Until today I only used Nikon cameras and Nikkor lenses. And therefore I don´t any experience with the Canon gear. I bought a 5DMarkII and four lenses:
EF 16-35 USM II, EF 24-105 IS USM, EF 28-135 IS USM, EF 70-300 IS DO USM
What are your experiences with the microadjustment. In the manual of the 5DMarkII you read: Normally the microadjustment is not required. Do it only if necessary.
Thanks in advance for your reply.
This may help:
http://www.canon5dtips.com/2009/06/custom-function-autofocus-micro-adjustment/
Hello,
thanks for the advice. I visited the mentioned website.
my conclusion is: if you want a precise sharpness apply the microadjustment. If it is too much work, leave it and be satisfied with the given quality.
Obviously Canon used the term........normally microadjustment is not required.......... to prevent that buyers may think that the lenses could be better and prevent a lot of send backs to the repair stations.
btw. Nikon doesn´t offer microadjustment. If have never heard before about that.
Have a nice weekend
regards
Roland
I've been looking into the AF Microadjustment a fair bit lately, and am planning to order the LensAlign tool from B&H to assist very shortly. From some of the research I've done on the internet it would appear that most body/lens combinations can benefit from (or are in just plain need of) some Microadjustment. Particularly fast lenses (f/2.8 and larger), that are commonly shot wide open. While lenses slower than say f/4 may be susceptible to a little front or back focusing, the depth of field is usually large enough that it's not really perceptible to the human eye when viewing it at 100% - the same is true of fast lenses that are typically shot at say f/8 or smaller (Microadjustments are not going to be particularly beneficial). Many professional photographers admit that they never thought their bodies needed any adjustment, until they actually tested it and adjusted it for themselves. All my lenses are f/2.8 or faster, and shot wide open 98% of the time (indoor sports) - I'm hoping to see some improvement (especially with my 50mm f/1.2). Based upon the lenses that you've indicated (and also taking into consideration the type of photography you plan to do), you may not benefit a great deal from AF Microadjustment. Sure your 16-35mm is f/2.8, but it's also fairly wide angle, so it may not be all that critical either.
I have no exerience with the Micro-adjustment, but I was wondering why you bought both the 24-105/4L IS and the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS?
Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan
Thats was the first thing I noticed. Why did you buy both anyway?
with a APS-C camera a 24-105/4 L IS has the nearly the same zoom range like the 28-135 with a FF camera.
I decided to buy a 1D MarkIV. So I can indepently use the cameras with one or the other lens. I always had two bodies, because the younger of my sons (36 and 30) "needs" Daddys and sometimes brings it back only 2 weeks after. But often he takes nice pictures of his girlfriend. I like both, the pictures and the girl friend.
When you set out to shoot snapshot and events for instance a wedding it is most useful to have two cameras. One with a standard zoom and the other with a thelephoto zoom.
I will sell my entire Nikon gear.
regards Roland
Just out of my curiosity, why you chose to switch from NIKON's house to CANON's?
Please excuse me: The 1DMarkIV is a APS-H Camera not a APS-C. My Nikon D90 is a APS-C.
Hi,
If you feel like hearing/reading the whole story take seat and let me begin.
For 30 years I had a Nikon gear, all in all 15 cameras with numberous lenses. The film cameras really were excellent. I always had 2 prof Cameras. The last SLRs were the F 5. Every time a new model was launched I bought it together with lenses and sold the "old" ones. It was never a problem. With ebay its even easier nowadays. Buying and selling cameras was (and probably is) kind of a hobby and I like to have the newest model.
Then the DSLRs came up. And a bought the first Nikon DSLR the D100. At this point I must say there was never a problem with the lenses.
As you know Digitalfotography gives much more fun because you can process the images. So I sold the two F5`s and bougth one of the first prof DSLR´s the D2H Then I sold the D100 and bought a second D2H. When the D2X came up (it was faster and had more MP) I bought it. Trusting Nikon I simultaniously sold the TWO D2H
And with this model the problems started: All the pictures had a strong tendency to blue. NO matter if they were taken with or without flash, with all metering methods. I took sample pictures. The dealer couldn´t help me and Nikon Germany couldn´t either. Nikon didn´t make any statement. I returned the camera and got my money back. But I had no camera. There was no Prof camera available any more. Nikon had problems and withdrew the D2X from the market. I was lucky to get a used D2H from the dealer.
Then Nikon launched the D2Xs an improved version of the D2X about 9 months later. It was Nikon´s onliest camera for professional use. (Probably they still sold the very first models D1H and another D??? One was fast with 6 fps but the colors were not good and the ??? was slow and captured good colors. I never had them)
I bought it and it was okay. I sold one D2H and gave the other to my eldest son Martin, 36, who takes photos for the firefighters when they set out.
Early this year I retired and finally had enough time for the photography. Now I can travel more with my wife and I didn´t feel like carrying heavy professionel cameras around anymore. I sold my D2X and bought the D90, lightweighted and versatil. But after so many years of using professional cameras the D90 seemed to be a bit kind of fragile. And I felt that I need another solid camera and I bought the D300 with a handgrip, The D300 is double as much expensive as the D90.
I hope my story is not too boring, but we came to the point now.
Before I bought a new camera I naturally looked up the specs. I only was interested in Nikon cameras. One reason was surely that could use the lenses, flashs and so one with the next camera. And also, like Canon Nikon has its own philosophy in the functions, and I was used to it. What I read was okay for me., MP, metering, AF, fps, etc. But Nikon never published (like Canon) how many frames you can take continuously before the camera gets slow or stops. Although I always set the camera to continuous shooting and AFmode automatically (it is different between N and C) I never had a problem with that. I don´t photograph sports and during the wedding in the church for instance when they exchange the rings and you burst 5 times or so, it plays no roll.
But last summer the girlfriend of my younger son Maximilian, she is a passionate waterskieer, I took pictures from her from the boat.
I set the cameras to max. fps (4-5 with the D90 and 6 with the D300). The D90 did the job quite well. The AF is fast. And what we later (you will see) found out, approx 60 frames are possible in a uninterrupted burst. But the "expensive" failed. The 51point AF often couldn´t focus the girl. It took some moments to focus here. But every time, lets say 80 % of the situation when she fell and crashed into the water, the camera stopped in the moment when the moving direction changed. And when Kathrin had dived into the water, the D300 restarted again (I left the finger on the button).
It was completely unsatisfactory and I was dissapointed. Testing the camera, we found out, that only 20-22 frames are possible when you shoot continuously. But we couldn´t find out, why the camera stopped when the subject moved rapidely.
I wrote to Nikon for help and included a CD with samples of continuously shot pictures. The answer was: Set the AF of the D300 from 51 AFpoints to 9 points: the setting of 51 points makes the camera slow!!!!! I followed Nikon´s advice but anything changed. We set out for waterskiing. I took pictures with the AF at 9 points and sent again sample photos (2 CD with approx 600 photos but none with Kathrin crashing into the water) to Nikon.
At that time I started looking for another camera, a FF camera. And for the first time I compared C with N. The Canon info is much more detailled (see above) and there is much more additional info about Canon - see Bryan Carnathan.
After 6 weeks Nikon answered. They adviced: Set the AF to 9 points AND chose the starting AF point MANUALLY. Can you imagine standing on a moving boat only one hand and arm for the camera the other hand and arm to hold myself and then chose the AF point manually.
As I said the D90 did the job quite well. But the D 300 didn´t and the advice from Nikon was rubbish. My impression was that they didn´t want to give a technical info, because the D90 worked well. I sold the D300 and continued looking for a camera more and more on Canon websites and related websites. Because the all the high end models of Nikon have the same AF (51 point) I don´t trust Nikon anymore.
Together with one of the first DSLRs I bought "Nikon Capture NX" for processing images at a price of 199 EUROS. I didn´t use it often becaues the manual is not informative (as Nikon´s entire information). So I bought early this year Adobe Elements 7 at a price of 49,99 EUR + plus a special learning book at 39,95 EUR. Learning was fun and is still fun and the results are completely satisfying.
I took images with the D90 and capture them as RAW/NEF files and JPEG. I only can open with Elements the JPEG DSC_xxx.jpg(1) If I only capture NEF the ACR of Elements opens the NEF. I tried to open RAW/NEF and JPEG with Capture NX. That didn´t work. I asked Nikon what to do. They told me Nikon Capture NX is not able to open NEF files at all. You need Capture NX II, at a price of 199 EUR. Updates free of charge for Nikon NX are not available.
So my decision became more and more clear. My future cameras will Canon. Much better info, Digital solution (DPP etc.) for free and,
believe it or not: the CAnon (original) lenses are always a few hundert EUROS cheaper than the Nikon lenses, and the Canon cameras as well. Check it yourself and you will see it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote