p.3 #1 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
keithreeder wrote:
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:
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.3 #2 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
NumberFive, the 17-55 I had didn't have much resolving power. I did a test one day with half a dozen lenses of different focal lengths with one camera on a tripod, using MLU and remote release. I shot portraits with the head similarly sized in the frame with each lens, even at different apertures. When looking at the CR2s in DPP, going to 100% view, the images from all the other lenses held together, but those from the 17-55 just fell apart. The general consensus is the IQ of this lens is exceptional, even L level, but mine wasn't. It could easily be my luck; Honda doesn't make any junk, everyone knows, but I got a dirtbike that was a lemon.
p.3 #3 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
Hi,
Voice of reason here. Can you really justify thousands of dollars on a body if you're an amateur?
What I mean to say is:
For the pro, who uses this gear on a daily basis to win bread for his family, every little technological edge can make the job easier. At the end of the day, the camera will pay for itself in this way.
For the amateur, who is shooting his cat in the back yard, instead of the latest Calvin Klein underwear billboard, will these bells and whistles really make your photos much better. At the end of the day, when you print your 8x10's, are you REALLY going to notice your lens microadjustments?
My suggestion:
Forget about the new camera. Build a working collection of lenses. Use the cash to take a holiday instead (Canada is beautiful, come visit!), take lots of photos, and I guarantee you're going to cherish those photos much more than your 5d in a year, or even 10.
p.3 #4 · 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.
No. You forget the hidden costs of getting service, as eloquently put below
skibum5 wrote:
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.
^ OMFG + 1000000000000000000000000000000000
I can't believe how many luddite views there are about AF microadjust, just like there was about Live View, and the LCD screen, and AF...need I go on?
AF Microadjust is the difference between a quality lens and a paper weight. When you have weddings every week, you don't have time to send in your new 85L for calibration and be without it for 3 weeks If you didn't have microadjust, you'd have no choice.
Even worse, the lens often comes back unadjusted so you have to play the game over and over again. I got fed up and I refused to play the game anymore and ended up buying cameras with AF microadjust.
p.3 #5 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
synthesist wrote:
Hi,
Voice of reason here. Can you really justify thousands of dollars on a body if you're an amateur?
What I mean to say is:
For the pro, who uses this gear on a daily basis to win bread for his family, every little technological edge can make the job easier. At the end of the day, the camera will pay for itself in this way.
For the amateur, who is shooting his cat in the back yard, instead of the latest Calvin Klein underwear billboard, will these bells and whistles really make your photos much better. At the end of the day, when you print your 8x10's, are you REALLY going to notice your lens microadjustments?
My suggestion:
Forget about the new camera. Build a working collection of lenses. Use the cash to take a holiday instead (Canada is beautiful, come visit!), take lots of photos, and I guarantee you're going to cherish those photos much more than your 5d in a year, or even 10.
I think this is an inaccurate generalisation. Photographers aren't exactly the best paid bunch in the world. I do professional work at times but am largely an amateur. My gear is more highly specced than almost every professional photographer I have come across. I can afford it because I have a day job, whereas photographers don't have another day job and have to make sacrifices like getting a 85 f/1.8 instead of a 85 f/1.2. This is also a generalisation I am making, but hopefully illustrates the danger of making generalisations.
p.3 #6 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
I think MA will become a regular feature on the higher end canon bodies.
People tend to get a little carried away with micro adjustments. they do NOT make a 'bad copy' ( let's say for example a 24-70 f2.8 L which in all fairnes is likely to be a bad copy) into a GOOD copy. It won't adjust for sharpness, clarity,contrast etc. all it does is ADJUST for back/front focusing..NOTHING ELSE.
for people who own lots of lenses, this is a great feature.
p.3 #7 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
Dawei Ye wrote:
I can't believe how many luddite views there are about AF microadjust, just like there was about Live View, and the LCD screen, and AF...
Doubts about the "importance" of AF microadjust are nothing whatsoever to do with being a Luddite, and everything to do with simple common sense.
The way some people bang on about it, it's as it AFM was the most important thing ever to happen to digital photography, and that without it all of our lives are somehow fundamentally incomplete.
It's just another tool, and - at best - nothing more than a "nice to have if its available" one.
The OP's question is "could you live without it?" and the point some of us are vainly trying to make is not only that we can, but that we do.
Hardly the essential, life-changing miracle cure that some of you are trying to make it out to be then.
That's the point. We're not being "Luddite", about it, we're being adult about it.
Something else to consider...
Canon (or whoever) have a limited R&D budget: Some of us see things like AFM (or Live View or video) - firmware-based "improvements" - as being a disappointment when some of that limited budget could have been spent on a proper Auto ISO (the 50D's is getting close, but it's not there yet); or on delivering an xxD body that can AF natively at f/8 (there are hardware issues with that too, but they'll doubtless be introducing articulated LCDs soon, and I'm not interested in that "hardware improvement" either).
Hell, I'd find the ability to dial in a very slight delay into the AF of my 40D (another firmware thing) so that it doesn't immediately start to reacquire when something in the background distracts it, more useful than AF microadjust - and that ability already exists in the 1Ds (and in a lot of Noink bodies) so it's not as if they'd be starting from scratch there.
So no, not in any way Luddite.
Knowing what we want and not being distracted by every shiny new gadget that Canon throws our way like a fat kid in a cake shop when there are still some pretty fundamental basics that Canon could be spending their (our!) money on instead is why some of us are lukewarm about AF Microadjust.
need I go on?
I take it that's a rhetorical question, and that you will anyway...
p.3 #8 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
NumberFive wrote:
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.
For landscapes, you would probably want to focus using the hyperfocal point, NOT focusing on a particular point within the scene...
p.3 #9 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
keithreeder wrote:
Canon (or whoever) have a limited R&D budget: Some of us see things like AFM (or Live View or video) - firmware-based "improvements" - as being a disappointment when some of that limited budget could have been spent on a proper Auto ISO (the 50D's is getting close, but it's not there yet);
it doesn't take any budget at all to get a reasonable autoiso.
it's absurdly simple.
they obviously cripple it a bit to reserve some for 1 series (pretty silly IMO)
although even on 1 series they do some weird things like setting limits on how fast the min. shutter speed can be, ridiculous limitation, that could be fixed as simply as typing 4000 instead of 250 when coding.
in fact the new cams already do it perfectly in M mode for video and liveview shooting
p.3 #10 · Camera choice - would you live without micro adjust?
I shoot wide open with fast glass and have had a lot of AF issues over the years. Currently, all of my bodies (3) have AF micro-adjust, and I will not buy another new camera without this feature. Could I live without it? Yes, but my life is better with it.
If you didn't have microadjust, you'd have no choice.