Looking to get either a 60D, 7D, or D7000 for a DSLR kit. Am I reading this correctly that the 60D does not have a lens calibration feature built in??? That alone will remove it from the equation if so. Also, does anyone have any extensive experience with the AF performance between the 7D and the Nikon D7000. Need fast, accurate AF in lower light settings (indoor gyms, kids in house). Thanks.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
60D - Really no lens calibration?
- Thread starter Pazul
- Start date
Ken Croft
Veteran Member
I would read as much as you can about "lens calibration" as you call it , and only then decide if it's lacking on the 60D is a deal breaker. It may not be the magic wand that you currently think it is. [Being pedantic, MFA does not calibrate the lens, it calibrates the body to a particular lens at a particular focal length]. Search the forums under "MFA" [micro focus adjustment]. You will find that an adjustment is only applicable to a particular focal length on the lens that you have calibrated, and of course it will be different for each lens. You may also find that some 60d OWNERS, not the time-wasting arm-chair pundits, will tell you that having had the same doubts as yourself over no MFA on the 60D, they are perfectly happy with the focus performance of their camera. The general view is that the solution to a lens that needs MFA is to have the lens itself calibrated by Canon, MFA being only a temporary solution to the problem.
--
Ken from the UK now in France
--
Ken from the UK now in France
CutterUK
Veteran Member
The MFA feature on my 5DMKII works really well and I glad it has it, maybe for zoom lenses its not of much use but for fast primes it works really well,
although it would be nice if the lens was correctly calibrated in the first place, I've a couple of primes that are way off on my 550D & 60D so it would be nice if they also had the MFA feature too but maybe the solution really is to send them in to Canon be to calibrated
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/
http://bbphotochallenge.com
although it would be nice if the lens was correctly calibrated in the first place, I've a couple of primes that are way off on my 550D & 60D so it would be nice if they also had the MFA feature too but maybe the solution really is to send them in to Canon be to calibrated
--
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/
http://bbphotochallenge.com
General view? Maybe. If one is reasonably thorough however, they'll also find people who have fully realized the potential of their long lenses after doing a proper MFA, myself included.
Yawn...
tocar
Veteran Member
There's no calibration feature on the 60D.
BG454
Veteran Member
There are also no forum threads complaining about focussing errors with the 60D, unlike there were (and still are) with the 7D.
In the DPReview test they reported " We had few problems with AF accuracy though, even when using the hugely demanding EF 50mm F1.2 L USM lens." All cameras will mis-focus from time to time, usually due to operator error. Personally I believe the ability to "focus tune" is overrated, in most cases unnecessary, and probably causes more problems than it solves.
--
See my, just very recent, post on MA.
I would never buy another DSLR without MA.
For anyone who uses multiple lighting types, in low luminance situations, with center point autofocus, MA is fairly well required to avoid blow shots.
See my post here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=37221921
Also, see the special customization possible with MA that is NOT possible without it.
So, for those photographers in tough lighting, not sitting in their chairs, wanting proper focus, or using depth of field in creative ways, but not wanting spend hours in live view, MA is the way to go.
If you would like to see blown photos in one type of lighting, mail it off to Canon, try it in another type of lighting, more blow focus photos, mail it off to Canon, get it back, try it again in a different lighitng, more blown photos, and mail it off to Canon...go for it.
But, in seconds you can dial in AF offsets in various lighting with MA.
I would never buy another DSLR without MA.
For anyone who uses multiple lighting types, in low luminance situations, with center point autofocus, MA is fairly well required to avoid blow shots.
See my post here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=37221921
Also, see the special customization possible with MA that is NOT possible without it.
So, for those photographers in tough lighting, not sitting in their chairs, wanting proper focus, or using depth of field in creative ways, but not wanting spend hours in live view, MA is the way to go.
If you would like to see blown photos in one type of lighting, mail it off to Canon, try it in another type of lighting, more blow focus photos, mail it off to Canon, get it back, try it again in a different lighitng, more blown photos, and mail it off to Canon...go for it.
But, in seconds you can dial in AF offsets in various lighting with MA.
Glenn_Sydney
Veteran Member
1- With so many focussing options that the 7D has, its likely that a lot of the alledged focussing issues are related to not properly understanding the focussing system and options rather than problems with the camera itself.
2- Agreed that "focus tune" could cause more problems, but only in the wrong hands. Its a great tool to have available when needed and when correctly used.
I use primes 80% of the time so having MFA to me is a must have to dial in the perfect calibration for the body/lens. I would probably use the MFA on a zoom after seeing which focal length I use the most on it and where its sweet spot is in general for IQ (ie. maybe at 200 on a 70-200 since I would most likely be using it for extended reach)
archiebald
Veteran Member
If you feel that way then the 60D is not for you - end of conversation - go and buy a 7D.
acuteangle
Well-known member
My friend now has a 7D, he bought a Sigma prime which he found never quite focused on the spot, so the Sigma stayed in the bag most of the time. Now its his best friend on the 7D. My 60D would be a better camera for it, and I would like to think that a Canon Download will appear soon to incorporate the function.
nikstr
Well-known member
I had to try it... it looks OK?
60D 60mm f/2.8 at f/2.8. Shot at about 8" from back plane of camera and cropped.
I don't have a tungsten light, but these were shot under bright white florescent.
60D 60mm f/2.8 at f/2.8. Shot at about 8" from back plane of camera and cropped.
I don't have a tungsten light, but these were shot under bright white florescent.
skanter
Veteran Member
FYI, 60D focuses spot-on with all my lenses, Canon and 3rd-party.
Sam K., NYC
--I had to try it... it looks OK?
60D 60mm f/2.8 at f/2.8. Shot at about 8" from back plane of camera and cropped.
I don't have a tungsten light, but these were shot under bright white florescent.
Sam K., NYC
After my personal experience and reading many user reports both pro and con about MFA, a few things seem obvious.
1. Having a camera without MFA and not perceiving any focus problem means nothing. Luck of the draw, lenses used, one's own competency, type of photography, and so on add up to too many variables to draw a conclusion.
2. Experiencing a focus problem and not being able to satisfactorily remedy the issue with MFA is not conclusive. People seem to be all over the map as to methodology, or lack thereof. The ability to patiently and consistently test lenses using a recognized method seems to elude some while at the same time not inhibiting their ability to wax on about the merit of such a process.
3. The back and forth shipping to Canon for calibration is not a guarantee of much and an expensive and often frustrating experience. Some people don't have as much faith in their own judgment and cognitive abilities as some others and will be more apt to take someone else's (Canon) word that all is well with their equipment. That is fine but again not conclusive of anything.
4. Some have been wholly convinced for the need of MFA, especially with long lenses, and any dismissal of their findings is ridiculous especially considering they are using a feature that CANON has incorporated into the camera!
5. People's level of general understanding and the mechanics of photography are all over the map, from silly to profound. They all have a voice on these forums and until qualified enjoy equal weight, adding much to the confusion.
1. Having a camera without MFA and not perceiving any focus problem means nothing. Luck of the draw, lenses used, one's own competency, type of photography, and so on add up to too many variables to draw a conclusion.
2. Experiencing a focus problem and not being able to satisfactorily remedy the issue with MFA is not conclusive. People seem to be all over the map as to methodology, or lack thereof. The ability to patiently and consistently test lenses using a recognized method seems to elude some while at the same time not inhibiting their ability to wax on about the merit of such a process.
3. The back and forth shipping to Canon for calibration is not a guarantee of much and an expensive and often frustrating experience. Some people don't have as much faith in their own judgment and cognitive abilities as some others and will be more apt to take someone else's (Canon) word that all is well with their equipment. That is fine but again not conclusive of anything.
4. Some have been wholly convinced for the need of MFA, especially with long lenses, and any dismissal of their findings is ridiculous especially considering they are using a feature that CANON has incorporated into the camera!
5. People's level of general understanding and the mechanics of photography are all over the map, from silly to profound. They all have a voice on these forums and until qualified enjoy equal weight, adding much to the confusion.
ppage
Veteran Member
Peter
nikstr
Well-known member
After being a Nikon DSLR owner for several years I decided to go with a 60D instead of the D7000. I might add that, so far, I'm glad I did. Having a camera with MFA does not guarantee that a zoom lens will be correctable throughout it's entire range. There are no guarantees, but there is a logical progression to trouble shoot and eliminate the cause of a focus problem or just a simple method to verify the calibration. I verified that the calibration is within my "eyes" range of tolerance.
The purpose of my posting the focus test of my 60D/60mm combination was to show that in this instance there was no need for any focus adjustment.
The purpose of my posting the focus test of my 60D/60mm combination was to show that in this instance there was no need for any focus adjustment.
BG454
Veteran Member
If you have one lens that focus correctly and one that doesn't, surely it's the lens that needs adjusting, not the camera?
Adusting the camera to suit an out of spec lens seems like a "bass ackwards" type of approach.
If Canon quality control is so poor that they keep turning out lenses that don't focus correctly, then it's up to Canon to remedy the situation, not provide a feature by which "any fool" has a chance of making things worse.
--
Adusting the camera to suit an out of spec lens seems like a "bass ackwards" type of approach.
If Canon quality control is so poor that they keep turning out lenses that don't focus correctly, then it's up to Canon to remedy the situation, not provide a feature by which "any fool" has a chance of making things worse.
--
Really no MFA... I was disappointed, but got over it. There's been very few reports of 60D owners having any AF issues... unlike the 7D and from what I hear the D7000 (although I haven't gone over to their forum to see for myself).
If the thought of not having it is too much for you to bear, then the 60D is not for you. But if you just want a camera that focuses well and takes good pictures, then you should consider it.
What are you shooting with now?
If the thought of not having it is too much for you to bear, then the 60D is not for you. But if you just want a camera that focuses well and takes good pictures, then you should consider it.
What are you shooting with now?
Good perspectives all.
As a long time process controls engineer, with some 12 years in manufacturing, there are manufacturing part tolerances for everything manufactured by hand, or by robots, or by a combination of hand and robotics and machines.
These tolerances are selected based on the cost target and profit target of the parts being sold.
This is true for every manufacturer in the world, and, is one reason why Zeiss lenses are so expensive. Zeiss manufacturing has variability, but, the tolerances Zess sets, as part of its release criterion, are very, very tight. This is far from cheap.
On the other hand, the nifty fifty, which I own, (and can replace for $100 new)....is probably not being manufactured to Zeiss level tolerances. Currently, with my new to me 50D, have that set at a hefty +9 MFA for my nifty fifty. It has the same giant front focussing (now since I sent it to Canon...see my other thread) on three camera bodies (350D and 40D and 50D).
Also, I bought this lens in 1993, have treated it very well, but, who knows how things have changed since then?
For me, the ability to find a focus problem, yawn, and fix it in a few minutes on my own, is, going forward, absolutely required as part of my ownership process.
See my other thread on my "Canon Service Odyssey" around trying to resolve a focus issue.
That Odyssey did not convince me that Canon Manufacturing in Japan is bad, but, it did insure that I will make sure to avoid Canon Service when I can.
As a long time process controls engineer, with some 12 years in manufacturing, there are manufacturing part tolerances for everything manufactured by hand, or by robots, or by a combination of hand and robotics and machines.
These tolerances are selected based on the cost target and profit target of the parts being sold.
This is true for every manufacturer in the world, and, is one reason why Zeiss lenses are so expensive. Zeiss manufacturing has variability, but, the tolerances Zess sets, as part of its release criterion, are very, very tight. This is far from cheap.
On the other hand, the nifty fifty, which I own, (and can replace for $100 new)....is probably not being manufactured to Zeiss level tolerances. Currently, with my new to me 50D, have that set at a hefty +9 MFA for my nifty fifty. It has the same giant front focussing (now since I sent it to Canon...see my other thread) on three camera bodies (350D and 40D and 50D).
Also, I bought this lens in 1993, have treated it very well, but, who knows how things have changed since then?
For me, the ability to find a focus problem, yawn, and fix it in a few minutes on my own, is, going forward, absolutely required as part of my ownership process.
See my other thread on my "Canon Service Odyssey" around trying to resolve a focus issue.
That Odyssey did not convince me that Canon Manufacturing in Japan is bad, but, it did insure that I will make sure to avoid Canon Service when I can.
I have the 60D, and have used it with an 18-200 zoom, I do not have any prime lenses (yet). The 60D definitely has some back focus with this lens, but MA would not really help. At 200mm, it is just a small degree of back focus, at 50mm, it is considerably more. I also tried the kit 18-135 lens that came with the camera for a couple of test shots, and this was spot on at 135mm, but showed even more back focus at 50mm than the longer zoom.
So having MA is not much use if you are using the 60D with a Canon zoom lens. Not sure if this is typical of all manufacturers zooms, but I must say I am disappointed with this kind of AF performance. As a reference, running the same tests with live view and manual focus resulted in good focus at all focal lengths.
So having MA is not much use if you are using the 60D with a Canon zoom lens. Not sure if this is typical of all manufacturers zooms, but I must say I am disappointed with this kind of AF performance. As a reference, running the same tests with live view and manual focus resulted in good focus at all focal lengths.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum