Value Micro adjustment tool - received it - love it -

It looks a bit small. Canon recommend doing MIcro-Focus Adjustment at 50x the focal length. At those sorts of distances this thing will be smaller than one of the AF points. I think I'll stick with my A4 printed test chart on a cork-board. Total price £2.03.
 
I've just been looking at this on DP review and I'll be getting one when they are available over here.
Just checked out this site and it has gone from 49Euros to £68 with tax delivery included.
Interested in seeing what the UK price will be.
 
hollis_f said:
It looks a bit small. Canon recommend doing MIcro-Focus Adjustment at 50x the focal length. At those sorts of distances this thing will be smaller than one of the AF points. I think I'll stick with my A4 printed test chart on a cork-board. Total price £2.03.
Click to expand...
You put yours on a cork board. Now that's posh ;)
 
I'm really surprised the Hong Kong copyists haven't latched onto this yet. They must be able to knock out something similar for around 50p each, then flog them at £20 on Ebay. I might even buy one at that price.
 
If you think it's expensive have a look at the price of a Lensalign Pro.

Make sure your sat down first.

If Lensalign patented theirs Datacolor could be in trouble.
 
i just point my camera/lens at something i'd normally take a photo of and if it comes out sharp and in focus i'm happy :P
 
ChrisH said:
Same here m8

Now all I have to do is nip over to Leeds and borrow yours :D

One good thing on Lensaligns site is a calculator to tell you the manufacturers ideal distance to test at.

http://www.lensalign.com/ldt/index.html
Click to expand...

:lol:
I might be able to loan it out for a small fee :D

Is the distance of camera to lensalign thingy vital to the accuracy of the micro adjustment?
 
Newspaper taped to the fence. Sorted.
 
It's a neat little toy, but really, what do you need one of those things for? Cerial packet on the kitchen work top with a ruler laid across the front. Identical :shrug:

ChrisH said:
Same here m8

Now all I have to do is nip over to Leeds and borrow yours :D

One good thing on Lensaligns site is a calculator to tell you the manufacturers ideal distance to test at.

http://www.lensalign.com/ldt/index.html
Click to expand...

All it seems to do is multiply the focal length by x25 :thinking:

LensAlign is a con, frankly. Too much marketing style pseudo-science in an attempt to justify a ludcrous price :thumbsdown:

redmonkee said:
:lol:
I might be able to loan it out for a small fee :D

Is the distance of camera to lensalign thingy vital to the accuracy of the micro adjustment?
Click to expand...

Yes, the distance is very important.

All AF systems work within a tolerance range, and that tolerance is pushed to the limit at close distance. You might find an error, which will probably look worse than it is because the very shallow DoF exagerates it, and then make a correction that will acutally throw the calibration out at more normal distances.

Ideally you should test at a common working distance for you and that lens/focal length, but certainly no closer than 25x focal length, and more like 50x for wide-angles.
 
HoppyUK said:
LensAlign is a con, frankly. Too much marketing style pseudo-science in an attempt to justify a ludcrous price :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Indeed.

And AF fine tune in its current form with a one size fits all setting regardless of focal distance and zoom setting doesn't work. Tune a 24-70 lens for sharpness at 70mm, and you throw 24mm out (unless you are lucky enough to have a parfocal lens - most zooms are not)

Pointless feature that causes more silly pixel peeping tests.

Anything that *needs* calibration should be returned to the factory, not "patched" end user side.
 
puddleduck said:
Indeed.

And AF fine tune in its current form with a one size fits all setting regardless of focal distance and zoom setting doesn't work. Tune a 24-70 lens for sharpness at 70mm, and you throw 24mm out (unless you are lucky enough to have a parfocal lens - most zooms are not)

Pointless feature that causes more silly pixel peeping tests.

Anything that *needs* calibration should be returned to the factory, not "patched" end user side.
Click to expand...
Just what I was thinking.
 
No disrespect guys but seeing as you pretty much use it on all your lenses and then store the profiles wouldn't it have been better to buy 1 between a few of you and pass it around?

Also as puddleduck stated these are amazing for primes and zooms at one range or the other but not good for zooms at all ranges.
I will also throw another fact into the melting pot.

I had a Pentax 20D once and tested a Sigma 120-400mm OS, for some reason i just could not get this micro adjusted enough so phoned Sigma and the reply was interesting.

Sigma have a +/- 10 with their lenses, now that onits own is not that bad but pentax bodies have a +/- 20 micro adjustment. So lets say your body is +19 off and your lens is +9 off that means you need adjustment for +28.
The above was confirmed by Pentax and Sigma to be possible.

I know a few cameras go to +30 and +50 but to me thats them just being lazy with design and manufacture.

One last thing, it was also pointed out that these Micro AF adjustments were really just meant for Primes with f1.2 to f2.8 apertures. Although this was never advertised as they found people with say 50-500mm zooms used the 500mm for the majority of the time and it worked at those ranges to.
The big hint here is in the "do the tests wide open" advice.
This was apparent with a Pentax 50mm f1.4 i had..Now this was imo a sharp lens, i then on advisement from Pentax did the adjustments to test it and was blown away. I would say it was the equivalent of adding +290% USM in Photoshop without the image degrading in any way.
I now no longer bother about adjustments. I simply take a picture, do my normal pp and if it looks ok the lens is fine.
 
I've looked at the LensAlign and now this, and have decided to buy an old chess board from a charity shop and fasten a rule to it at 45% it will do the same job for pennies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is all you need.

IMG_3381-1.jpg
 
hoppy does it again.. although I used a book and a ruler..

but its not great for 300 and 400 lens... I take my 14 yo son out.. get him to walk about. run towards me.. stand still.. I always aim for the eyes and keep testing until the eyes are sharp.

total price a fiver... he works cheap :)


a lot of people dont need or know they need adjustment unless there using at least 2.8 because as dof gets wider the less you will notice...
 
KIPAX said:
hoppy does it again.. although I used a book and a ruler..

but its not great for 300 and 400 lens... I take my 14 yo son out.. get him to walk about. run towards me.. stand still.. I always aim for the eyes and keep testing until the eyes are sharp.

total price a fiver... he works cheap :)


a lot of people dont need or know they need adjustment unless there using at least 2.8 because as dof gets wider the less you will notice...
Click to expand...

:D

You're right about the f/number. My lenses are all f/4 and when you shoot something like that at a sensible distance, say typical portrait range, the DoF is two or three cms and it's not easy to see exactly where the sharpest point is. But then you have to ask yourself, when the microadjust only moves the AF point about 1mm per click, just how accurate do you need it to be in practise?

The temptation is to move closer so that the reduced DoF makes things easier to see, but then it's not a relevant test and if you adjust for any error you might find there, you run the risk of throwing it out at normal shooting distances.

I think that method works fine for longer lenses, if you can get the distance. I move out of the kitchen and on to the patio for that. The real problem area is wide angles where you naturally get so much DoF it's almost impossible to see exactly where the AF has landed. Resisting the urge to go silly-close, the best way I've found is to shoot with normal phase-detect AF to test and then again with live view contrast-detect AF (if you have it) on max magnification - which you know is spot on - then flick between the two on the LCD and see if there's a difference.

Then when you've decided there isn't any, you can just leave everything alone and live happily ever after ;)
 
Last edited:
I have to go to a football pitch and shoot the full length at my son... a 400mm at f2.8 in that distance... the micro adjustment makes a massive difference...
 
Just seen this thread and before seeing Hoppy i wondered how many would flash their cash for a rule :cuckoo:

It didnt show it in the demo but i would have thought the rule should have been made to correspond with the camera adjustment.
 
Hi Philip, havent got it as yet. I checked the website and states that they are now shipping on the 30th September instead of the 10th as originally advertised
 
You bought one? See the post above with the serial box and ruler.. exact same thing.. I tried this months ago with a book and a ruler as same solution was posted on here... Works in theory but i couldnt get consistant results so gave up.
 
I did Tony, maybe more money than sense. I can see how the cereal box/ruler combination could work but its not exactly a precision device. You said youself results werent consistant with it. Also for the distances needed for the 400 2.8, not sure how easily i could get a box of cornflakes onto a tripod! :)

When it eventually arrives, i'll give it a go. If it works well, great, a relatively cheap solution. If it doesnt work as it says on the tin, then it goes on Ebay!

I will also be happy to let you borrow it Tony, see what your opinion is.
 
Last edited:
its the same precision as the one you bought.. that wasnt the problem.. you will see :)

For a long lens for sports....Take a mate to a footy pitch.. stick him half way down and all the way to end.. take shots at different settings..... job done... you cant beat testing on humans.. rulers or newspapers or cars just dont hack it IMHO.
 
i dont have any friends! :(

In all seriousness, I will give your advice a go, i tried changing setting at the saracens match last weekend, but with the action being all over the place and so fast i couldnt really test properly.
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
You bought one? See the post above with the serial box and ruler.. exact same thing.. I tried this months ago with a book and a ruler as same solution was posted on here... Works in theory but i couldnt get consistant results so gave up.
Click to expand...

It's a cool toy Ade ;)

Strange that you get inconsistent results. When I do it with my 5D2 and L lenses, the thing that has impressed me most is the consistency of the AF. Even when you rack the focusing ring right the way to infinity or closest position, it hits it bang on, mm perfect, every time.
 
jamesward93 said:
Also for the distances needed for the 400 2.8, not sure how easily i could get a box of cornflakes onto a tripod! :)
Click to expand...

I've not been able to find any dimensions but, from the images I've seen, it looks pretty small. For the distances needed for 400mm (Canon recommend 50x FL - so that would be 200m) this device will be tiny.


jamesward93 said:
If it works well, great, a relatively cheap solution.
Click to expand...

No, relative to a cereal box and a ruler, it's very expensive.
 
Well the Lenscal arrived this morning. Havent taken it out of the box yet but first impression is its quite small.

I will test it out tonight and see how it works.
 
hollis_f said:
I've not been able to find any dimensions but, from the images I've seen, it looks pretty small. For the distances needed for 400mm (Canon recommend 50x FL - so that would be 200m) this device will be tiny.
Click to expand...

By maintaining the 50X ratio between target distance and focal length the target will remain the same size in the frame no matter which focal length you use. So long as the target exceeds the size of the selected focus point within the frame by at least 3X vertically and horizontally you should not have a problem.

I've used several variants of the cereal box and ruler over the years and I really don't see how paying for a specialist tool could yield better results. Unless your DOF really is as little as 1cm or less then I personally do not think that minor errors in alignment (say 1-2mm) will be significant. Of course, the LensAlign videos demonstrate an 85/1.2 lens, which really does highlight the need for accuracy when having incredibly slender DOF, but for those of us shooting at f/2.8 and slower, and calibrating at 50X focal length, a mm either way just will not be important - IMHO.

Example setup....

20100219_122041_0119_LR.jpg


The box is pretty much dead square on to the camera, and certainly you can't see the top, bottom or sides of the box, which is a strong clue that it is pretty square. Also, the focus point is aimed physically quite close to the ruler, although a safe distance away to avoid any danger of focus upset, but that means that even a small error in alignment will translate to only a tiny error - maybe a mm or so - in judging the focus accuracy. Since the DOF for this lens can be judged pretty well over a distance of a couple of cm (and this is viewing at 100%, not real world enlargement size) then I'm happy that I can fine tune microadjustment to within acceptable limits. In the real world, unless photographing static subjects from a tripod the odds are that you will get a focus error of a mm or two just through natural movement between focusing and firing. If you use focus/recompose, or shoot a moving target then I don't believe that being out by a mm will make a hill of beans difference to the results.

20100220_161721_0120_LR.jpg



With all that said, while 50X is a good general guideline for choosing a distance for calibration, if you do more typically use the lens at closer distances then it would probably pay dividends to calibrate at those closer distances, or at least somewhere between there and 50X focal length. For example, an adjustment that might suit my 70-200/2.8 for indoor sports, at distances of around 10-20m away may not yield optimum results when shooting a headshot from 2m away and needing critical focus on the eye.
 
Last edited:
tdodd said:
By maintaining the 50X ratio between target distance and focal length the target will remain the same size in the frame no matter which focal length you use. So long as the target exceeds the size of the selected focus point within the frame by at least 3X vertically and horizontally you should not have a problem.

I've used several variants of the cereal box and ruler over the years and I really don't see how paying for a specialist tool could yield better results. Unless your DOF really is as little as 1cm or less then I personally do not think that minor errors in alignment (say 1-2mm) will be significant. Of course, the LensAlign videos demonstrate an 85/1.2 lens, which really does highlight the need for accuracy when having incredibly slender DOF, but for those of us shooting at f/2.8 and slower, and calibrating at 50X focal length, a mm either way just will not be important - IMHO.

Example setup....

20100219_122041_0119_LR.jpg


The box is pretty much dead square on to the camera, and certainly you can't see the top, bottom or sides of the box, which is a strong clue that it is pretty square. Also, the focus point is aimed physically quite close to the ruler, although a safe distance away to avoid any danger of focus upset, but that means that even a small error in alignment will translate to only a tiny error - maybe a mm or so - in judging the focus accuracy. Since the DOF for this lens can be judged pretty well over a distance of a couple of cm (and this is viewing at 100%, not real world enlargement size) then I'm happy that I can fine tune microadjustment to within acceptable limits. In the real world, unless photographing static subjects from a tripod the odds are that you will get a focus error of a mm or two just through natural movement between focusing and firing. If you use focus/recompose, or shoot a moving target then I don't believe that being out by a mm will make a hill of beans difference to the results.

20100220_161721_0120_LR.jpg



With all that said, while 50X is a good general guideline for choosing a distance for calibration, if you do more typically use the lens at closer distances then it would probably pay dividends to calibrate at those closer distances, or at least somewhere between there and 50X focal length. For example, an adjustment that might suit my 70-200/2.8 for indoor sports, at distances of around 10-20m away may not yield optimum results when shooting a headshot from 2m away and needing critical focus on the eye.
Click to expand...

Excellent post Tim :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top