Anon Moss wrote:
I think MA would be a lot more useful if you could adjust it for every aperture not just one.
If/when that day comes...I'll use it.
conurus conversion for contax n lenses allows MA for near/med/far too which is a feature that would be nice
I think all Canon DSLR's should have MA. Personally, I only have one lens out of 4 that I need it on (Sigma 50), but having it for that one lens makes all the difference.
I voted yes but my first ma is coming this weekend. I feel it is a nice feature to try and see if improvement comes. I definitely don't tank any 'pro' camera even in the semi category should not have it as an option, it's a frikkin software enhancement. Conon clearly positioned the 60 not to interfere with their flagship crop.
It's a shame your thread reads "Who uses micro adjust" and then there is a poll asking "Do you use Micro Adjust"; the issue I see with this is the majority of folks that don't use MA will not open your thread. Don't get me wrong, I like your question but the poll results are skewed because of the population reading this thread ... just my $0.02 worth.
It's a shame your thread reads "Who uses micro adjust" and then there is a poll asking "Do you use Micro Adjust"; the issue I see with this is the majority of folks that don't use MA will not open your thread. Don't get me wrong, I like your question but the poll results are skewed because of the population reading this thread ... just my $0.02 worth.
I bought a 7D for MA and low light work. I knew my XTi was off and had to use slow lens openings to get the subject within the DOF. On the 7D every one of my lenses needed some adjustment, I'm happy now but would not buy a camera without MA.
I spoke to Canon service about MA and they said that it was only really intended to be used for an emergency - not constantly. They said a good example was a photographer in the field found their lens at a specific length was out and needed to get the shot that day before sending it in to Canon for proper calibration - so use MA to get it.
They justified this by saying that lenses often don't suffer from a consistent amount of MA correction for all lengths (in the case of zooms) and focal distance. Instead, they could need different MA at different lengths and focus distances, and only they had the software and systems capable of doing that job. I understand this as my 24-70 was VERY inconsistent across the range.
No idea if this was just them trying to drum up business, but since my stuff was going in on warranty, I'd like to think not...
Just thought I'd share what they said. Don't shoot the messenger
jcolwell wrote: Max10 wrote:
... I have spent more money than cost of my lenses for getting my setup in order.
Man! Your lenses must be crap.
molson wrote:
Or you've dropped your camera a few too many times...
None of my lenses is crap, nor do I mishandle my equipment. It is the tolerance, which is always present in any manufacturing process. I do not find it relevant to elaborate theory of MANUFACTURING TOLERANCES or theory of PROBABILITY in a photography forum. Unfortunately, all of my lenses (including cheapo kit) and bodies needed re-calibration more than once.
MA is the easiest way to fix the back/ front focus issues precisely. This feature must be introduced even in entry level bodies with a warning note for beginners (like any other warning notes). However, camera features are decided by marketing department not by R&D department.
lol i just had a thought, at the moment i see about 140+ people voting yes. whenever i go to b/s, i almost never see any seller mentioning that their lens needed +/- MA at all. for those who used MA on a lens and you go sell it on b/s, i wonder if you disclose this information or do you simply say "tack sharp, no issues"? just curious.
I've used dozens of Canon lenses, and so far, only a couple need micro adjust. My 24-105mm L needed +2.
However, I just bought a new 35mmL and it was noticibly front focused, particularly up close (5ft). I put a +2 in my 5D MK II and the difference was amazing. My 1D MK III needed +10.
It is a very useful feature, and I would not buy or recommend a DSLR that does not have it.
