I am very curious about this. Everyone talked about how easy it is to use and how they adjusted their lenses. Has anyone seen any real differances in their photos?
I wonder if this is technically curious or real world applicable?
Did you photos get better after using this, or were you just more confident in your set up?
It is the purpose of life that each of us strives to become actually what he is potentially. We should be obsessed with stretching towards that goal through the world we inhabit.
YES. Emphatically, YES. I've recently felt my keeper rate was lower than it should be; because I shoot at very wide apertures a lot of the time, small anomalies of focus tend to show up in my images. I DEFINITELY had more accurately-focused shots from my last shoot - no doubt about that at all. Not all of my lenses needed adjusting, but most of them did.
I hate doing MFAF adjustment; I've always felt that it was kind of like eye tests where the doc says "is this one better, or this one?" and they're both just blurry in different ways I've never felt sure I was getting it "right". (I'm not one of life's precise, mathematical, engineering types who is good at this kind of methodical stuff). Knowing the program is gathering enough data to make a more accurate determination than I can is AWESOME. This program - even with the minor glitches I experienced - has already paid for itself for me.
The thing I think I like best about this program is that at the end it shows the uncorrected and corrected versions side by side - you have the option to accept it (at which point it dials it into the camera for you), or say no and leave it as it is. With my 135L it wanted to move it one tick from center, and I decided to leave it as it was.
On my 24-70, however, it made a +8 adjustment - could see a HUGE difference ('course, cause it's a zoom it wants different adjustments at different focal lengths which is a PRIME pita - thank you, 5dIII for allowing different settings at different focal lengths, and I can't wait till I have that option!!). FWIW, in the end, I took kind of an average of the zoom's adjustments and picked one in the middle to try and cover all bases; it worked well on my last shoot, so I can definitely see a difference.
Photography is not a job for me, it's a hobby, and I consider myself to be a pretty busy man. I say that to tell you that I don't give a crap about anything that doesn't manifest in real-world results. Micro Focus adjustments on my lenses has made a huge difference in my keeper rate. Think about it, the difference between 0 and +4 at an aperture of F1 .7, is the difference between having the eyes in focus and having the side of the nose in focus with mushy eyes. That's a pretty meaningful difference.
I am very curious about this. Everyone talked about how easy it is to use and how they adjusted their lenses. Has anyone seen any real differances in their photos?
I wonder if this is technically curious or real world applicable?
Did you photos get better after using this, or were you just more confident in your set up?
My laptop is a MacBook Pro running OS-X Lion, and my PCs are Linux and Windows 7. Unfortunately since it appears your camera needs to be tethered to a Windows PC to run the software I will have to wait until the Mac version comes out. The room where my W7 PC is is too small and cluttered to allow me to do the testing there. Sure looks like a cool piece of software though, and I will buy it when the Mac version is released.
So I purchased the Pro version last night and tried to run it on a Mac with Parallels 6. Unfortunately, I could not get the target acquisition to work well. Tried the beta version but that had problems as well. Planning to 'borrow' a work PC laptop to do the testing. Looks like bleeding edge camera (5D mk III) and emulation on Mac doesn't quite work as well as I had hoped...
I'll post a review after running the tests with a PC.
I read that this software will work fine on Mac OS-X in a VM. So I downloaded and installed VirtualBox for Mac, and grabbed the only uninstalled copy of Windows I have (XP). Installed that in a VM and spent 1/2 the day upgrading it to SP2, then SP3, then endless rounds of "install these patches and reboot". Finally purchased the software and got a license key and downloaded it. Installed it, and it came up and told me that it won't work with Nikon cameras under XP. So now I have wasted my money, as I have a Nikon D7000 and I am NOT going to go out and buy a $150 copy of Windows 7 to install in a VM just to get this software to work.
In their defense, if you dig through the requirements, it does say that Nikon cameras aren't supported under XP, but I missed it. My bad, my lost and wasted money.
I actually don't think I have a focus problem anyway, according to LensAlign MKII, but this seemed like such a cool piece of software I couldn't resist. Maybe they'll let me have the Mac version if it ever comes out.
Michael - I'm sure there are plenty of folks here who would give you %50-90 of the sale price for that key Although you may have to give them the login info for the website as well, you can change the account information and password before doing something like that.
I would offer you %65 on the spot but I already purchased a copy.
Mod edit: My apologies for the interruption of this message. I misunderstood. Carry on.
I've emailed the company and asked for status as a beta tester for the Mac version that is supposed to be out this month. Barring that, I will ask them for a refund.
Had a chance to use the program today with a borrowed PC laptop using a 5D mk II and 5D mk III.
The fully automated option is just awesome - though it does not work for the mk III (yet). This software took what was a laborious process and made it ridiculously simple. I breezed through testing/calibrating a friend's mk II with 85/1.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses. It locks in the settings for each lens once you accept them - very slick.
On the mk III, the process is 'semi-automated' as the SDK is not yet fully available. What that means is that you have to manually enter the AF adjustments it tells - start at zero, then -20, -10 10. 20, -12, -4, 4, 12. The software then puts in a guess as to where it thinks sharpness lies and then has you put in further adjustments by 2s to confirm. At the end it produces a nice pdf file.
The pro version offers AF consistency checking. That proved very helpful while trying to figure out if my mk III still had focus issues (despite two trips to Canon service). Here is the result with the same 70-200 lens on both bodies. mk II on bottom.
Overall, I'm very pleased with FoCal, not so much with it being essentially PC-only at this point. Website does suggest there will be a release for Mac in July though...
5D-III frozen on Mac with FoCal 1.7.0.224 beta
I've sent this direct to Reikan, but hope someone here might enable me to tell them the problem has been solved:
I just purchased FoCal Pro and installed it on my Macbook Pro Lion 10.7.5. The program does not find my camera. Active Support Preferences are set to Canon. Canon EOS Utility can find my camera OK. No Canon programs or other camera programs are running.
As soon as I plug the camera in, all buttons on the camera are frozen. When I press FoCal's button to find the camera, it blinks for 0.1 second, nothing further happens.
Canon EOS 5D-III is set to Av, center point (not spot) focus, single shot focus, single shot expose, Live View enabled, Live View focus to Quick Focus (same null result if set to Live View). The camera is not aimed at any target. Probably none of this matters?
Image Capture is set to open no application when the camera is plugged in. Setting it to open FoCal does not help.
i've sent this direct to reikan, but hope someone here might enable me to tell them the problem has been solved:
I just purchased focal pro and installed it on my macbook pro lion 10.7.5. The program does not find my camera. Active support preferences are set to canon. Canon eos utility can find my camera ok. No canon programs or other camera programs are running.
As soon as i plug the camera in, all buttons on the camera are frozen. When i press focal's button to find the camera, it blinks for 0.1 second, nothing further happens.
Canon eos 5d-iii is set to av, center point (not spot) focus, single shot focus, single shot expose, live view enabled, live view focus to quick focus (same null result if set to live view). The camera is not aimed at any target. Probably none of this matters?
Image capture is set to open no application when the camera is plugged in. Setting it to open focal does not help.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
problem solved with 1.7.0.232 -- thanks
Ok, stupid question, but all the results I've seen with the aperture sharpness, why am I buying all the spendy 2.8 lenses, when f/10+ is always the sharpest?
Because your AF will not work at f10, nor could you see anything through an f10 lens. Try the aperture Preview button on your camera with the lens set to f11, and see how dark you viewfinder is when looking through it.
When you press the shutter release button, before the shutter itself begins to move and after the AF has focused your lens, the reflex mirror swings up out of the optical path to the sensor, the aperture closes down from wide open - say f2.8 - to the selected aperture, the shutter then opens and closes, and the aperture automatically reopens back up to f2.8 or whatever the widest aperture the lens contains.
It is true that an f2.8 lens is usually sharper about two stops from wide open - so about f5.6 or so for an f2.8lens. F10 is NOT always the sharpest, but f5.6, f8 or even f11 can all be pretty sharp.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
problem solved with 1.7.0.232 -- thanks
Glad to hear this, I have been waiting to hear successes in OS 10, but am interested in this software if it truly works as well in the Mac world. The Windows users seem pretty pleased with it.
Ok, but lets say I'm in the market for a 300mm, if the f/4 version is half as much, and still going to look best at f/8 or f/11, would the 2.8 be any better at f/8 or f/11? I know, its better glass, VR and all that, but really, is it worth it?
So far, I have the triune of Nikkor 2.8, and I hate them all.
Ok, stupid question, but all the results I've seen with the aperture sharpness, why am I buying all the spendy 2.8 lenses, when f/10+ is always the sharpest?
Ok, but lets say I'm in the market for a 300mm, if the f/4 version is half as much, and still going to look best at f/8 or f/11, would the 2.8 be any better at f/8 or f/11? I know, its better glass, VR and all that, but really, is it worth it?
So far, I have the triune of Nikkor 2.8, and I hate them all.
In addition to what Pathfinder said, large aperture lenses (f2.8 or better) allow better separation between subject and background/foreground (helping to isolate the subject) and, on many modern cameras, lenses with at least f2.8 actuate the high-precision center AF point. Large aperture lenses tend to AF better in low light too, because they let in more light and the AF section is based on an imager technology. (Modern passive phase-detect autofocus use a specialized image sensor, with a specific light sensitivity range. AF is much faster, and typically more accurate, in better light.)
If you shoot everything at small apertures you are missing a great many image possibilities.
Ok, but lets say I'm in the market for a 300mm, if the f/4 version is half as much, and still going to look best at f/8 or f/11, would the 2.8 be any better at f/8 or f/11? I know, its better glass, VR and all that, but really, is it worth it?
So far, I have the triune of Nikkor 2.8, and I hate them all.
Looking at your profile of the equipment you own - D800, 15mm 2.8, 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VR2, G9, and a Tachihara 4x5", GH2 misc lenes, and Nikon adaptor, lots of video lighting, audio stuff - I suspect you already know the answers to your questions. Your equipment list is not that of a new user.
In regard to the 300 f4 lenses, I own both the Canon 300 f2.8 IS L which is used by me, and a 300 F4 IS L that is used by my wife. I envy her the lighter weight of her F4 lens, and I really think they are almost the same optically at f 5.6 or f8. The new Canon 300 f2.8 is about $7k, the F4 version is less than 1/4 of that. But when you need f2.8, the f4 version is worthless. We each have to determine how much we need the wider apertures. Modern higher ISO cameras, like your D800, are reducing the need for faster lenses to capture an image, but focusing in the dark, still needs wide apertures.
Ok, but lets say I'm in the market for a 300mm, if the f/4 version is half as much, and still going to look best at f/8 or f/11, would the 2.8 be any better at f/8 or f/11? I know, its better glass, VR and all that, but really, is it worth it?
So far, I have the triune of Nikkor 2.8, and I hate them all.
One word answer: LIGHT. Sure, the glass may be *sharper* stopped down, but it doesn't let in as much light so you have to compromise other areas of shooting for that sharpness. Are you willing and does your shooting allow you to have 2sec shutter speeds to use f8? If so, then you don't "need" the wider apertures. But many of us can't afford longer shutter speeds, so the ability to let more light into the camera becomes a prime *need*.
The sub-answer would be: depth of field. If you want shallow depth of field, you need wider apertures available.
ETA: And if you really hate all your lenses which I understand to be some of the best glass - of any maker - on the market, then seems like maybe there's something else going on..............
Looking at your profile of the equipment you own - D800, 15mm 2.8, 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VR2, G9, and a Tachihara 4x5", GH2 misc lenes, and Nikon adaptor, lots of video lighting, audio stuff - I suspect you already know the answers to your questions. Your equipment list is not that of a new user.
In regard to the 300 f4 lenses, I own both the Canon 300 f2.8 IS L which is used by me, and a 300 F4 IS L that is used by my wife. I envy her the lighter weight of her F4 lens, and I really think they are almost the same optically at f 5.6 or f8. The new Canon 300 f2.8 is about $7k, the F4 version is less than 1/4 of that. But when you need f2.8, the f4 version is worthless. We each have to determine how much we need the wider apertures. Modern higher ISO cameras, like your D800, are reducing the need for faster lenses to capture an image, but focusing in the dark, still needs wide apertures.
Interesting! And Yes, I do love the shallow DOF with the faster glass, and I just know I'd probably regret the f/4 at a night time football game.
One word answer: LIGHT. Sure, the glass may be *sharper* stopped down, but it doesn't let in as much light so you have to compromise other areas of shooting for that sharpness. Are you willing and does your shooting allow you to have 2sec shutter speeds to use f8? If so, then you don't "need" the wider apertures. But many of us can't afford longer shutter speeds, so the ability to let more light into the camera becomes a prime *need*.
The sub-answer would be: depth of field. If you want shallow depth of field, you need wider apertures available.
ETA: And if you really hate all your lenses which I understand to be some of the best glass - of any maker - on the market, then seems like maybe there's something else going on..............
Haha, yes I think so too, cause when I first got my 70-200 2.8 and its the new VR2, it was fantastic. I could see the VR working as I was walking, and it would still turn out fantastic images. Then I put the 24-70 to the test, and it was maybe even better. Just love.
But lately, they are all so out of focus, and awful I'm about to give up the whole kit. Maybe just go back to a P&S. I dont see the VR working either. (in the 70-200)
The upside to shooting with Nikon, is the focus is so bad, their skin looks really nice, and do a quick sharpen over the eyes and teeth, and Ive got a nice almost film look.
Maybe if I go back to Canon, then I wouldn't fear getting the 300 2.8. It probably still turns out nice images.
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Interesting! And Yes, I do love the shallow DOF with the faster glass, and I just know I'd probably regret the f/4 at a night time football game.
Haha, yes I think so too, cause when I first got my 70-200 2.8 and its the new VR2, it was fantastic. I could see the VR working as I was walking, and it would still turn out fantastic images. Then I put the 24-70 to the test, and it was maybe even better. Just love.
But lately, they are all so out of focus, and awful I'm about to give up the whole kit. Maybe just go back to a P&S. I dont see the VR working either. (in the 70-200)
The upside to shooting with Nikon, is the focus is so bad, their skin looks really nice, and do a quick sharpen over the eyes and teeth, and Ive got a nice almost film look.
Maybe if I go back to Canon, then I wouldn't fear getting the 300 2.8. It probably still turns out nice images.
Dude you've been going on about your bad focusing D800 for months now. The camera should be able to nail insane sharpness wide open at 2.8, or even 1.4... I edit thousands of incredibly sharp, wide-open images every week as a full-time post-producer... and all of the f/2.8 zooms you own are capable of identical sharpness from wide open to f/8... If your camera isn't giving you that, either your camera needs service, or you need to master the camera some more.
Besides, I don't even think that f/10 being sharpest aperture was the main point of this topic. It was lens calibration techniques...
Yes, finally I met a guy here in our town who also shoots with the D800, he volunteered to come over tonight and did a bunch of tests, confirmed left focus was not bad, but lenses definitely needed some calibration. So we diid some quick adjustments, and shot a family, and they were so tack sharp. Yet, afterwords, I shot a basketball game, and about every 3rd shout was nice and sharp. And still lots weren't.
I think I need this software, looks better than the LensAlign, and maybe just maybe, the camera will be fine. Weird cause it started out life so dang good, with the same glass.
Thanks to this thread, I went and purchased the Plus version. I am a Nikon D4 guy and the process is not available to be fully automated but it was VERY pain free. I am not sure what the benefits will be realized in real life application yet since I just completed the process this afternoon and I haven't had a shoot yet.
It looks like my lenses really needed it. I am not sure what the numbers mean but here are my results:
70-200 VR II required a -7 adjustment.
24-70 required a -15 adjustment.
Does this mean my lenses were in bad shape?
Thanks,
MD
Nikon D4, 400 2.8 AF-I, 70-200mm 2.8 VR II, 24-70 2.8
CBS Sports MaxPreps Shooter http://DalbyPhoto.com
Good to hear! Seems like they all need a little adjusting. But I'm thinking of ordering this as well, I just sent the 800 in, hope theres something off more than just my lenses. Did that software also let you know where the sharpest aperture is?
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Thanks to this thread, I went and purchased the Plus version. I am a Nikon D4 guy and the process is not available to be fully automated but it was VERY pain free. I am not sure what the benefits will be realized in real life application yet since I just completed the process this afternoon and I haven't had a shoot yet.
It looks like my lenses really needed it. I am not sure what the numbers mean but here are my results:
70-200 VR II required a -7 adjustment.
24-70 required a -15 adjustment.
Does this mean my lenses were in bad shape?
Thanks,
MD
Sounds about normal for any lens set that hasn't been in for official service in a while. I do this kind of calibration all the time on my D700 and all lenses.
I guess I still don't see how this system, whether just software, hardware, or both, can offer that significant of an improvement in accuracy or efficiency over the bootleg type of calibration that I do in just a couple minutes per lens without any fancy tools. I bet it's extremely precise, but even in the field when I'm on the job, I can tell when my AF calibration needs to be bumped up by +3. Therefore, I put it to you: Instead of investing $$$ in a device / system, the first thing to do is to fully understand your camera's autofocus system, how to determine front / back focus, and calibrate it in the field without tools. Then, if you determine that an extra amount of precision or efficiency is even necessary, consider purchasing a tool or software to aide in accomplishing what you already understand. I don't mean to imply that this is refers to the current situation for anyone in particular, but I just hate to see people throw money at a problem instead of working to understand it better, which often solves your problems for free.
I try to log in to Reikan site and get the message
"To view this page, you must log in to area “www.reikan.co.uk” on www.reikan.co.uk:80." Then it asks for a name and a Password which of course I don't have. I am using a MAC but I am willing to get the Windows shell if it will allow me to use this program if it is as good as I've heard. I have 2 D3s and a D600 and 14 Nikon FX lenses
No matter how I try I can't get in and I really want to download the SW. Can anyone help me out. I know I am doing something stupid.
Comments
I wonder if this is technically curious or real world applicable?
Did you photos get better after using this, or were you just more confident in your set up?
I hate doing MFAF adjustment; I've always felt that it was kind of like eye tests where the doc says "is this one better, or this one?" and they're both just blurry in different ways
The thing I think I like best about this program is that at the end it shows the uncorrected and corrected versions side by side - you have the option to accept it (at which point it dials it into the camera for you), or say no and leave it as it is. With my 135L it wanted to move it one tick from center, and I decided to leave it as it was.
On my 24-70, however, it made a +8 adjustment - could see a HUGE difference ('course, cause it's a zoom it wants different adjustments at different focal lengths which is a PRIME pita - thank you, 5dIII for allowing different settings at different focal lengths, and I can't wait till I have that option!!). FWIW, in the end, I took kind of an average of the zoom's adjustments and picked one in the middle to try and cover all bases; it worked well on my last shoot, so I can definitely see a difference.
HTH!
Is it wrong that the geek in me wants one of my lenses to be off so I can try AF adjustment?? lol
http://michaelnel.smugmug.com
I'll post a review after running the tests with a PC.
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
I read that this software will work fine on Mac OS-X in a VM. So I downloaded and installed VirtualBox for Mac, and grabbed the only uninstalled copy of Windows I have (XP). Installed that in a VM and spent 1/2 the day upgrading it to SP2, then SP3, then endless rounds of "install these patches and reboot". Finally purchased the software and got a license key and downloaded it. Installed it, and it came up and told me that it won't work with Nikon cameras under XP. So now I have wasted my money, as I have a Nikon D7000 and I am NOT going to go out and buy a $150 copy of Windows 7 to install in a VM just to get this software to work.
In their defense, if you dig through the requirements, it does say that Nikon cameras aren't supported under XP, but I missed it. My bad, my lost and wasted money.
I actually don't think I have a focus problem anyway, according to LensAlign MKII, but this seemed like such a cool piece of software I couldn't resist. Maybe they'll let me have the Mac version if it ever comes out.
http://michaelnel.smugmug.com
I would offer you %65 on the spot but I already purchased a copy.
Mod edit: My apologies for the interruption of this message. I misunderstood. Carry on.
ziggy
http://michaelnel.smugmug.com
The fully automated option is just awesome - though it does not work for the mk III (yet). This software took what was a laborious process and made it ridiculously simple. I breezed through testing/calibrating a friend's mk II with 85/1.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses. It locks in the settings for each lens once you accept them - very slick.
On the mk III, the process is 'semi-automated' as the SDK is not yet fully available. What that means is that you have to manually enter the AF adjustments it tells - start at zero, then -20, -10 10. 20, -12, -4, 4, 12. The software then puts in a guess as to where it thinks sharpness lies and then has you put in further adjustments by 2s to confirm. At the end it produces a nice pdf file.
The pro version offers AF consistency checking. That proved very helpful while trying to figure out if my mk III still had focus issues (despite two trips to Canon service). Here is the result with the same 70-200 lens on both bodies. mk II on bottom.
Overall, I'm very pleased with FoCal, not so much with it being essentially PC-only at this point. Website does suggest there will be a release for Mac in July though...
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
http://michaelnel.smugmug.com
I've sent this direct to Reikan, but hope someone here might enable me to tell them the problem has been solved:
I just purchased FoCal Pro and installed it on my Macbook Pro Lion 10.7.5. The program does not find my camera. Active Support Preferences are set to Canon. Canon EOS Utility can find my camera OK. No Canon programs or other camera programs are running.
As soon as I plug the camera in, all buttons on the camera are frozen. When I press FoCal's button to find the camera, it blinks for 0.1 second, nothing further happens.
Canon EOS 5D-III is set to Av, center point (not spot) focus, single shot focus, single shot expose, Live View enabled, Live View focus to Quick Focus (same null result if set to Live View). The camera is not aimed at any target. Probably none of this matters?
Image Capture is set to open no application when the camera is plugged in. Setting it to open FoCal does not help.
problem solved with 1.7.0.232 -- thanks
Thanks for letting us know what works.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
When you press the shutter release button, before the shutter itself begins to move and after the AF has focused your lens, the reflex mirror swings up out of the optical path to the sensor, the aperture closes down from wide open - say f2.8 - to the selected aperture, the shutter then opens and closes, and the aperture automatically reopens back up to f2.8 or whatever the widest aperture the lens contains.
It is true that an f2.8 lens is usually sharper about two stops from wide open - so about f5.6 or so for an f2.8lens. F10 is NOT always the sharpest, but f5.6, f8 or even f11 can all be pretty sharp.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Glad to hear this, I have been waiting to hear successes in OS 10, but am interested in this software if it truly works as well in the Mac world. The Windows users seem pretty pleased with it.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
So far, I have the triune of Nikkor 2.8, and I hate them all.
In addition to what Pathfinder said, large aperture lenses (f2.8 or better) allow better separation between subject and background/foreground (helping to isolate the subject) and, on many modern cameras, lenses with at least f2.8 actuate the high-precision center AF point. Large aperture lenses tend to AF better in low light too, because they let in more light and the AF section is based on an imager technology. (Modern passive phase-detect autofocus use a specialized image sensor, with a specific light sensitivity range. AF is much faster, and typically more accurate, in better light.)
If you shoot everything at small apertures you are missing a great many image possibilities.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Looking at your profile of the equipment you own - D800, 15mm 2.8, 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VR2, G9, and a Tachihara 4x5", GH2 misc lenes, and Nikon adaptor, lots of video lighting, audio stuff - I suspect you already know the answers to your questions. Your equipment list is not that of a new user.
In regard to the 300 f4 lenses, I own both the Canon 300 f2.8 IS L which is used by me, and a 300 F4 IS L that is used by my wife. I envy her the lighter weight of her F4 lens, and I really think they are almost the same optically at f 5.6 or f8. The new Canon 300 f2.8 is about $7k, the F4 version is less than 1/4 of that. But when you need f2.8, the f4 version is worthless. We each have to determine how much we need the wider apertures. Modern higher ISO cameras, like your D800, are reducing the need for faster lenses to capture an image, but focusing in the dark, still needs wide apertures.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
One word answer: LIGHT. Sure, the glass may be *sharper* stopped down, but it doesn't let in as much light so you have to compromise other areas of shooting for that sharpness. Are you willing and does your shooting allow you to have 2sec shutter speeds to use f8? If so, then you don't "need" the wider apertures. But many of us can't afford longer shutter speeds, so the ability to let more light into the camera becomes a prime *need*.
The sub-answer would be: depth of field. If you want shallow depth of field, you need wider apertures available.
ETA: And if you really hate all your lenses which I understand to be some of the best glass - of any maker - on the market, then seems like maybe there's something else going on..............
Interesting!
Haha, yes I think so too, cause when I first got my 70-200 2.8 and its the new VR2, it was fantastic. I could see the VR working as I was walking, and it would still turn out fantastic images. Then I put the 24-70 to the test, and it was maybe even better. Just love.
But lately, they are all so out of focus, and awful I'm about to give up the whole kit. Maybe just go back to a P&S. I dont see the VR working either. (in the 70-200)
The upside to shooting with Nikon, is the focus is so bad, their skin looks really nice, and do a quick sharpen over the eyes and teeth, and Ive got a nice almost film look.
Maybe if I go back to Canon, then I wouldn't fear getting the 300 2.8. It probably still turns out nice images.
Besides, I don't even think that f/10 being sharpest aperture was the main point of this topic. It was lens calibration techniques...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I think I need this software, looks better than the LensAlign, and maybe just maybe, the camera will be fine. Weird cause it started out life so dang good, with the same glass.
It looks like my lenses really needed it. I am not sure what the numbers mean but here are my results:
70-200 VR II required a -7 adjustment.
24-70 required a -15 adjustment.
Does this mean my lenses were in bad shape?
Thanks,
MD
CBS Sports MaxPreps Shooter
http://DalbyPhoto.com
I guess I still don't see how this system, whether just software, hardware, or both, can offer that significant of an improvement in accuracy or efficiency over the bootleg type of calibration that I do in just a couple minutes per lens without any fancy tools. I bet it's extremely precise, but even in the field when I'm on the job, I can tell when my AF calibration needs to be bumped up by +3. Therefore, I put it to you: Instead of investing $$$ in a device / system, the first thing to do is to fully understand your camera's autofocus system, how to determine front / back focus, and calibrate it in the field without tools. Then, if you determine that an extra amount of precision or efficiency is even necessary, consider purchasing a tool or software to aide in accomplishing what you already understand. I don't mean to imply that this is refers to the current situation for anyone in particular, but I just hate to see people throw money at a problem instead of working to understand it better, which often solves your problems for free.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I try to log in to Reikan site and get the message
"To view this page, you must log in to area “www.reikan.co.uk” on www.reikan.co.uk:80." Then it asks for a name and a Password which of course I don't have. I am using a MAC but I am willing to get the Windows shell if it will allow me to use this program if it is as good as I've heard. I have 2 D3s and a D600 and 14 Nikon FX lenses
No matter how I try I can't get in and I really want to download the SW. Can anyone help me out. I know I am doing something stupid.
Our hosting provider for the website is having a serious issue at present - we hope this will be resolved very soon.
Via Twitter
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
So it's not me... that's so cool as it usually is me.......