Reikan Focal AFMA Software

gramps

gramps

Messages
41,961
Name
'Gramps'
Edit My Images
No
In the past I have had nothing good to say about Reikan Focal as I tried it on 2 x Nikon D3S cameras and it just wouldn't work, as in couldn't complete the test for unspecified reasons ... as a consequence, after numerous attempts, I deleted the software and obtained a refund from Reikan.
However with the recent update to Focal 2.0 I decided to give it another try, as I find my old eyes aren't the most reliable for things like this.
I have to say that Focal 2.0 worked without a hitch on my D810 and D7200 with the 500mm f4 and with the TC1.4ll on the D810 ... just need to find a place to get a longer range to do the TC1.7ll on the D810 and both TC's on the D7200.

Having mentioned several times about my previous negative experience, I am happy to put the record straight with my experience of using Focal 2.0 :)
 
Last edited:
The main issue I found with the software was getting consistent results, I think the problem was related to getting enough bright light, without using fluorescent tubes.

Do you think the version 2 is less demanding when it comes to lighting?

I've not yet installed the new version, as I did eventually get the AF micro adjustment right.

Chris
 
Foxbat Flyer said:
Do you think the version 2 is less demanding when it comes to lighting?
Click to expand...

Not being able to use the previous version I can't really say ... this time I had the target in the entrance porch (full uPVC glazed) in overcast conditions and it seemed to work without a hitch from just over 7 metres away (D7200 and D810 + TC1.4ll only). When it comes to doing the other TC combinations it'll probably need to be somewhere outdoors simply to get the distance to the chart and I'll do it on a fine, bright day if possible.
 
Last edited:
You find the software to make a lot of difference give the 500mm and converter? Might consider getting it myself as I find the 500mm and 1.4x combo to be mostly terrible wide open at f/5.6 for my picky eyes, always stop it down to f/7.1/8 at the least. Even better I try never too use the converter but needs must sometimes :D
 
TBH Joe it's early days as I've only just done the adjustments, I've not been happy with the 1.4 on the D810 and it showed it needed +7 so will be interested to see what results I get when I'm next out, Monday I hope. :)
 
gramps said:
TBH Joe it's early days as I've only just done the adjustments, I've not been happy with the 1.4 on the D810 and it showed it needed +7 so will be interested to see what results I get when I'm next out, Monday I hope. :)
Click to expand...

Interesting to hear mate, let us know how you get on with it now, be interesting to hear. I had Canon themselves fine tune a 2x for me sometime ago which made night and day differences so might do that with the 1.4x but if this software works well I may look at getting this instead :)
 
Thanks Gramps, I'll download the new version sometime and give it a try.

I like the results with the old version, but it was a slow process unless the light was very strong.

Chris
 
I definitely found the new version a lot faster and less demanding on the lighting conditions than the previous version. Plus it got a Tamron 24-70 purchase from "hmm..." to "phew, sharp as I had hoped " so saved a lot of buyer's regret for me!
 
This sounds good. On their site there seems to be a few versions. Which version did you opt for Gramps (got a link?)?
 
Joeturner11 said:
Interesting to hear mate, let us know how you get on with it now, be interesting to hear. I had Canon themselves fine tune a 2x for me sometime ago which made night and day differences so might do that with the 1.4x but if this software works well I may look at getting this instead :)
Click to expand...
@Joeturner11

A very dismal day today but the difference is amazing, well worth the money for the D7200/500 f4 combination alone :)
 
I have to say my experience with Reikan Focal has been quite the opposite, unfortunately.
My trickiest lens for testing is my 135mm f2 DC.
Each time I tested it, I ended up with a different result. It varied from -6 to +18. This is on a D700.
In the end, I gave up in frustration, and used the Lensalign, which took a while, but ended up with an adjustment of +12 (D700 + 135mm)
Shame really, because it is a nice easy system, with voice prompts etc, but no good to me if I can't get it to work !

(Of course, it might be my ineptitude, and not the software !!)
 
gramps said:
@Joeturner11

A very dismal day today but the difference is amazing, well worth the money for the D7200/500 f4 combination alone :)
Click to expand...

Will look into this over the coming days, you reckon it makes much of a difference for static subjects? That's all use the converter for 90% of the time, can be okay with the 1D in flight but with the 7D the reach gets abit crazy at over 1100mm so getting a shutter speed to counter balance that is beyond a nightmare in good light, so factors like heat haze, fog, mist all come into play big time, I had a massive problem in the Canary's that anything taken between 11-3 just came out terrible because of the reach mixed with the heat haze so I couldn't blame the back/front focusing then! Anyway's I will have a play about fine tuning the converter over the coming weeks to see what its like and if I can't get it any better I will get this software, thanks again for your feedback on it pal :)
 
Brilliant software. I have calibrated all my lenses. Difficult to master at first but once you have easy to use
 
Joeturner11 said:
You find the software to make a lot of difference give the 500mm and converter? Might consider getting it myself as I find the 500mm and 1.4x combo to be mostly terrible wide open at f/5.6 for my picky eyes, always stop it down to f/7.1/8 at the least. Even better I try never too use the converter but needs must sometimes :D
Click to expand...

Thats a surprise Joe. I use my 500 with the 1.4 a lot and its absolutely spot on. I've only calibrated mine with a lens cal.

Kingfisher

Nuthatch
 
Gaz J said:
Thats a surprise Joe. I use my 500 with the 1.4 a lot and its absolutely spot on. I've only calibrated mine with a lens cal.

Kingfisher

Nuthatch
Click to expand...

Are they taken wide open at f/5.6 pal? I can get sharp results out of it like the Kingfisher at a low shutter speed that you commented on back in the 7D Mark II thread, but I'm only getting the goods out of it at least f/7.1 think a lens cal is in order for the 1.4x as anything f/5.6 or f/6.3 which is slight better but still isn't hitting the focus where I want to it...
 
V1 wasn't good with long lenses. Haven't tried V2 and apparently can't yet.

With my 400/2.8 + 2x TC on D810 I need +10 at long distances (100yds+) and +5 at shorter distances (near MFD)...
 
Joeturner11 said:
Are they taken wide open at f/5.6 pal? I can get sharp results out of it like the Kingfisher at a low shutter speed that you commented on back in the 7D Mark II thread, but I'm only getting the goods out of it at least f/7.1 think a lens cal is in order for the 1.4x as anything f/5.6 or f/6.3 which is slight better but still isn't hitting the focus where I want to it...
Click to expand...


Yes Joe all @5.6. I shoot wide open with the 1.4 probably 75% of the time. The barn owls in my bird thread are all wide open with the 1.4 on the 500.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/gaz-j-bird-thread-updated-30th-october.583323/
 
Joeturner11 said:
Definitely needs sorting out then mate, Will look fine tuning and doing it myself in the next few days, when I get some daylight hours to do it in.
Click to expand...

One of the things that I do with mine Joe is set the DOF to be equal in front of and behind the point of focus. A lot of stuff is shot side on so my theory is having the DOF equal works out better.
 
I've used Focal since March 2013 after I bought an early D800 and appeared to have focussing problems. It had to go back to Nikon twice before it was fixed. Since then I've used it on three bodies and quite a few lenses. I find version 2 more consistent than earlier versions - Rarely less than 99.x%.. I've used the same 2 x 500W lighting setup since the start and I think that helps. I really don't know how one would calibrate long lenses. Is there a fundamental problem with calibrating say a 300mm lens at 6 metres when it's going to be used at much longer distances?

I bought a Nikon 35mm F1.8 FX lens last year which was front-focussing requiring a correction of around -12. I lived with that until I sent my D750 back for correction of the flare issue after which it was back-focussing around 14. I decided to send both back. The D750 came back OK I suppose with an average back-focus of 6, but the 35mm lens was front-focussing out of range! It's gone back again and I'm still waiting after four weeks for its return; But that's another story I guess.

I'm lucky enough to have three bodies, the D750, Df & D7200 (I know - GAS), so I can cross-check across all three.

My Df body has an average error of +0.6 over ten lenses and the D7200, an average of -3.0. The worst lens requires an adjustment of +7 on the Df, so I'm not sure I'd notice a problem in the real world.

However, when there is clearly an unacceptable error, at least I can be confident and objective when I reject about a lens or body. When I rejected the D800 (twice) I had several telephone conversations with Nikon and they never did dispute the Focal results

I do appreciate the Focal V2 voice messages which make the whole exercise much quicker, but I'd still prefer to be able to buy bodies or lenses which are adequate for purpose and then I wouldn't need Focal!
 
geriatrix said:
I really don't know how one would calibrate long lenses. Is there a fundamental problem with calibrating say a 300mm lens at 6 metres when it's going to be used at much longer distances?
Click to expand...

I don't know the technology behind it all but I did my D7200 with the 500mm successfully at just under 8 metres and the D800 with the 500mm and 500mm + 1.4 at the same distance and it worked ... I will need to find a suitable place to do the longer options!
I wonder if being a prime lens the calibration distance isn't critical as long as the target is recognised by the software, unlike a zoom lens where a focal length decision has to be made.

Although I have been able to obtain sharp images before using Focal, after using it I find my images need less processing as what I would describe as 'micro-fuzz' has been eliminated by the small adjustments Focal has made :)
 
gramps said:
I don't know the technology behind it all but I did my D7200 with the 500mm successfully at just under 8 metres and the D800 with the 500mm and 500mm + 1.4 at the same distance and it worked ... I will need to find a suitable place to do the longer options!
I wonder if being a prime lens the calibration distance isn't critical as long as the target is recognised by the software, unlike a zoom lens where a focal length decision has to be made.

Although I have been able to obtain sharp images before using Focal, after using it I find my images need less processing as what I would describe as 'micro-fuzz' has been eliminated by the small adjustments Focal has made :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Roger - just downloaded v2 as I have v1, which I never really used because of the "complications" with a Mac - looks good and will give it a try with my Nikon lens this week
 
BillN_33 said:
Thanks Roger - just downloaded v2 as I have v1, which I never really used because of the "complications" with a Mac - looks good and will give it a try with my Nikon lens this week
Click to expand...
Assume you are not using El Capitan Bill?
 
gramps said:
Assume you are not using El Capitan Bill?
Click to expand...

No Roger - I have resisted the messages to upgrade - as I run a few windows apps using Parallel and overtime Apple bring out a "better" OX - Parallel stuff you for a £ upgrade
 
I recently bought it but have had mixed results, the suggested calibration settings for my Nikon 20mm F1.8G were just not accurate so in the end I sorted it out manually using my own target which worked out far more accurate... the Focal software suggested -16 when -5 produces far better results

Simon
 
I think one of the most important factors in using Focal is good light, it's no good trying to calibrate when the light is really dull or where cloud patterns create changing extremes of lighting, a good bright day will bring the best results ... same as when using the camera for photos 'in the field' :)
 
Try all three methods - they will send you around in circles

Just been using the Spyder Lens Cal ........ try the freebie and the focal

I have started tested my long lenses, (2 x 300mm and 600mm with/without the TC14Ell and TC20Ell) at the distance I normal use them and f8 as well as wide open - just driving me crazy - need to start again

what does this tell you

it was dullish - but that's the normal light I take shots at
x20 would have given me 12 meters and x 50, 30 meters - I never really sue the lens at those distances for small birds ........ so I chose 7.5m

Nikon 600mm - 1/1000th sec - f4 - ISO140 at 7.5meters ............... I think the MFD on this lens is around 5 to 6 meters
chart.jpg


probably that I cannot hold the camera bloody still even on a big heavy tripod - maybe I should have not used a gimbal


and one at f8 which bumped the ISO up to 640

chart_2.jpg




I think calibrating long lens for birds and small wildlife is just different and you need to experiment

The 300mm f4 VR PF with the TC14Ell is proving difficult
 
Last edited:
I think you need to choose a bright day to do it, dullish doesn't provide the best option for a clean comparison.
 
Gaz J said:
One of the things that I do with mine Joe is set the DOF to be equal in front of and behind the point of focus. A lot of stuff is shot side on so my theory is having the DOF equal works out better.
Click to expand...
I'm lost. Are you still talking about AFMA calibration? Because AF is done woth the lens wide-open. So the setting you use is irrelevant.
 
hollis_f said:
I'm lost. Are you still talking about AFMA calibration? Because AF is done woth the lens wide-open. So the setting you use is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No i'm talking about using a lens cal to set the MA. I'm not sure what you mean by 'setting' though
 
Last edited:
Gaz J said:
One of the things that I do with mine Joe is set the DOF to be equal in front of and behind the point of focus. A lot of stuff is shot side on so my theory is having the DOF equal works out better.
Click to expand...

isn't the DOF always the same in front of and behind the focus point - i.e. the distance is always the same, no matter what you do
 
BillN_33 said:
isn't the DOF always the same in front of and behind the focus point - i.e. the distance is always the same, no matter what you do
Click to expand...

Isnt that the whole point of MA though Bill. You have a certain dof at a certain distance and aperture but it doesnt mean its the same in front of and behind the point of focus.Hence front and back focus.

My 500 at zero MA back focuses at 12.5 metres, which is the distance I use to set it up. I move it forwards so that its equal. I dont know what Reikan does. I have 2 settings on mine. One that is equal and one that front focuses the lens slightly.
 
Gaz J said:
Isnt that the whole point of MA though Bill. You have a certain dof at a certain distance and aperture but it doesnt mean its the same in front of and behind the point of focus.Hence front and back focus.

My 500 at zero MA back focuses at 12.5 metres, which is the distance I use to set it up. I move it forwards so that its equal. I dont know what Reikan does. I have 2 settings on mine. One that is equal and one that front focuses the lens slightly.
Click to expand...

Thanks Gary, I now see what you mean
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top