I just read this after seeing the link you posted. Looks VERY promising. I\'m going to give it a try when I get my 7D back from Canon tomorrow. Thanks!
--Don
Don,
I had tried every other method but made a printed copy of that one for use in case one step or another slips my memory - I think it\'s that good.
Using the technique described there is a real eye-opener, and it really makes it possible to dial in each lens very accurately. Also, I\'d never noticed the amount of fine detail contained in a US currency bill!
The EOS utility enables viewing the target at a very magnified level - much larger and thus clearer than any view through the camera itself provides, even at 10x.
Once the camera is connected and the program is opened to the \'camera settings\' third option the screens which open with each choice will show you details to focus on, or assess your focus that are too small to be seen with the naked eye.
There\'s a little bit of tedium involved. Each time an adjustment is needed the camera needs to be disconnected in order to be able to open the menu, and doing so closes the EOS program. So each adjustment means starting anew but it becomes a matter of only a few clicks and a few seconds and so isn\'t all that bad. I think it\'s well worth the trouble.
Although it\'s not the subject of this thread this method also allows for an assessment of the sharpness ability of the lenses and I\'d advise to be prepared to accept that some lenses simply are not as sharp as others. Doing this on-screen viewing will easily point up the fact that with some lenses a seemingly poor focus is not a matter of focus at all and IS instead the lens\'s inherently lower acuity.
If you have a 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm F/4L, a 400mm f/5.6, (especially these two) or any of the faster long Canon lenses be prepared to be plumb amazed that ANYTHING could be so sharp!
The (or my) 135mm f/2 is also very sharp, but perhaps a little less so than the 300mm or 400mm. Zooms, and I have 24-70mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm f/4 IS, are sharp but not at all as sharp as the mentioned primes. (I was surprised to find, or to prove, that my particular 24-105mm is capable of finer sharpness than the 24-70mm that I bought with an idea to replace it). The 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 are about equals for me - very good, but not quite crystal sharp clear. I suppose this is where talk of examples begins..
It\'s possible to use the EOS Utilities to guage the varying sharpness of lenses over their aperture range too, but that\'s also off the topic.
When I was doing it I moved my tripod closer or farther depending on which lens was being adjusted. I wanted to have a very large view - only a portion of Jackson\'s fine visage. Be sure that you don\'t get closer than a lens can focus. I have a 24 ft office/shop/dungeon here that allows plenty of room for all of the lenses I own. Mostly I was within ten feet of the bill taped perfectly flat on a wall.
The mirror thing is kind of difficult - my camera wouldn\'t find focus on it when looking at itself. Your result may be better than mine, but in any case the idea is to have the lens perfectly aligned on target and not taking an angled view.
I think we all owe that fellow Aresh, whoever he is, a Thanks for putting this method down so clearly.
edit: One thing more: AF does not ALWAYS hit the same point of focus twice, or repeatedly. If you do this dollar bill trick you\'ll see that it will range one point (click of \"<\" \">\" keys) in either direction from one time to the next. Repeately throwing it out of focus and focusing again will hit good focus most of the time and I guess that\'s the best we can hope for. I doubt if any of the variance could be seen in even a small print.
I just read this after seeing the link you posted. Looks VERY promising. I\'m going to give it a try when I get my 7D back from Canon tomorrow. Thanks!
--Don
Don,
I had tried every other method but made a printed copy of that one for use in case one step or another slips my memory - I think it\'s that good.
Using the technique described there is a real eye-opener, and it really makes it possible to dial in each lens very accurately. Also, I\'d never noticed the amount of fine detail contained in a US currency bill!
The EOS utility enables viewing the target at a very magnified level - much larger and thus clearer than any view through the camera itself provides, even at 10x.
Once the camera is connected and the program is opened to the \'camera settings\' third option the screens which open with each choice will show you details to focus on, or assess your focus that are too small to be seen with the naked eye.
There\'s a little bit of tedium involved. Each time an adjustment is needed the camera needs to be disconnected in order to be able to open the menu, and doing so closes the EOS program. So each adjustment means starting anew but it becomes a matter of only a few clicks and a few seconds and so isn\'t all that bad. I think it\'s well worth the trouble.
Although it\'s not the subject of this thread this method also allows for an assessment of the sharpness ability of the lenses and I\'d advise to be prepared to accept that some lenses simply are not as sharp as others. Doing this on-screen viewing will easily point up the fact that with some lenses a seemingly poor focus is not a matter of focus at all and IS instead the lens\'s inherently lower acuity.
If you have a 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm F/4L, a 400mm f/5.6, (especially these two) or any of the faster long Canon lenses be prepared to be plumb amazed that ANYTHING could be so sharp!
The (or my) 135mm f/2 is also very sharp, but perhaps a little less so than the 300mm or 400mm. Zooms, and I have 24-70mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm f/4 IS, are sharp but not at all as sharp as the mentioned primes. (I was surprised to find, or to prove, that my particular 24-105mm is capable of finer sharpness than the 24-70mm that I bought with an idea to replace it). The 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 are about equals for me - very good, but not quite crystal sharp clear. I suppose this is where talk of examples begins..
It\'s also possible to use the EOS Utilities to guage the varying sharpness of lenses over their aperture range too, but that\'s also off the topic.
When I was doing it I moved my tripod closer or farther depending on which lens was being adjusted. I wanted to have a very large view - only a portion of Jackson\'s fine visage. Be sure that you don\'t get closer than a lens can focus. I have a 24 ft office/shop/dungeon here that allows plenty of room for all of the lenses I own. Mostly I was within ten feet of the bill taped perfectly flat on a wall.
The mirror thing is kind of difficult - my camera wouldn\'t find focus on it when looking at itself. Your result may be better than mine, but in any case the idea is to have the lens perfectly aligned on target and not taking an angled view.
I think we all owe that fellow Aresh, whoever he is, a Thanks for putting this method down so clearly.
edit: One thing more: AF does not ALWAYS hit the same point of focus twice, or repeatedly. If you do this dollar bill trick you\'ll see that it will range one point (click of \"<\" \">\" keys) in either direction from one time to the next. Repeately throwing it out of focus and focusing again will hit good focus most of the time and I guess that\'s the best we can hope for. I doubt if any of the variance could be seen in even a small print.
I just read this after seeing the link you posted. Looks VERY promising. I\'m going to give it a try when I get my 7D back from Canon tomorrow. Thanks!
--Don
Don,
I had tried every other method but made a printed copy of that one for use in case one step or another slips my memory - I think it\'s that good.
Using the technique described there is a real eye-opener, and it really makes it possible to dial in each lens very accurately. Also, I\'d never noticed the amount of fine detail contained in a US currency bill!
The EOS utility enables viewing the target at a very magnified level. Once the camera is connected and the program is opened to the \'camera settings\' third option the screens which open with each choice will show you details to focus on, or assess your focus that are too small to be seen with the naked eye.
There\'s a little bit of tedium involved. Each time an adjustment is needed the camera needs to be disconnected in order to be able to open the menu, and doing so closes the EOS program. So each adjustment means starting anew but it becomes a matter of only a few clicks and a few seconds and so isn\'t all that bad. I think it\'s well worth the trouble.
Although it\'s not the subject of this thread this method also allows for an assessment of the sharpness ability of the lenses and I\'d advise to be prepared to accept that some lenses simply are not as sharp as others. Doing this on-screen viewing will easily point up the fact that with some lenses a seemingly poor focus is not a matter of focus at all and IS instead the lens\'s inherently lower acuity.
If you have a 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm F/4L, a 400mm f/5.6, (especially these two) or any of the faster long Canon lenses be prepared to be plumb amazed that ANYTHING could be so sharp!
The (or my) 135mm f/2 is also very sharp, but perhaps a little less so than the 300mm or 400mm. Zooms, and I have 24-70mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm f/4 IS, are sharp but not at all as sharp as the mentioned primes. (I was surprised to find, or to prove, that my particular 24-105mm is capable of finer sharpness than the 24-70mm that I bought with an idea to replace it). The 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 are about equals for me - very good, but not quite crystal sharp clear. I suppose this is where talk of examples begins..
It\'s also possible to use the EOS Utilities to guage the varying sharpness of lenses over their aperture range too, but that\'s also off the topic.
When I was doing it I moved my tripod closer or farther depending on which lens was being adjusted. I wanted to have a very large view - only a portion of Jackson\'s fine visage. Be sure that you don\'t get closer than a lens can focus. I have a 24 ft office/shop/dungeon here that allows plenty of room for all of the lenses I own. Mostly I was within ten feet of the bill taped perfectly flat on a wall.
The mirror thing is kind of difficult - my camera wouldn\'t find focus on it when looking at itself. Your result may be better than mine, but in any case the idea is to have the lens perfectly aligned on target and not taking an angled view.
I think we all owe that fellow Aresh, whoever he is, a Thanks for putting this method down so clearly.
edit: One thing more: AF does not ALWAYS hit the same point of focus twice, or repeatedly. If you do this dollar bill trick you\'ll see that it will range one point (click of \"<\" \">\" keys) in either direction from one time to the next. Repeately throwing it out of focus and focusing again will hit good focus most of the time and I guess that\'s the best we can hope for. I doubt if any of the variance could be seen in even a small print.
I just read this after seeing the link you posted. Looks VERY promising. I\'m going to give it a try when I get my 7D back from Canon tomorrow. Thanks!
--Don
Don,
I had tried every other method but made a printed copy of that one for use in case one step or another slips my memory - I think it\'s that good.
Using the technique described there is a real eye-opener, and it really makes it possible to dial in each lens very accurately. Also, I\'d never noticed the amount of fine detail contained in a US currency bill!
The EOS utility enables viewing the target at a very magnified level. Once the camera is connected and the program is opened to the \'camera settings\' third option the screens which open with each choice will show you details to focus on, or assess your focus that are too small to be seen with the naked eye.
There\'s a little bit of tedium involved. Each time an adjustment is needed the camera needs to be disconnected in order to be able to open the menu, and doing so closes the EOS program. So each adjustment means starting anew but it becomes a matter of only a few clicks and a few seconds and so isn\'t all that bad. I think it\'s well worth the trouble.
Although it\'s not the subject of this thread this method also allows for an assessment of the sharpness ability of the lenses and I\'d advise to be prepared to accept that some lenses simply are not as sharp as others. Doing this on-screen viewing will easily point up the fact that with some lenses a seemingly poor focus is not a matter of focus at all and IS instead the lens\'s inherently lower acuity.
If you have a 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm F/4L, a 400mm f/5.6, (especially these two) or any of the faster long Canon lenses be prepared to be plumb amazed that ANYTHING could be so sharp!
The (or my) 135mm f/2 is also very sharp, but perhaps a little less so than the 300mm or 400mm. Zooms, and I have 24-70mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm f/4 IS, are sharp but not at all as sharp as the mentioned primes. (I was surprised to find, or to prove, that my particular 24-105mm is capable of finer sharpness than the 24-70mm that I bought with an idea to replace it). The 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 are about equals for me - very good, but not quite crystal sharp clear. I suppose this is where talk of examples begins..
It\'s also possible to use the EOS Utilities to guage the varying sharpness of lenses over their aperture range too, but that\'s also off the topic.
When I was doing it I moved my tripod closer or farther depending on which lens was being adjusted. I wanted to have a very large view - only a portion of Jackson\'s fine visage. Be sure that you don\'t get closer than a lens can focus. I have a 24 ft office/shop/dungeon here that allows plenty of room for all of the lenses I own. Mostly I was within ten feet of the bill taped perfectly flat on a wall.
The mirror thing is kind of difficult - my camera wouldn\'t find focus on it when looking at itself. Your result may be better than mine, but in any case the idea is to have the lens perfectly aligned on target and not taking an angled view.
I think we all owe that fellow Aresh, whoever he is, a Thanks for putting this method down so clearly.
May 13, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Previous versions of SteveTuerk's message #8466914 « Microadjust question/comment »
