FoCal software?

Carlo

Carlo

Messages
1,525
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
Yes
Been looking/reading about this software and wondering if i'd benefit from it? (probably a 'yes'!)
Also which one of the three versions to get should i go for it.
I've a few lenses and like the idea of getting the best out of them withn my two bodies, a 5D3 and 1D3
Question is, has anyone got the software, how easy is it to use, and would you say it's worth the money?
I've had a go at AFMA with one or two lenses with home made charts etc, but found it very time consuming and inconsistent!
Thanks
 
Don't do it unless your sure you have an issue in real world shooting, going looking for problems will drive you nuts in the end!
 
I use it and it does help to get the very best out of your lenses. The software is a little fiddly and is normally pretty close to what I manually adjust the lenses to (by lining up some batteries), but it is good to check I'm not making things worse. I do also agree with that Alex said - I usually only bother with Focal for lenses that I notice are missing focus slightly and I don't bother with zooms (too many variables), just the primes.
 
I bought it, tried to use it, watched the Vids, printed the charts out, went outside with my laptop which was difficult to see in the light they ask you to perform the test in, etc., etc., - just gave up - you almost need a perfect (light) day according to the Vids - gave up in the end and never used it to the end ……..

everything about it is complicated - even down to registering your bodies and the way they try to control this .. you also have to load another piece of software so it works …. forget what it is, but you have to get the right version - I contacted them by email in the end .. but they almost "took it for granted" that you should do this - yet another complication before you can get started …… seems a product that will always need updates?

seems to be built for Canon - I'm a Nikon shooter

I'd try the more "conventional" methods - some are free and very easy, before you blow £100 on it

for me it was a waste of money, and I've got hours to fiddle around - always waiting for perfect conditions that never come along) ……… but just my opinion …….. I'm sure others will differ
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
I bought it, tried to use it, watched the Vids, printed the charts out, went outside with my laptop which was difficult to see in the light they ask you to perform the test in, etc., etc., - just gave up - you almost need a perfect (light) day according to the Vids - gave up in the end and never used it to the end ……..

everything about it is complicated - even down to registering your bodies and the way they try to control this

seems to be built for Canon - I'm a Nikon shooter

I'd try the more "conventional" methods - some are free and very easy, before you blow £100 on it

for me it was a waste of money, and I've got hours to fiddle around - always waiting for perfect conditions that never come along) ……… but just my opinion …….. I'm sure others will differ
Click to expand...

I do know what you mean, but once you are set and done it a couple of times it is less hassle. I've always done mine indoors using a bright halogen lamp on the target from an angle, I can imagine setting it all up outside to be a right PITA.

I bought my copy a few years ago, I might be tempted to try one of the focus pyramid things now, or to build something myself as you say.
 
Last edited:
Carlo said:
Question is, has anyone got the software, how easy is it to use, and would you say it's worth the money?
Click to expand...

Yes, OK, and No.

I bought Focal about 18 months ago and tried it with my Nikon D600. Much like @BillN_33, I gave up with it. I bought the middle version and, to be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I spent many hours trying to perfect my setup but I could never get consistent readings. I would run the process a few times in a row (within minutes of each other) and each time I'd get a different measurement. I tried daylight and artificial light, I had it at the correct distances, I was pretty sure I had everything setup correctly. You may find it slightly easier with Canon as with my Nikon I had to keep changing the setting for each test shot but that may have changed since I last used it.

As has been mentioned, zoom lenses aren't easy to get right anyway, this software just made it even more complicated. In the end I "calibrated" my most used zoom with nothing but my eyeballs and managed to get it to a point where I was happy.

I now have a new body but I doubt I'll use Focal to tune it. I think Focal v2 is supposedly in the works - maybe that'll improve consistency? I may try v2 if I'm given a free upgrade but I certainly won't be paying any more. At the moment I feel it was a waste of £40.
 
psenior1 said:
I do know what you mean, but once you are set and done it a couple of times it is less hassle. I've always done mine indoors using a bright halogen lamp on the target from an angle, I can imagine setting it all up outside to be a right PITA.

I bought my copy a few years ago, I might be tempted to try one of the focus pyramid things now, or to build something myself as you say.
Click to expand...

My frustrations started as soon as I loaded the software .. it would not work until I downloaded another apps from the web to make it work …… as I said, I emailed FoCal and all they said was that I had to do this and find it yourself on the web - I am a Apple user - they do not make this clear when you buy it.

Second, as you indicate, is light - it's OK inside but not really as you have to get the right light value using a lamp ……… plus try calibrating a 300mm or 600mm lens inside the house, you need a sports hall AND the correct light!!!

Then you have to print the charts out on the correct weight of paper …….. then you start trying to understand what they are "on about" - then you find out that it is a semi automatic process UNLESS you shoot Canon … then you have to register the serial number of the body before the app will accept it ….. etc., etc. …… this is all before you start

all bad news in my opinion ……. but as I said just IMHO …….. I bought it, registered two bodies and have never used it ……… for me just a waste of almost £100, (I think that's what i paid as the marketing blurb seem to indicate that the most expensive version was what i needed)

I would think that technically it must have merit, but ease of use will see many fall at the first hurdle … it is something the makers should try to understand
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
My frustrations started as soon as I loaded the software .. it would not work until I downloaded another apps from the web to make it work …… as I said, I emailed FoCal and all they said was that I had to do this and find it yourself on the web - I am a Apple user - they do not make this clear when you buy it.

Second, as you indicate, is light - it's OK inside but not really as you have to get the right light value using a lamp ……… plus try calibrating a 300mm or 600mm lens inside the house, you need a sports hall AND the correct light!!!

Then you have to print the charts out on the correct weight of paper …….. then you start trying to understand what they are "on about" - then you find out that it is a semi automatic process UNLESS you shoot Canon … then you have to register the serial number of the body before the app will accept it ….. etc., etc. …… this is all before you start

all bad news in my opinion ……. but as I said just IMHO …….. I bought it, registered two bodies and have never used it ……… for me just a waste of almost £100, (I think that's what i paid as the marketing blurb seem to indicate that the most expensive version was what i needed)
Click to expand...

longest lens I've done is 85mm, made me chuckle think of doing a 300/600mm indoors!
 
psenior1 said:
longest lens I've done is 85mm, made me chuckle think of doing a 300/600mm indoors!
Click to expand...

You will need a new, longer, tape measure - the ordinary pull out thing is not long enough!!! ……. and of course you need a long flat surface ….. lining the tripod up with the (recommended) high of the chart also takes time ……. and by the time you have done it the sun has gone in and a cloud drifts across ….. my wife thought that I was crazy or lining up the foundations for a new building!
 
Last edited:
Tried it, wouldn't work so couldn't complete a single test on two bodies, got a refund, end.
 
I tried it but it was difficult to set up indoors. I just use a set of 5 small tins on a graduated base so I can change the DOF between the first and last one quickly. I don't even look at the images on the PC just on the camera screen. 15 minutes is all it usually takes to get one pretty much spot on. Its a lot easier with a long lens as the DOF is so shallow that seeing the focus go off is really easy.
 
It seems to be very much a "Marmite" utility. I've used it since before it was released (beta testing) and in that time I've covered about 20 lens/converter combinations on 7 different bodies and never had any thing to complain about. I just set up the target, provide consistent light and let it guide me through it. As a Windows user I can't comment on the application when run on a Mac....it may be less robust.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
It seems to be very much a "Marmite" utility. I've used it since before it was released (beta testing) and in that time I've covered about 20 lens/converter combinations on 7 different bodies and never had any thing to complain about. I just set up the target, provide consistent light and let it guide me through it. As a Windows user I can't comment on the application when run on a Mac....it may be less robust.

Bob
Click to expand...

as i indicated it seems to have been developed mainly for Canon? - as that is what they seem to test in their marketing blur and (updates)
 
BillN_33 said:
as i indicated it seems to have been developed mainly for Canon? - as that is what they seem to test in their marketing blur and (updates)
Click to expand...
The first incarnation was solely for Canon (Rich, the developer, was a Canon user). It may also be that the Canon SDK is more adaptable than Nikon's version although the target, lighting and analytical stuff should be common across the platforms.

Bob
 
I've used it quite a bit since the Mac version came out, and I find it takes any guesswork out of the equation, although occasionally there are some glitches, for instance I have just finished setting up my 7D2 on it, and every so often the software will just shut down randomly, a pain if you have just done a test and want to save the results.
I've emailed them twice about this and so far haven't had the courtesy of a reply, just an acknowledgement of my email, which I think is poor.

There are a couple of things I do, firstly I always use a halogen flood to illuminate the target and I'm fortunate in that we have a long hall where I can calibrate up to 600mm, secondly I use a geared tripod head for alignment ( a manfrotto 410) which enables me to accurately align the lens with the target.
I bought it (the full version) when it had just come out and got a discount code which sadly doesn't still work and paid about £50 I think.

I've no doubt that MFA adjustment is required on lens/body combinations, but I'd say that if you are within +/- 2 then that's fine, and I'm sure there are other (and cheaper) ways of achieving that result, it's just that I like a method which I can set up easily, and, like Bob, I can't say it's difficult to use once you've done a few combos.

If you only have one body and a couple of lenses, however, it's probably not worth it.

Unfortunately, Canon haven't released the information which enables the developers to make the 5D3, 1Dx and 7D2 fully automatic, and I think the Nikons have the requirement to do some of the operations manually, but I just have the ma option on my "my menu" page and set it to open when I press the menu button, so it really isn't a big issue.

George.
 
Why not try the 'dot tune' method? It's free so the worst that can happen is it doesn't work. It improved things for me though.


Claiming it can be done in 5 minutes is pushing it a bit in my experience! Perhaps you can once you are used to it.
 
Last edited:
Never tried it after reading very mixed reviews.

I also didn't really get on with the Dot Tune ^^ method either. Found that fiddly & not consistent......

I just set a target up all level etc & just used live view to check the accuracy of the auto focus & adjusted +/- if needed...
 
As well as the MFA adjustment in FoCal, I like the fact that you also have other tests which can be run, focus consistency, best aperture etc, but at the end of the day it's whatever suits you and your budget.
It may be fiddly initially, but once you've done it a bit, it's not difficult.
 
George said:
As well as the MFA adjustment in FoCal, I like the fact that you also have other tests which can be run, focus consistency, best aperture etc, but at the end of the day it's whatever suits you and your budget.
It may be fiddly initially, but once you've done it a bit, it's not difficult.
Click to expand...

maybe I should give it another try
 
I would, Bill, I think you'll find it's useful, if we can help just shout!!:)
 
guess&press said:
Why not try the 'dot tune' method? It's free so the worst that can happen is it doesn't work. It improved things for me though.


Claiming it can be done in 5 minutes is pushing it a bit in my experience! Perhaps you can once you are used to it.
Click to expand...

I nearly gave up photography trying dot tune it took that long.

Now I use me colmans mustard tins and then when I'm happy I use my special test subject as a final check that all is good. Ultimately its what works for you. Im happy that when I use my 500 wide open if the subject isn't spot on in focus its down to me.
 
The key to easy micro-AF adjustment is set-up - shooting distance and the right target. Something like this LensCal http://spyder.datacolor.com/portfolio-view/spyderlenscal/ But when you look at that, it is no different to this



The test distance has to be 'realistic' ie not too close, or you may find the lens will be out at longer/normal shooting distances. But close enough for depth-of-field to be sufficiently shallow that you can see the in/out of focus areas. That may or may not be around the 25x or 50x focal length often quoted. Targets around the size of a cereal box are fine for mid-range focal lengths. It's harder to micro-adjust very wide lenses, as you have to get too close. You need a much bigger target for that, something like an outside wall or fence, with the target positioned against it.

The basic principle is simple. Target must be flat and square to the camera with some good contrast for the system to lock on to. It must be quite a bit larger than the image area covered by a single AF point, so there is no danger of the camera focusing on anything else. Then an angled component, eg ruler, positioned immediately next to the target, so you can see exactly where the point of sharpest focus is - just zoom in on the camera's LCD, and adjust until it's right. Then take multiple shots, defocusing each time, to check for consistency.
 
Last edited:
I was also a Focal beta tester and have used it since the beginning (three years ago, I think). Now that I have my gear dialled in I haven't used it for a long while, but I'm looking forward to the imminent release of Version 2 and will be exploring what it has to offer. I've tried other methods, including boxes and rulers and also Dot Tune (manual and with Magic Lantern). Overall I find that Focal offers the most comprehensive approach to the task which most thoroughly factors in and highlights spurious equipment performance (randomly poor focus consistency). I would wholeheartedly recommend it IF you have enough combinations of bodies and lenses to make the investment worthwhile, or pockets deep enough not to care.
 
I use it on a Mac and have never had any problems. They do point out that you need to install the monoframework 1st, and which version you need. I only use it for MFA, never got round to the other tests but should give them a go I suppose.

Never had any problems with light, even with clouds on a sunny day, it just kept on going. MSC mode on the 5D3 and 1DX is a bit of a pain but it still works (I'm just a lazy git and want it fully automatic!!).

You could always team up with someone else and split the cost. From memory you can have up to 5 cameras registered at any one time, but you can change them as you upgrade bodies etc.
 
Worked great for me (D700, running Focal on Win 7). You need really good light on the target though.

I tried it outdoors with a few clouds in the sky and it didn't work. Indoors with bright room lighting supplemented by sunlight was fine.
 
Last edited:
I had a problem with a Nikon 300mm f2.8 (current street price around £4k) which I suspected was not focussing properly. Before using FoCal I had sent images taken with the lens with my D4 to Nikon who said they could see nothing wrong with them. I had adjusted the MFA to the max as a result of which I could see an improvement, but was still not convinced it was anywhere near properly focussed.
.
Then I came across FoCal... I tried to calibrate the D4 + 300mm combo but FoCal told me the optimal MFA adjustment was outside the range the camera was capable of..... hmm .... so the software agreed with me that the lens was not focussing properly.

To cut a long story short the lens and camera went back to Nikon and after 3 attempts at proper calibration by them, I re-ran the combination through Focal and it came back saying that the required MFA adjustment was ZERO. The camera and lens were now bang on. I repeated the calibration a couple of times with the same result.
Results in the field showed that there had been a massive improvement in the autofocus accuracy of the lens and as a result the resolution of the photos.
For me it was worth every penny to prove to (the unbelieving) Nikon that there was a problem.

I have since changed my camera bodies and a number of lenses, but have not calibrated any of them, mainly because it is a long winded process and most of my lenses are wide angle and hence benefit much less from calibration.

It is not Reikan's fault, but fully auto mode doesn't work on Nikon and the manual adjustment is a bit of a pain.

Oh - and the most expensive version is £69.95 - not £100 as mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

I have had to use their tech support and I do have to agree the response was a bit tardy (and at one point they didn't respond to my enquiry because they thought they had fixed it!).

I have no association with Reikan other than as a customer.
 
Last edited:
Interesting feedback there folks.
WAs hoping for "get it, it's great, easy, and well worth the peace of mind"
Looks like i'll give the cheaper (ie Free!) methods a go over the christmas break as three unforseen bills have wiped out all my spare money!
I was initially asking because i've never been 100% satisfied with the results from my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II, maybe i was expecting too much due to all the amazing reviews, or more likely it's the old 'user error'.
Whichever, checking the lens out using something like focal 'might' have given me an answer!
Anyway, thanks for the response and happy holidays to you all!
 
I can vouch for the dot tune method too. It sharpened up my 300mm f4 + 1.4 tc combo nicely.
 
Carlo said:
I've never been 100% satisfied with the results from my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II,
Click to expand...

Before you spend time and/or money on a fix that might not actually do anything you'd probably want to actually check the lens to see if it would benefir from MFA.

Set up a flat target, parallel to the sensor plane. Make sure it's well lit and about 5 to 10m away. Put your camera into Live View and ensure that Live mode AF is on. Now take a photo. Switch to manual mode. refocus and take another shot. Then switch to ordinary AF mode and take a pic through the viewfinder.

That give you three images. The ones focused manually and with LiveView should be identical - both should be perfectly focused. If the third, taken though the viewfinder is just as good then you don't need MFA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top