dcains Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
The vertical surfaces of the cans were level, as was the camera body, and both were at the same height. If the results were consistent, which they were 100% of the time (100's of shots with sevral bodies and lenses at each full f/stop from wide-open to f/8), doesn't that indicate accuracy? When I'm out shooting real-world objects, it would be a very rare situation when subject and camera were parallel to one another, so I'm not even going to speculate that absolute alignment of a test target is all that important in the first place.
What does seem to be important, though, is that test targets are high-contrast, at a reasonable distance from the camera, that the target is large enough to properly be engaged by an AF sensor, and well-lighted. Therein lies the fault with those foolish diagonal ruler tests, in which a single horizontal line (far too small) is your test target, shot on a dining room table late at night (poor, artificial light), from a few feet away. Consistency is the key to any valid testing methodology, and the LensAlign simply isn't the only way to skn a cat. If someone else wants to pay the cost of the LensAlign, I've got no issue with that, but I'm finished testing my gear, and I enjoyed the soup. too Honestly, I was perfectly happy with all my gear, but I was home from work with a hand injury, and I was testing it all out of sheer boredom.
FYI, I haven't ever tried the micro-adjust function, even though my 50D has that capability. All of my glass seems to perform well enough, and as others have mentioned, MA doesn't seem likely to work perfectly at all focal lengths (if a zoom lens) and focus distances. Canon's lens calibration (either at the factory or service center) has been an adequate compromise for my purposes, so I'm leaving well-enough alone for now.
|