Reikan FoCal 2.0 Final Released

[AP]

Ready for Prime Time it is not. I've been struggling to get it to read the target print all afternoon with no luck. The software is supposed to help you center the focal point with arrows but all you get is one pointing left no matter where you aim your camera. Very frustrating. I have a ticket with support, but they respond in 3 days and of course it is Friday and they are in England and I am in California. I would stay away from it.

 

[rpt]

So my first impression is that the new version doesn't sample enough to find the optimum setting it is just using the curve, but it is consistent with its results.

That's always been my impression with FoCal, which is one reason I acquire the images myself and use the manual analysis mode. I actually oversample – 83 shots per test (three shots at every adjustment value from -10 to +10 and two shots at even numbered values |>10|), but it only takes me ~10 minutes to collect the shots and I get consistent, reliable results.

It seems the new version is sampling even fewer images than previous. Maybe that is why it is "faster".

I switched to manual too after reading how neuro was doing things. If I am doing it with an older lens I do 3 shots for every AFMA value from -10 to 10. If it is a brand new lens or my camera has just come back from calibration I do -20, -15, -12, -10 and then all values until 10 followed by 12, 15 and 20.

All my lenses fall in the -10 to 10 range so I have never had to redo any around a skewed AFMA value.

 

[takesome1]

So my first impression is that the new version doesn't sample enough to find the optimum setting it is just using the curve, but it is consistent with its results.

That's always been my impression with FoCal, which is one reason I acquire the images myself and use the manual analysis mode. I actually oversample – 83 shots per test (three shots at every adjustment value from -10 to +10 and two shots at even numbered values |>10|), but it only takes me ~10 minutes to collect the shots and I get consistent, reliable results.

It seems the new version is sampling even fewer images than previous. Maybe that is why it is "faster".

I switched to manual too after reading how neuro was doing things. If I am doing it with an older lens I do 3 shots for every AFMA value from -10 to 10. If it is a brand new lens or my camera has just come back from calibration I do -20, -15, -12, -10 and then all values until 10 followed by 12, 15 and 20.

All my lenses fall in the -10 to 10 range so I have never had to redo any around a skewed AFMA value.

Since this thread is about Version 2 the question for you and Neuro would be;
Have you run the test with V2 and had the same results as the previous version.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I haven't run any tests with v2.

 

[Viggo]

Ready for Prime Time it is not. I've been struggling to get it to read the target print all afternoon with no luck. The software is supposed to help you center the focal point with arrows but all you get is one pointing left no matter where you aim your camera. Very frustrating. I have a ticket with support, but they respond in 3 days and of course it is Friday and they are in England and I am in California. I would stay away from it.

Do you move turn your camera or move it sideways? Does it ever change from left or does it move out of the view and still show left? Have you focused the target? Have you told FoCal which size it is?

 

[rpt]

So my first impression is that the new version doesn't sample enough to find the optimum setting it is just using the curve, but it is consistent with its results.

That's always been my impression with FoCal, which is one reason I acquire the images myself and use the manual analysis mode. I actually oversample – 83 shots per test (three shots at every adjustment value from -10 to +10 and two shots at even numbered values |>10|), but it only takes me ~10 minutes to collect the shots and I get consistent, reliable results.

It seems the new version is sampling even fewer images than previous. Maybe that is why it is "faster".

I switched to manual too after reading how neuro was doing things. If I am doing it with an older lens I do 3 shots for every AFMA value from -10 to 10. If it is a brand new lens or my camera has just come back from calibration I do -20, -15, -12, -10 and then all values until 10 followed by 12, 15 and 20.

All my lenses fall in the -10 to 10 range so I have never had to redo any around a skewed AFMA value.

Since this thread is about Version 2 the question for you and Neuro would be;
Have you run the test with V2 and had the same results as the previous version.

My 7D2 was calibrated with the V2 beta version. I did all my lenses for that camera with that version.

 

[Don Haines]

So my first impression is that the new version doesn't sample enough to find the optimum setting it is just using the curve, but it is consistent with its results.

That's always been my impression with FoCal, which is one reason I acquire the images myself and use the manual analysis mode. I actually oversample – 83 shots per test (three shots at every adjustment value from -10 to +10 and two shots at even numbered values |>10|), but it only takes me ~10 minutes to collect the shots and I get consistent, reliable results.

It seems the new version is sampling even fewer images than previous. Maybe that is why it is "faster".

I switched to manual too after reading how neuro was doing things. If I am doing it with an older lens I do 3 shots for every AFMA value from -10 to 10. If it is a brand new lens or my camera has just come back from calibration I do -20, -15, -12, -10 and then all values until 10 followed by 12, 15 and 20.

All my lenses fall in the -10 to 10 range so I have never had to redo any around a skewed AFMA value.

Since this thread is about Version 2 the question for you and Neuro would be;
Have you run the test with V2 and had the same results as the previous version.

My 7D2 was calibrated with the V2 beta version. I did all my lenses for that camera with that version.

I calibrated mine with the beta version when it first came out, and again yesterday with the last release. The results were more or less the same.... but 2 lenses changed by 1 point.....

BTW, the target was lit by a pair of 500 watt reflectors, it was done in the basement of a building on a very solid concrete floor, and the tripod was an antique steel manfroto with a gear head that is insanely solid for no vibrations....

 

[East Wind Photography]

Re: Printed targets?

Great discussion - thanks everyone. Do you print your own targets or is it worth buying the official FoCal version?

I print my own on my Epson 3880 with heavy paper. You can have them printed by Costco or a similar service as well. Reikan sells the targets because of the high number of requests. If you are not careful with your printer settings, you get jaggies which look awful.

I got the 11x13 label paper. Lets you stick the target on a sheet of foam board, wall or car door if you choose. Makes sure it stays flat.

 

[Don Haines]

Re: Printed targets?

Great discussion - thanks everyone. Do you print your own targets or is it worth buying the official FoCal version?

I print my own on my Epson 3880 with heavy paper. You can have them printed by Costco or a similar service as well. Reikan sells the targets because of the high number of requests. If you are not careful with your printer settings, you get jaggies which look awful.

I got the 11x13 label paper. Lets you stick the target on a sheet of foam board, wall or car door if you choose. Makes sure it stays flat.

I print mine on the photo printer on photographic paper. I stick the target to the wall with thin double sided tape, making sure that there is tape behind the center so it stays flat on the wall.

Also, when aligning the target, make sure your lens is the same height as the target and perpendicular to the target. Make sure both the target and the camera are level.....

 

[K-amps]

I will have a try of this software and I got the second of three versions and a really not pleased that Canon crippled the product by only allowing assisted manual adjustment in the 5D MKIII. It is a pain to go through the process of manually adjusting the AFMA and having to touch the Camera on each requested change.

I think this is only the case for the 5D MKIII.

I am sure Reikan has solved the crashes during the already lengthy calibrating which made me to de-install previous version of the software.

Can anyone confirm if they fixed the 5diii issue? Is it still a painful manual process in V2 as well?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Can anyone confirm if they fixed the 5diii issue? Is it still a painful manual process in V2 as well?

Reikan cannot 'fix' the issue that requires semi-manual calibration with the 5DIII (and 1D X) – it's a limitation in Canon's SDK for those bodies.

 

[Maiaibing]

if you use it for shooting planes at infinity (in terms of the focus scale) then that is where you should be calibrating.

Would love to see that set-up...

 

[Maiaibing]

Ready for Prime Time it is not. I've been struggling to get it to read the target print all afternoon with no luck. The software is supposed to help you center the focal point with arrows but all you get is one pointing left no matter where you aim your camera.

Yup. Happens to me too. I just end ignoring and running the test anyway - which works. The in-camera level of the 5DSR helps a lot making me confident that I'm set to go.

Very frustrating. I have a ticket with support, but they respond in 3 days and of course it is Friday and they are in England and I am in California. I would stay away from it.

Worst part of Reikan is their very poor and slow support. Let me share my latest support request and the "non-answer" I got:

"It's not clear what might cause that issue, in general we're not seeing reports of problems with the 5DSR, this is the first time we've had such an issue reported.

Would it be possible to screen shot the error message (and include the screen behind it for context) so I can see the message exactly and at what stage it pops up?

As said this is not a common problem and the only thing I can think of might be to do with camera settings (I'm guessing most people running calibrations with the 5DSR haven't changed much from the default settings).

Do please let me know if you're still seeing the issue. I've set the ticket status 'resolved' and assigned to me, when you reply I will be notified and the ticket will re-open."

Resolved????!!!! Of course I could not be bothered reissuing the support ticket. Had already wasted a few hours on not getting the software to work properly with my 5DSR.

Haven't tried the latest version yet as all my available lenses meanwhile have been calibrated manually to the 5DSR.

 

[Don Haines]

Ready for Prime Time it is not. I've been struggling to get it to read the target print all afternoon with no luck. The software is supposed to help you center the focal point with arrows but all you get is one pointing left no matter where you aim your camera.

Yup. Happens to me too. I just end ignoring and running the test anyway - which works. The in-camera level of the 5DSR helps a lot making me confident that I'm set to go.

Same here. I just center on target and ignore the arrow.....

 

[Don Haines]

Can anyone confirm if they fixed the 5diii issue? Is it still a painful manual process in V2 as well?

Reikan cannot 'fix' the issue that requires semi-manual calibration with the 5DIII (and 1D X) – it's a limitation in Canon's SDK for those bodies.

Same for the 7D2......

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Maiaibing.
As my 70-200mm goes 3 5 10m infinity, I'd make a guess that would be around the 20m mark, my Sigma 150-500mm is 15 25 50m, guess infinity to be 75m ish, therefore the setup for the 400mm might fall within these points, do-able? Probably, but you would get to the point where the bought targets would be too small and you would have to close in some for that. I guess I should have said as near infinity as you can (reasonably) get?

Cheers, Graham.

if you use it for shooting planes at infinity (in terms of the focus scale) then that is where you should be calibrating.

Would love to see that set-up...

 

[LarryC1973]

Hello everyone. I just purchased the FoCal software, and it worked great for me. Once I hit the zoom out button the software located the target and I was off to the races. I used a rolling measuring tape and once the prescribed distance was located I calibrated both cameras before moving the target to the next location for the following lens. I calibrated my 1DX, 5d MKIII all all my glass in a couple hours. 17-35-24-105-70-200 300 500 without any headaches. If adjusting the camera quick dial 10 times or so, is too time consuimg, I can then assume waiting 10 minutes for a butterfly to land on the exact flower and in the right position with it's wings open will also try your paitence. Version 2.0 worked great for me, every lens I adjusted was off, some + others - It handled the zooms without a hitch and the +- difference was quite a bit more than I anticipated.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It handled the zooms without a hitch and the +- difference was quite a bit more than I anticipated.

If you are seeing a significant difference between the W and T calibration values, that's worth further investigation IMO (actually, I test all my zooms at multiple FLs, the ends plus 1-3 more, more tests with bigger zoom ranges). Since the camera stores only the values for the ends of the range, it linearly interpolates for intermediate focal lengths. I'd recommend testing at a couple of intermediate FLs to see if the calculated values fall on the regression line.

For example, my 24-70 II has +5 and 0 on the ends, and the corrections measured at 35mm and 50mm fall right on the line. OTOH, I used to have a 28-300L that was +4 on both ends but ranged from +6 to -1 at intermediate FLs. I ended up selling it (bought it used, sold it for a bit more than I paid), it's a slow enough lens that the focus errors didn't have a huge impact, but if I had kept the lens I'd have sent it to Canon for repair/calibration.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Hello everyone. I just purchased the FoCal software, and it worked great for me. Once I hit the zoom out button the software located the target and I was off to the races. I used a rolling measuring tape and once the prescribed distance was located I calibrated both cameras before moving the target to the next location for the following lens. I calibrated my 1DX, 5d MKIII all all my glass in a couple hours. 17-35-24-105-70-200 300 500 without any headaches. If adjusting the camera quick dial 10 times or so, is too time consuimg, I can then assume waiting 10 minutes for a butterfly to land on the exact flower and in the right position with it's wings open will also try your paitence. Version 2.0 worked great for me, every lens I adjusted was off, some + others - It handled the zooms without a hitch and the +- difference was quite a bit more than I anticipated.

Just keep in mind that many lenses have different AFMA at different focal distances. You should AFMA your lens at the distance you use it the most. Example: Macro lenses may be off if you AFMA at 20x FL and then want to shoot something at 1:1. Another example would be a lens with paper thin DOF such as the 85mm F1.2. If you primarily shoot portraits then you should AFMA at the distance you usually shoot your subjects.

The FoCal recommendations are a generalized standard but not all lenses comply. You should also test the FoCal decision by shooting something like a Spider LensCal to ensure it has selected the best AFMA.

 

[Maiaibing]

The FoCal recommendations are a generalized standard but not all lenses comply. You should also test the FoCal decision by shooting something like a Spider LensCal to ensure it has selected the best AFMA.

Agree 100%. I have made controlled testing of several MA methods and you really need to use more than one to get reliable results (I did not do any such test with the newest version of focal, so here I am only assuming that it will safer also to use at least two test methods even with an "improved" new version based on previous tests. I normally end up doing three kinds of tests with my most used lenses).