Posted: 11/26/2016 1:09:54 AM EDT
|
So I'm intrigued by FoCal and the software like that. Pretty much the concept is you plug the camera into the computer and put it on a tripod, print off a grid, and follow the directions to tweak your focus.
Anyone have experience? |
| Used focal for a while...but now just go full manual on a fixed object at the range I'm shooting at and then fine-tune accordingly. A quick check on the viewfinder with a shielded magnifier shows me if I'm tack sharp or not. I also generally keep the same bodies paired with the same lenses to make things easier. As much as I liked the idea of Focal...Focal never did it better than doing it manually myself. |
|
Quoted:
I have the FocusTune software. Only used it once so far. http://michaeltapesdesign.com/focustune.html His LensAlign tool is a great product. I use the extended ruler with my long lenses. He is also a great communicator if you have any questions. Main problem is; just because you tweak focus for 20-30 feet...it does not necessarily result in sharp focus at a couple hundred yards. |
|
I've made a few threads about focus fine tuning and they didn't get much attention. I prefer to use the dot tune method. It's easy and free. I agree that focus fine tuning is not always going to work for all subjects at all distances. I'd dot tune it for a good average distance of shots and call it good. Let's face it, it's a kit 70-300. There's a limit to how well it will perform and that's nowhere near an expensive lens. But there is still some improvement that may be had.
Here's how you test it. Put it on a tripod, and use a static subject. Focus using the normal auto focus and take a few shots. Now rack the focus a few times and use live view to autofocus. If the live view shots are in better focus your lens could do with some calibration. Calibration isn't considered in live view because of how the focusing works. |
|
Quoted:
Main problem is; just because you tweak focus for 20-30 feet...it does not necessarily result in sharp focus at a couple hundred yards. Yes, this is the hard thing about zoom lenses. Usually you end up taking readings at different focal lengths then using so type of weighted average to figure out what one value you want for the lens. |
|
Quoted:
The Nikon 70-300mm VR is a great lens for its price point. It is one of Nikon's hidden gems. Quoted:
Quoted:
This is the FX 70-300 $600 guy Zach.  yeah its not $2000 super great but it's a lot better than the kit one.  The Nikon 70-300mm VR is a great lens for its price point. It is one of Nikon's hidden gems. #hesrightyouknow I'm thinking of getting one even though I'm stacked pretty deep at that range. All the kool kids love that lens. |
|
Quoted:
#hesrightyouknow I'm thinking of getting one even though I'm stacked pretty deep at that range. All the kool kids love that lens. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is the FX 70-300 $600 guy Zach. yeah its not $2000 super great but it's a lot better than the kit one. The Nikon 70-300mm VR is a great lens for its price point. It is one of Nikon's hidden gems. #hesrightyouknow I'm thinking of getting one even though I'm stacked pretty deep at that range. All the kool kids love that lens. My absolute favorite lens. I was using it just a few minutes ago for ice carving and reindeer photos. 
Downside is the images seem "soft" out of my 7200 unless I bump the clarity up in photoshop. I'll post a comparison when I'm done with edits. |
|
Okay, so these are the finished product vs adobe raw zeroed out on everything. They are also just bash edits because they weren't fantastic photos.
1/250 f/8 1600iso 300mm lens. Yeah I know peak sharpness at 300 is around f/9-11 but I was juggling the crappy lighting. Was a spur of the moment thing and all. But the images straight off the camera just seem soft to me before I + clarity. The first one I did at +100 as a test, second set was +50 for comparison. I'm fully open to learning what I'm doing wrong here, if it is me. 
|
