and primes. Really it all depends on what you think is "acceptable" and my opinion may not match others.

[Bill_in_WA]

The camera knows you have the TC on, as long as it is a Canon TC.
I always thought the same when using the TC with zoom lenses that the TC was to "soft". The 70-200mm II might be close to performing acceptable with the TC on but I have never had a need for it, really I have only found the 1.4x acceptable on the super telephotos and primes. Really it all depends on what you think is "acceptable" and my opinion may not match others.

Thanks for the information... Yes, it is a Canon TC and I had a "Senior Moment" on the 70-200 issue... What I shoul have written in is the 100-400. As I gain more knowledge I am not so sure that taking the 100-400 and screwing on a TC might not be presenting a lot of variables in AF... maybe a bit too many. We'll see what happens... it should be interesting. Just ordered the FoCal Pro so I'm sure I will be back on asking more questions.
Bill

[conropl]

...I have long thought that both my 100-400 and 70/200 have been a bit soft with the TC (and the 100-400 by itself). FoCal may just be woth its weight in gold to a "non-techie" "sort-of techie" like myself. Thanks for any help or suggestions any of you may make.
Bill

Your 100-400 will not focus with the 1.4x TC attached, so I do not think FoCal will help you with that combo.

[neuroanatomist]

As Rick states, the camera is aware of the presence of the TC, and even records it in the EXIF data. I think the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II does pretty well with teleconverters. Here are links to three examples:

• 7D with 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and 1.4x II
• 7D with 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and 2x II
• 5DII with 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and 2x II

Note that the two shots with the 7D are both at ISO 3200, which is pretty noisy, and the first shot was shot in heavy mist/drizzle (which is why I was using the 70-200+TC instead of the 100-400, since the latter is not weather sealed.

Back to the point at hand, the EXIF for the middle shot, for example, shows the lens as "EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +2.0x" and the focal length as 400mm.

So, you have to calibrate each lens and lens + TC combination separately, and each combo counts against your max of 20 stored adjustments.

FWIW, the 1D X will go a step further and actually associate adjustments with the serial numbers of the lens and/or teleconverter - useful for studios with multiple copies of lenses that require differnet adjustments, since other cameras wouldn't know my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II from Rick's copy of the lens, and so would apply the set adjustment to any lens of that type.

While I think the 70-200 II plus TCs delivers usable images, I was less pleased with the 100-400 + TCs, it just doesn't stand up to them that well (and as Pat states, unless you nave a 1D III, 1Ds III, or 1D IV, you can't AF with the 100-400 + 1.4x anyway, fo FoCal wouldn't be of any use...

[HDNitehawk]

Bill

You had mentioned that you thought your copy of the 100-400mm is soft even without the TC. If your comparison is against a 70-200mm F2.8L II then I think indeed it would feel soft as the 70-200mm is a much better lens IMO. As mentioned your 7D and 5D II wouldn't focus with the teleconverter anyway. But that really shouldn't matter in your decision to get foCal because it is your camera that will not focus at F/8 no matter what type of system you use to set your AF adjustment. Another thing is shooting with a TC on the 100-400mm may not matter to you any way, because it may never produce the quality you are looking for. I suggest you test your 100-400mm to see if it is really soft, or it is another problem. Set it up on a tripod and take test shots using live view and focus on 10x. If you can't get what you believe is acceptable sharp IQ doing this, doing AF adjustments will not help.

Good Luck
Rick

[MeHoo]

I purchased this software the last time it was mentioned on this site. I've since calibrated all of my lenses with the exception of one very specific combination.

I am using a 7D with the latest firmware.

My Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM lens and Canon EF 2x III Extender do not calibrate properly together, giving some weird error that nobody seems to know what it means. The lens calibrates properly by itself, and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM calibrates properly with the extender, but I think the problem is that with that 400mm combination, the lens actually reports to the body that it's in manual focus mode (as seen in the quick menu), EXCEPT in liveview, you can still get autofocus to work in liveview. I'm assuming liveview uses a different AF method that is still working. I figured if you can AF using the shutter or liveview, Focal would still work, but I guess not. I have been in touch with Rich about the issue. He has tried to work with me over many emails, but ultimately just never responded to my last one. Benefit of the doubt, but I would have liked to hear the reason why from the people who write the software instead of me guessing... But that's neither here nor there.

The software works really well. I calibrated all of my lenses within a few nights using the purchased target and my apartment with a couple of LED video lights on the target. It takes maybe 30-50 shots to calibrate normally, and the results are visually obvious. It also allows you to see how bad a lens may be as far as accuracy with AF. I calibrated each lens three times and a couple of the cheaper/older canon lenses had issues between the three tests, with very large variety in the scores. Re-stabilizing my tripod and testing again seems to have narrowed that gap to an acceptable window, to which I just took the average.

All in all, I'd recommend the software without batting an eye. I think Rich is great but maybe just a bit overwhelmed over there. For the price, this software adds a very valuable modification to my kit. A lens that cost me $6500 was -15 off on the AF micro-adjust after three consecutive tests!! That's simply huge and extremely obvious on a 1:1 crop.

Hope this helps, and I hope that I've been fair and honest in my review, as I've definitely tried to be.

I just wish that my 7D could do stepped AF microadjust. I'd love to get settings for my 70-200 throughout the range.