The AFMA myth.

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Distinctly Average Contributing Member • Posts: 598
Re: The AFMA myth.

Andy01 wrote:

I think that AFMA is useful in general, and can be EXTREMELY useful in some cases. I have tested every lens I have owned with 70D and 6D ii (the only two bodies I have owned with AFMA), and every one of them needed some degree of adjustment, often not major though. Lenses include Canon 24-105L, 24-105L ii, 100-400L, 100-400L ii & EF 35 f2 IS, and a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 (which I would rather not even talk about).

I do agree though that there are people here who blame every missed focus on AFMA (or lack of), and there are people here who seem to be much better than me in spotting front or back focusing (a recent example of an orca's fin that was not focused correctly - people spotted front focus on relatively calm reflective water, and suggested AFMA - better than me - AFMA may have been required or have helped, but it was pretty hard to tell from the image in question).

And a mention above of a couple of mm - a couple of mm can make all the difference when trying to shoot a bee in a flower at 400mm

Colin

I agree it can be useful. However a single shot is never really enough to say whether AFMA is needed unless it is a test shot. Another thread for instance where I saw instantly advice given to AFMA was one of people playing football (the proper one where you use you feet, not that silly padded takes a month to play one) where the poster had his cluster of focus points clearly on a player. However, right on the edge of those AF points was another player probably 8 feet nearer to the camera and the AF had locked onto that. Clearly that wan not an AFMA issue, but one three people suggested it was front focus that could be fixed that way.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
EG
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow