p.2 #1 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
NumberFive wrote:
Go for the 50D or 5D Mark II - they both have microadjust, and another feature I can't live without now - live view. You can use the LCD for focusing instead of the viewfinder. For your landscapes, that means you could zoom in at 10x and fine tune your focus for razor sharp images without having to review them and zoom in after the shot.
Of course, some here will say you could just take the shot and zoom in afterwards, but to me, that's like arguing against power windows on a car.
I hate power windows! It's just one more thing to go wrong as a car ages... & crank handles work perfectly well.
But seriously, I appreciate all the new user-friendly titoos Canon are coming out with but you have to wonder whether some of these things are going to become repair nightmares in a couple of years.
p.2 #6 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
EB-1 wrote:
Exactly.
EBH
Tony: "I'm wondering if I should get a Honda Civic or Nissan Altima... or should I bite the bullet and get an Acura TL?"
You: "I'd rather have a new Corvette"
Kidding aside, Tony is a self-proclaimed enthusiast, not pro. Plus he needs lenses.
p.2 #7 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
northerner wrote:
I'm about to sell my 400d and was considering a 5d, 50D or possibly a 5d mark II. I don't have any lenses at the moment. Starting again. I tend to shoot landscapes and people. I'm an enthusiast rather than a pro.
I'd decided on the 5d until I saw the benefits of micro adjust. I tend to buy lenses on Ebay and was planning to buy some fast primes (24 f1.4, 50 f4 and 135 f2 with possibly a 24-70mm f2.8 L).
I love the shallow DOF and was considering FF for that reason. The 5d can be snapped up for a bargain but with the shallow DOF I'd like to use I imagine the micro adjust would be useful for tack sharp images).
I previously owned the 17-55mm f2.8 and wasn't impressed. May have been my camera or a bad copy. I was considering the 50D to be able to get the best out of this lens if I went for a crop camera.
well a used 5D and used lenses likely means no free calibration service (which is a pain anyway) and shooting with fast primes means you things DEAD on so.............
if you are unlucky though the lens might need a different MFA for near MFD, close-medium distance and far distance though which is also a pain and canon calibration can supposedly fix this (then again they calibrated my 50mm 1.4 and it still has this particualr issue as much as any lens I own, so maybe not....)
anyway with buying all used and shooting super low DOF not having MFA might be painful..... then again 5d vs 5dmkii price covers a lot of calibration fees..... then again at least you get all sorts of nicer features and better performance from the 5dmkii instead of wasted money and wasted time.....
p.2 #8 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
keithreeder wrote:
Oh, he knows - the point is, we've managed pretty bloody well without it so far, and while it's nice to have I suppose, I'd rather get the lens that needed it fixed...
It's also of little use for zooms.
that depends, so far my L zooms have pretty much needed the same MFA at all focal lengths. A few of my non-L zooms were a different story though....
worse is that near MFD and near infinity very often need a different MFA and sometimes it is worse than that (and een sending to canon they dont often adjust for this very well, if at all)
p.2 #9 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
Thanks for all the replies. Much appreciated.
I agree completely Skibum5. I thought the 5D mkII although a bigger outlay on the camera may mean less pain on the lenses.
I thought a budget of 3000 pounds would cover things but it may not be enough. I'm tempted to get a 5d mark II and Canon 50mm f1.4 initially. The 24 f1.4 is the lense I'm really looking for but it may have to wait. Also tempted to get the 24-70mm f2.8 to use whilst I save some more cash then trade it later (don't tend to lose much on eBay if you do that).
My bro is having a wedding early next year so would like to have my lenses by then ideally to give him some good extra photo's. I wouldn't offer to be the primary photographer. Too much stress
p.2 #12 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
joezasada wrote:
I would rather have a 1Ds2 without MA than a 50D with...
I'm happy; I have both of those!
Honestly, I've never seen a lens be other than dead on on the 1Ds II. I've tried shooting some focus tests (high contrast card set on a ruler etc) and it is right on every time.
The 50D though has a much higher pixel density, and it did benefit from a +3 tweak on the 400/5.6. Not that it was visibly off other than when shooting tests and viewing at 100%, but since I had the option to do it I decided to give it a go.
p.2 #14 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
Ernie Aubert wrote:
I'll offer two comments:
* I also was unimpressed with the 17-55 f2.8 IS. I wouldn't suggest the 50D route for that reason.
* AF Micro Adjust is a very useful feature for me; having it, I probably wouldn't buy another new camera that didn't have it.
What did you find lacking in the 17-55? I find it's a great match with the 50D. Not sure if this will work, but here's a 100% crop with the pair. No adjustments were made, this was straight out of the camera.
it is better to not adjust using small charts indoors at close range, yeah
for sports just go to the field and adjust in the field and then it's solid
and for other stuff i also just to test it on outdoor targets at a reasonable distance
if you use some shorter lens really close to MFD, perhaps redo it before shooting that way
anyway, i do think it is phenominally helpful
the old send it to canon cost moeny and often meant giving up important events in themeantime
p.2 #17 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
That's only part of the point of the Photonet thread though, Skibum.
The fact that the "correct" adjustment can depend on the focusing distance (which would be the case even on primes) is a bit of a bugger - fine if you do all your shooting at exactly the same distance from your subject (studio portrait photographer? Product shooter?) but a pain for birds, many sports and so on...
Even Bart Van Den Wolf (who came up with the clever solution linked to by vpl24_astro) says:
I suggest to calibrate at the most commonly used shooting distance if possible, because there may be differences between close and far focusing.
Changes in aperture could "overwhelm" smaller adjustments too. Not that this is a reason not to do the adjustment, I'm just pointing another reason why it's not the "one hit solution for all your focusing ills" that some folk seem to expect...
Don't get me wrong, it'll surely be in the next camera I buy, and that's fine, but it's not a cure for anything.
p.2 #18 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
While I would like to have microadjustment for my autofocus, I am living without it
and still getting good pictures. The 5D is still a very sweet camera.
p.2 #20 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
Azrael wrote:
Yes, MA is just BS really. If you have to use it that just means your lenses are not working properly so you should get thóse fixed by Canon.
and be without your kit 2-3 weeks each time and then they don't even always do the best job every time either
it's a royal pain
and it lets you quickly know if there is a serious problem with your new body or if it is just calibration
sometimes new stuff comes out righ tbefore a major trip or event (like my safari and sports season the other year) and then you REALLY wish you had MFA.
