Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: keith_cooper on September 02, 2010, 04:01:06 am
-
datacolor have announced their answer to the Lensalign - the SpyderLensCal http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/stuff/?p=580 (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/stuff/?p=580)
Seems considerably cheaper too... :-)
I currently use the (free) moire fringe technique to set the AF adjust for my lenses
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html) (other techniques listed too)
I should get a look at the SpyderLensCal soon and see whether my long time scepticism about such devices is misplaced. ;-)
(http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/stuff/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/spyderlenscal.jpg)
-
+1 here for the Moire adjustment method - which so far I have found far more accurate than these over priced devices. In the interests of keeping an open mind I an quite Interested to see how you get on with testing it.
-
datacolor have announced their answer to the Lensalign - the SpyderLensCal http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/stuff/?p=580 (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/stuff/?p=580)
Seems considerably cheaper too... :-)
But also less well thought out!
True, the LensAlign is expensive for occasional use, but people probably don't realise that it did cost a lot of money to develop and it cost's a lot to produce and assemble. The datacolor clone (I wonder if they'll get into copyright trouble for such a similar looking replica) tries to assure parallel positioning of sensor and focus plane with a simple bulls-eye bubble level and requires the camera to be leveled as well, which is a much less accurate way of assuring plan-parallel alignment (a big variable if one wants absolute repeatability and accuracy). The ruler is also of much simpler design, which means it won't be useful at longer distances, and I don't know it it can be mounted at different angles which is very useful for lenses with e.g. f/4.0 widest aperture, or for figuring out depth of field (e.g. for focus stacking). The datacolor unit will have it's use, but looks less versatile than the original LensAlign.
I currently use the (free) moire fringe technique to set the AF adjust for my lenses
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html) (other techniques listed too)
As the inventor (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4708) of the technique, who am I to criticize the moiré technique ;D
I should get a look at the SpyderLensCal soon and see whether my long time scepticism about such devices is misplaced. ;-)
I think you'll find, as I did, that they complement each other.
The moiré technique depends on Live View and reasonably sharp lenses, preferably with wide apertures (if that doesn't include much more aberrations), used at a distance that will produce clearly visible moiré. With less favorable conditions it may be hard to get obvious moiré patterns. It is also difficult to calibrate lenses at long distances, unless one has a large studio or a large screen laptop in the field. Also, the user must still figure out in which direction to adjust. On the plus side, the accuracy of optical moiré is unsurpassed.
The LensAlign/angled ruler technique gives not only focus plane, but also depth of field feedback at the same time. that means that it is easy to figure out the direction of the adjustment needed, and how accurate the focus can be positioned, given the DOF. It also shows how variable the focus is due to e.g. hysteresis.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I take my hat off to the inventor of this very useful (and free) method :-)
When I look at the Lensalign I just keep thinking of the gizmos you see at kitchen shows or advertised on late night cable 'infomercials'.
That said, there is always a solid core of people interested in photography who will look to gadgets before technique, so I can't criticise it from a business POV...
Having both wide aperture (all f/2.8 ) lenses and big screens/laptops I can see that I might not have pushed some areas of the fringe technique. There is no difficulty that I've found in working out the adjustment needed (unless you count the need to think about what you are doing and the lack of fancy looking hardware ;) ) Guess I'll have to borrow some 'cheap' lenses to test the SpyderLensCal ;-)
-
I currently use the (free) moire fringe technique to set the AF adjust for my lenses
and I simply have properly aligned MF screen (w/ split prism) installed - so I can tune the AF based on how I see the image is being split after focusing using AF in the field w/o any special target - it is clear where AF makes a BF or FF error... certainly it works only for a central point and w/ wide angle lenses it is not that ideal
-
When I look at the Lensalign I just keep thinking of the gizmos you see at kitchen shows or advertised on late night cable 'infomercials'.
Hi Keith,
I am the creator of LensAlign. I have always thought that your less than kind references to LensAlign were unfair. You are certainly entitled to like it or not, but the question is have you used one, or even seen one. The look and feel in person is quite different than a web JPEG. But yes, it is not a mass produced product stamped out in a foreign country, so it has some "rough edges" on it (pun intended).
Regarding price...simply costs a lot to build. $15+ in die costs alone, and a lot of hand labor and each one is precision tested on a Laser based test bench to assure the accuracy of the sighting system. (I laugh when people in the forums say that there are $5 worth of parts in LensAlign. The packing material alone is about $5. Ever try to purchase a custom made precision stainless steel ruler?)
I agree that Bart's Moire system is very clever, and told Bart so when he created it and then proceeded to get his input on LensAlign, as I did with many photographers, Pros, inventors, etc.
Back to the DataColor unit. As Bart said, appears to have no ability to ensure that the image plane is parallel to the focus target. You cannot do that with levels. Even if the camera and test unit are both level that is no indication that the target and sensor are parallel. The ruler appears to be small, and they demo the devise without regard to proper distance between camera and test device. The pop up mechanism appears to be very slick, but it remains to be seen whether it provides the proper precision (it very well may).
I will not make any comments on potential patent infringements (except this one). :>)
There are many ways to adjust the AF adjust on the cameras. Some are just not right (flat charts), and others (DIY) are technically good but beyond the means of many people to build or assemble them properly, not to mention that most pro photographers barely have the time to adjust the AF, let alone set up a jig that is non-repeatable or lacks in precision.
I would guess that the DataColor will meet many peoples needs, but it appears to lack much of what is needed for many other people. As long as DataColor plays fair, I welcome them into the marketplace. I DO resent them saying in their promotional material that before their product there was no way to correct back/front other than sending the camera/lens back to the mfg. That is simply a lie for so many reasons. If they cheat like that, then I have no respect for them.
And BTW, the timing is interesting as we will be introducing a new lower cost version of LensAlign shortly to replace our previous LITE version.
Thanks for letting me comment within this discussion. I tried to be factual, but if my marketing hat slipped on in a few places, I will be happy to remove the post if the moderator suggests it.
Michael Tapes
Creator: LensAlign, WhiBal
-
I don't have any issue with people selling precision gizmos to other people - well done for finding this particular market.
My issue would be more likely with how many people -really need- such a device - not so many I as I think might believe they need it. My thoughts about kitchen shows do not reflect the quality of the items on offer, more the kind of market they are aimed at.
As to 'other' products being 'foreign', I should perhaps point out that if it's made in the US then it's as foreign to me (in the UK) as if it were made in the Far East (where my cameras come from).
-
I am the creator of LensAlign.
Thanks for letting me comment within this discussion. I tried to be factual, but if my marketing hat slipped on in a few places, I will be happy to remove the post if the moderator suggests it.
Michael Tapes
Creator: LensAlign, WhiBal
All things considered, your post is a model of polite, restrained understatement. I'd probably be thinking much more colorful unkind thoughts toward Datacolor if I were in your shoes.
-
All things considered, your post is a model of polite, restrained understatement. I'd probably be thinking much more colorful unkind thoughts toward Datacolor if I were in your shoes.
Michael has been very polite to us on all counts. I recall him watching a demo of SpyderCube when it was first announced, and looking quite crestfallen as the features were described. However, by the time I had gotten free from the booth, and caught up with him in the aisle, he had composed himself and congratulated me on an innovative product, one that would give WhiBal a run for its money. As you say, I'm not sure I could have managed that, if the situation was reversed.
Datacolor is in the position to invest in industrial design and tooling costs to create production process versions of items, but has to sell them in larger quantities to justify this process. This means lower prices and larger audiences, with a focus on a more general market. As long as there are still feature distinctions, there should be a place in the market for both types of products. The consumer should benefit from the choice.
C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor
CDTobie@datacolor.com
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
-
David,
With all due respect...
From your marketing materials...
“…then you know that the only professional solution is to send the camera body and lens to the manufacturer to have them calibrated together.
But now, you can do it on your own with Spyder LensCal!”
I guess DataColor was unaware that LensAlign has been in the market for almost 2 years.
While the concept of a parallel focus target with slanted ruler/scale were well known, based on the emails I am receiving today, one might say that DataColor basically copied the basic structure of LensAlign. One might also wonder if a company with the ability "to invest in industrial design and tooling costs to create production process versions of items.." could do better than that. Oh well..
Have a nice weekend,
Michael Tapes
-
From your marketing materials...
“…then you know that the only professional solution is to send the camera body and lens to the manufacturer to have them calibrated together.
I saw that mentioned in their video and yes, its utter BS! Lets hope this first rev of their product fairs better than the number of Rev1 items (Spyder comes to mind, MC7, don’t get me started) that didn’t deliver on the promises. FWIW, I have had and used Michaels product since month it shipped. Its extremely well built and he deserves to be recognized as the originator of the product, despite the marketing hype from that other company.
-
As long as there are still feature distinctions, there should be a place in the market for both types of products.
And the feature distinctions of the DataColor product would be what?
-
>>I guess DataColor was unaware that LensAlign has been in the market for almost 2 years.
You did say Marketing Materials. Let's just say our marketing team are not all aware of it. Oversimplified marketing is a fact of life. Those who have heard of LensAlign and other solutions will take this with a grain of salt. Those who have not are new to the field anyways.
>>While the concept of a parallel focus target with slanted ruler/scale were well known, based on the emails I am receiving today, one might say that DataColor basically copied the basic structure of LensAlign. One might also wonder if a company with the ability "to invest in industrial design and tooling costs to create production process versions of items.." could do better than that.
One could also say that both companies chose a pre-existing concept appropriate to the task at hand. Our design is actually licensed from a source in Europe.
-
I'll just say I enjoyed this discussion, and check out while it's still pleasant. Thanks!
-
I'll just say I enjoyed this discussion, and check out while it's still pleasant. Thanks!
Too bad, now we still don't know the feature distinctions. A missed opportunity?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Too bad, now we still don't know the feature distinctions.
I won't miss hearing from them again, despite -- O, cruel Fate -- the tragic omission of the Feature Distinctions.
The excuse about the marketing strikes me as absurd. One role of a company's marketing department is to understand the market -- the competition included. Another is to devise marketing strategies that, among other things, do not include claims that might put the company in a bad light. Dismissing the "oversimplified marketing" as some mere marketing-department Oops, our bad! oversight strikes me as lame at best. Considering the similarity of the products' appearance, it's beyond my belief that everyone in a position to approve the marketing strategy would have been ignorant of LensAlign's existence. (As for the "oversimplified marketing" remark -- love the spin. Did he truly believe that people reading his remarks would be dumb enough to fall for such a ploy?)
I have no quarrel with competition, which can benefit all concerned. Fishy-smelling claims in the service of competition are another matter. Then there were the guy's somewhat personal remarks, masquerading as merely cordial or casual, with their insincere-sounding praise and their "subtle" hawking of the other product. Obnoxious. The fellow having departed while the conversation is "still pleasant" (another Great Moment In The Annals of Spin), they won't likely see this response. No matter. If I buy a focus-adjustment tool it will be a LensAlign model. If "oversimplified marketing is a fact of life," so is viewing disingenuous behavior with a jaundiced eye -- likewise, voting with one's wallet.
-
Too bad, now we still don't know the feature distinctions. A missed opportunity?
If the opportunity exists, something that I suspect isn’t the case.
-
Is this microadjust thing just a big con for not making the thing right in the first place. I mean I microadjusted everything for my 1DsmkIII's. I have also just bought for a specific task a 550D, I was concerned it does not have microadjust, thinking it was essential with digital. Truth is it's as sharp and more consistent with the focus than the 1Ds, my 1Ds mkIII is now my back-up for the cheapo 550D. Even the 17-40 mm on the 550D looks half decent, my 70 -200 is sharp across the range, on the 1Ds it often missed focus at the 70 mm end.
If the lens and body are made well enough why would we have to microadjust anything? After buying a 550D I feel even more conned about the Ds's, sure I got weather sealing etc, but I have jumped through hoops to get basics like sharp pictures with microadjusts and trips back to Canon. I buy a throw away priced camera and it works out of the box.
Kevin.
-
I can recommend the following article about photographic equipment and tolerances:
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts
I have no connection with Lensrentals but do have a solid engineering background :)
Regards, Martin
-
Is this microadjust thing just a big con for not making the thing right in the first place.
Hi Kevin,
Sure, manufacturing tolerances are involved, and cost is therefore affected. Whether that translates into reduced end-user price, or manufacturers margin, or both, has to do with quantities. However, mechanical tolerances are a fact of life, and there is software/firmware to calibrate and compensate. Part of the intelligence is in the lens, part is in the camera. These need to be tuned to eachother, otherwise the individual deviations from average may add to double the deviation, or it may cancel out, or anything in between.
Now even if the mechanical tolerances happen to cancel out, the firmware may introduce a mismatch. With AFMA we now have a means to adjust for some of that, without a need to send stuff in for servicing. Occasionally things are perfectly tuned right from the start without the need for intervention, such is the nature of statistics.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Is this microadjust thing just a big con ...
Well, far be it for me to point out the occasional 'Emperors New Clothes effect' that seems to accompany quite a few photographic items. Such items can also build up their own vociferous fan clubs... ;-)
I found it useful to adjust (without the benefit of additional hardware or expense) my 1Ds3 and some lenses, but to be honest I'd not previously noticed any problems.
So, useful - yes.
Essential - probably to nowhere near as many people as might like to think it is ;-)
So, if I have a 1Ds4 by the end of the year, will I check my lenses - yes; will I make it a top priority before actually using the camera to take some pictures - no...
-
Keith,
Of course there are photographers who are "over concerned" about their gear (not that there is anything wrong with that). But the fact is that quite a lot of body/lens combinations are simply too far "out of tolerance", to meet the sharpness needs of many photographers. For proof of this I simply point out that EVERY manufacturer of DSLRs now has a Focus Fine-Tune feature in at least some of their cameras. Why would they do this if there was not a problem. I could see ONE mfg doing it, but ALL? Surely when Canon (the first to put in this feature) introduced Micro-Adjustment, the best thing Nikon and the others could have done was to simply state (hopefully truthfully) that their stuff "works" out of the box, and that is why they do not have or need this feature. But no...every mfg added it because they saw it as a needed thing. I can assure you that they would not do this casually, as their support lines are asked about micro-adjustment a lot and that support costs a lot of money.
Anecdotally, I have countless customers that have told me how much better their gear performs after their use of LensAlign (whether they could have adjusted with another method is irrelevant to this part of the discussion).
And, factually, the genesis of LensAlign (the need) came from 2 observations on my part. One was how frustrated people seemed to be (on the forums) about their lenses front/back focusing, with no relief from the mfgs. The equipment went back and they were told that it was in spec, or they were told that something was adjusted, but in either case the owners could not verify the results, because they did not have a systematic and repeatable approach to testing the performance of the AF. The other observation was in my own photography (Canon 1D at the time) and being very unhappy with the sharpness I was achieving (or not achieving to be more accurate). In the end I tracked it down to the AF system.
So LensAlign was not a child "gizmo" for the micro-adjustment crowd. Micro-adjustment did not exist when I began the LensAlign project. The purpose was simply to provide a repeatable methodology for people to test for back/front focus errors, as a help for discussion with the mfgs about their issues, and a validation (or not) when equipment came back from the service centers. Towards the end of the LensAlign design process Canon introduced Micro-adjustment, and I was immediately on the phone with Chuck Westfall telling him of my soon to be released product, and had many discussions with him to keep him in the loop and gain his insights for the final design phase.
I have also done many demos with high level Canon (and other mfgs) personnel present, where of course I discussed the issues of front/back focus. At the conclusion of these demos I invited the people from the camera companies to correct any mis-statements I might have made. Never has any camera maker disputed the existence of the front/back focus issues or contradicted any aspect of my presentations.
I believe that the issue (con or no con?) stems from this...
A specific camera/lens combination can perform "in spec" but still have a front/back "issue". By issue I mean the following...let's say that at a given distance the combination has a DOF of 6 inches. We will call the range -3 inches to +3 inches. If the camera/lens focuses anywhere within that range, it is generally considered to be in spec. That means that the point of sharpest focus could be at the -3 point with all 6 inches of DOF towards the back, or at + 3 with all of the DOF towards the front, or anywhere in-between. Many photographers are not happy with that wide range. They want there point of specific focus from the AF system to be centered as it should be for optimum overall performance (yes, I know that most people think that DOF is 1/3 front and 2/3 rear, but that is only true for distances as they approach infinity).
Canon says it like this...
"AF precision is adjusted for the camera and lens to fall within
the lens' maximum aperture's depth of focus. However, there
are users who want to adjust it more minutely. They have
had to go to a Canon Service Center to have it done.
AF micro-adjustment is a feature developed for these users.
The user himself can now finely adjust the AF focusing
position. The adjustment range is ±20 steps in front of (-) or behind (+) the point of focus."
I have spoken at length to service centers and rental companies, as well as a few :>) photographers. Front/back focus issues are real. Some can be "fixed" using the AF fine tune in the cameras, some can only be fixed by the service center, and unfortunately some cannot be fixed. And of course, the majority of camera/lens combinations work just fine out of the box. But the minority group is large and affects a lot of people.
I hope that the above adds to the discussion of the "con" aspect of AF adjustment in DSLRs.
Michael Tapes
-
Couldn't disagree with your observations on the causes (I have an engineering background long before I took up photography for a living)
It's just some of the wailing (and I choose the term deliberately) that I've seen over the lack of AF adjustment on the 60D suggests that some have bought into the idea of a tech fix for some perceived deficiency just a little more than might perhaps be warranted by actual need.
I'll use the term 'a tech fix' to describe any way of performing the adjustment - no preference to method implied BTW
Tomorrow I have a room full of people, in the property survey business, who want to learn to take better photos. The most difficult lesson for most to learn is that better photos come from looking and thinking about what they are doing, not just buying better kit. I do enjoy the teaching side of our company's business, since like the articles and reviews I write, you can't really get an idea across until you've given it a fair bit of thought yourself.
-
... some have bought into the idea of a tech fix for some perceived deficiency just a little more than might perhaps be warranted by actual need.
I concur. It seems like in this day of technology, so many of today's enthusiast photographers are looking for the magic bullet that some how will make their pictures "as good" as what they see from the gurus. It could be a lens, or a plug-in, or LensAlign, but what they have to realize is that there is nothing that replaces the knowledge of the basics. As said so many times, a great photographer can take a great picture with any camera, and an uneducated photographer will continue to take mediocre photographs even when handed the finest camera (or gadget or whatever).
While I am not thrilled to be getting much older than I would like, I am very pleased that in my years that I learned by shooting with a 4x5 Speed Graphic, and working in a wet darkroom, and in my pro audio life editing recording tape with a razor blade and splicing tape (hell...we even edited 2-inch 16 track masters!), and on and on (oh...the good old days! :>)
Cheers..
Michael Tapes
-
Micro-adjustment did not exist when I began the LensAlign project.
I am not sure about Canon cameras, but the very low end and cheap Pentax *ist DL had AF adjustment in its firmware since 2005 - you had to press a certain combination of buttons while switching the camera on to get into its service menu... granted it was not described in user manual, but still it was there and it was in 2005
-
Yes...I was told later that Nikon and Canon had these in their service menus as well. But totally unaccessible from the user menu system.
-
Is this microadjust thing just a big con for not making the thing right in the first place.
You could look at it that way. Then again, how much would you be willing to pay for a camera/lens combination so perfectly "tuned," and for a zoom lens of such high quality, that auto-focus is perfect first time and every time and at every focal length? In the days when dinosaurs walked the earth, nobody'd be caught dead using auto-focus gear. That stuff was slow and not reliable. The technologies have advanced to a remarkable degree now. For someone like me with aging eyesight, who would once rather have stayed home than be seen using auto-focus: auto-focusing is a complete god-send. Micro-adjustments, likewise.
When I had a 5D I'd-a killed for the ability to adjust auto-focus with a 50/1.2, which I'd found "previously owned" at a decent price at a local store. Always wanted that lens! I got it home and found right away: at distances where I knew I'd typically use it, focus was off by damned near an inch. Awful. Damn. Canon (which at the time was not admitting such a problem with the lens despite complaints) said they'd make the adjustment if I'd send the lens and camera -- and on my dime. But they were rumored not always to do a good job of this. Would I end up having to do it all over again? I decided instead to take the lens back to the store for an exchange. Sigh. So as far as I'm concerned, micro-adjustment is a "glass is half full" feature -- especially considering the loss, with d-SLRs, of truly bright viewfinders and decent microprism focusing screens. I rarely focus manually now...
my 70 -200 is sharp across the range, on the 1Ds it often missed focus at the 70 mm end.
When I had the 70-200/4.0/IS, with the 5D it never missed focus at any focal length. It must simply be a case of variation among bodies (or particular lens+body combinations). So IMO, a micro-focus adjustment feature is your friend and not a "big con."
-
To once again prove Datacolor has no new ideas and would rather steal those from others, check this out:
http://blog.david-kennedy.com/2010/09/22/datacolor-immitation/
So David Tobie, care to let us know other than undercutting the price, what competitive advantages you guys have come up with this time?
If this one the case of a photographer’s work, the photo community would rightly be up in arms with pitchforks. A similar tact in terms of ignoring DataColor seems a rational response to their total lack of innovation (and making up BS terms to unsuspecting customers like spectrocolorimeter. Shame on them!
-
As someone who has looked at pre-production software for the SpyderCheckr I would just point out that the Passport is used to make DNG profiles, whilst the new Datacolor product makes adjustment sets (based on the full range of coloured patches), so if anything, it is much more akin to Thomas Fors scripts or the adjustment techniques publicised by Bruce Fraser.
I'm out of the UK from this weekend for a few weeks, so won't be able to give the production version of the device and software a fair test until later next month, in the similar way I looked at the Passport before it was launched.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/photography/colorchecker-passport_1.html (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/photography/colorchecker-passport_1.html)
I'm minded to think you are being somewhat unfair and unnecessarily personal with your response. Personally, I make a deliberate point of not selling any hardware or software, and quite deliberately not to set one product off against another - I've found that all too many comparisons you see in 'reviews' tell you more about the personal choices, preferences and biases of the reviewer than represent a methodical (and useful) comparison. I generally trust my readers to make their own informed decisions and am always prepared to discuss anything I've written.
Out of completeness, I should also mention that I do pre release evaluation and testing for a number of competing companies in the printing and colour management fields. I take it as a personal 'pat on the back' that such companies are happy to know that I work with their competitors and trust my integrity in saying what I really think of their products.
-
As someone who has looked at pre-production software for the SpyderCheckr I would just point out that the Passport is used to make DNG profiles, whilst the new Datacolor product makes adjustment sets (based on the full range of coloured patches), so if anything, it is much more akin to Thomas Fors scripts or the adjustment techniques publicised by Bruce Fraser.
A DNG profile is clearly a better route if you understand the differences in the processing paths using it versus updating HLS sliders (which WAS NOT) what Bruce and Thomas were doing. The were updating the calibration tab which like a DNG profile takes place at a different and arguably better area within the raw processing pipeline.
I'm minded to think you are being somewhat unfair and unnecessarily personal with your response.
Granted. It would be useful to see DataColor actually come up with something new and from their own brain trust rather than (and this is a personal opinion) rip off others intellectual ideas and perhaps property. I think no less of this when a photographer uses another idea for an image. It rubs me the wrong way. Where’s the innovation?
Personally, I make a deliberate point of not selling any hardware or software, and quite deliberately not to set one product off against another
I fall into the first part of that camp but because of it, not the second. I don’t sell anything so I can pretty much say whatever I want. Its a refreshing lifestyle, you might want to give it a shot <g>
-
"...you might want to give it a shot <g>"
No thanks - I know more than enough about how much work it takes to provide rigorous, accurate -and- relevant comparative reviews. I quite like not going out of my way to be mean to people :-) :-)
I'd not be happy with the classic "we gave this 87% for X" approach and since my main job is (by choice) as a photographer, I just don't have the time (or temperament) to devote to such quantitative analysis :-)
-
Since we're on the topic, here's a tutorial for a DIY clone I did a while ago...
Excellent suggestion!
Interestingly enough, I received a brand new 24-70 from Canon this morning (lack of parts to fix the old one it seems)
Since I'm just off on a trip and had the Datacolor device around, I tested the lens by a number of means.
At 50x FL distance I couldn't be sure of much other than it was sharper than the CPC loan copy (Yay!). I suspected that a slight adjustment might help, but the difference was pretty minimal.
At 20x FL there was a peak in sharpness at -2 ...not at all easy to see and the ruler is of no great help.
back at x50 I could see that -2 was indeed slightly sharper than 0, so that's what it's set to on my 1Ds3.
Then I tried the procedure again with a deliberate target misalignment of a few degrees - no difference whatsoever in the results - just as imprecise :-)
My suspicion is that a lot of people expect the differences to be a lot more visible than they actually are, and since they are expecting precision, are somewhat easily influenced by people telling them how precise their methods and setup need to be. I can see people trying it out, not getting a pleasing result (i.e. everything looks better and their photography improves) and deciding that it must be that they need better quality camera/lens/accessories etc
Having helped set up precision optical testing equipment in the past (mirror testing) I just couldn't equate the accuracy needed there with the somewhat imprecise methods we're using with various equipment here.
Let us hope that there is a way of auto calibrating AF with a target (using phase and contrast AF) available in cameras before too long - it was suggested to me that this function was already in the service menus of a number of current cameras, although I've no evidence for this.
The more testing I do, the less I see current AF adjustment as a mass market feature. I know a some people are annoyed over lack of the feature in the Canon 60D, but I suspect Canon knows how much real use is made of such features in their target audience.
Of course none of this makes much difference when marketing stuff, but the business of selling photography equipment is something I make a point of avoiding ;-)
-
here's a tutorial for a DIY clone I did a while ago.
It is amazing to me that that photographers that are so very concerned with the copyright and copying of their work (as they should be), see no problem in copying and disseminating the intellectual property of others. Not even a mention of the designer, which at least would make it polite. Methinks a double standard.
Michael Tapes
Designer: LensAlign
-
It is amazing to me that that photographers that are so very concerned with the copyright and copying of their work (as they should be), see no problem in copying and disseminating the intellectual property of others. Not even a mention of the designer, which at least would make it polite. Methinks a double standard.
Agreed! And even if I could build the product for $20, there’s MY time! By the time I put this together, I’d have lost money compared to just purchasing your product, supporting your endeavors and having someone to contact (praise or blame) if there were issues or support needs. But you are right, the idea of “don’t do as I do, do as I say” in terms of intellectual properly is most egregious.
-
Agreed! And even if I could build the product for $20, there’s MY time! By the time I put this together, I’d have lost money compared to just purchasing your product and the hours of enjoyment I'd get
Perhaps not everyone wishes to cost their time at your rates :-)
Personally I'd be be happy with a pattern printed onto paper and nailed to a wall - If you were very careful you could use the nails to ensure optimum alignment - not that I actually believe it to be nearly as essential as some might suggest...
-
And Andrew, though I appreciate your photographic expertise and have found it very helpful in the past, I do not appreciate your piling on here. Let's first establish whether there is any actual IP infringement going on before pointing fingers, shall we?
I never said a word about IP infringements. It probably is all very legal. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t leaves a bad taste in my mouth that this one company in something like 60 days released two products that appear to be based upon existing products and in the case of the LensAlign, output a high level of marketing BS and who’s mouthpiece when asked about the competitive advantages here (which he brought up) snuck out of here without a peep on the subject.
My comment on intellectual properly was aimed not at DataColor but at photographers who complain about copyright or others who use existing ideas then buy products from a company that basically practices the same game. It may all be perfectly legal and business as usual. Doesn’t mean its kind of distasteful.
-
I have found this message thread extremely inspiring. After reading through it a couple of times, I've realized that this whole design-and-engineering-and-manufacturing thing is just a ruse -- a ploy by The Man to take our money. It's just evil.
Therefore I have decided to stop buying all manufactured photographic products. Henceforth I will be making my own cameras and lenses from spare parts obtained easily at the Dollar Store. According to The Internet, you could have an entire professional photographic system, possibly even including a 2000 w/s studio strobe and a print signed by Phil Marco or Janet Reno or Chopin or some other famous person, for maybe $75 or $100 (not including the calipers), which would probably include having to buy some of those unrecognizeable little striped tubular thingees with wires coming out of them hanging in plastic bags on pegs at the back of the Radio Shack. Thyristors or whatever they're called. Plus the calipers, of course.
-
Just me or does this thread seem to vary every time I look at it, so I have responses to messages that aren't there?
I see that this vanished, for example DIY focus (http://www.nolonemo.com/files/LensAlign/focustool.htm)
Perhaps I'll now get a crowd outside my own house with pitchforks and burning torches...
-
>>I guess DataColor was unaware that LensAlign has been in the market for almost 2 years.
You did say Marketing Materials. Let's just say our marketing team are not all aware of it. Oversimplified marketing is a fact of life. Those who have heard of LensAlign and other solutions will take this with a grain of salt. Those who have not are new to the field anyways.
I must say that I have no respect for a company that hides behind their incompetent marketing team rather than apologises for it.
My money goes elsewhere
-
Because of the negative reaction of some forum members, I have deleted my post with the link to the DIY LensAlign clone, along with my subsequent post explaning why the clone does not infringe on Mike's or LensAlign's legal intellectual property rights in any way. I find the occasional pissing matches that flare up on the forum from time to time tiresome, and I have no wish to be part of one.
-
I am interested in the lensalign product but have read a review stating the instructions are being redone. I also learned for a$100.00 buck a year you can have Canon calibrate all your lenses and clean your camera through CPS.
I guess if the price was a bit lower I would buy one of them.
-
I am interested in the lensalign product but have read a review stating the instructions are being redone. I also learned for a$100.00 buck a year you can have Canon calibrate all your lenses and clean your camera through CPS.
I guess if the price was a bit lower I would buy one of them.
Which review was that? And, is there a web site where Canon specifies prices for these services?
No doubt Nikon offers such a service as well, so let me think about it a bit....I can send my camera body and all of my lenses back to Nikon, at some fairly high cost for both shipping and insurance -- don't forget the insurance, not to mention the time involved in ensuring that you've done a VERY good job indeed with your packing -- and then wait for however long it might be for the equipment to be returned.
Add the cost of the above to the fee for having this sort of thing done. What's the total? (Not to mention: not having your equipment during the time it's in the shop or in transit.)
As opposed to: buy a lens alignment product or DIY -- whatever. Make the adjustments yourself via the focus-adjustment tools available in the camera. If memory serves, the manufacturers included those controls for a reason. As far as I can recall, the reason was: doing the focus adjustment yourself.
So which solution costs you more? I don't know the answer in precise dollars and cents. Which enables you to have your equipment at hand during the time you're doing the adjustments? The answer to that question is obvious enough.
Send the equipment away, 0. Do it yourself, 1. YMMV.
(And b.t.w., there's no guarantee that the company will always do the job correctly. There are stories of botched camera/lens adjustments, after which people had to send their equipment back to the service center for a further correction. If this were to happen, what would be the additional cost?)
-
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/standard_display/CPS_Member
-
I am interested in the lensalign product but have read a review stating the instructions are being redone.
I guess if the price was a bit lower I would buy one of them.
Hi,
1 - A full User Guide has existed for a long time. Also a bunch of Quick Start Guides and some videos. And check out the Distance Tool. All available at the LensAlign Support Page (http://www.lensalign.com/support.html).
2 - We will be announcing a new Lower Cost version that replaces our previous LITE version. It is far more comprehensive than LITE or any other product on the market except for our LensAlign Pro systems. Watch for the announcement in the next week or 2. Our plan is to be shipping by Nov 1 if all goes to plan.
Thanks for your interest in our product.
-
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/standard_display/CPS_Member
When I used Canon equipment, I would not have qualified for CPS membership. And I don't qualify for membership in Nikon's similar program. Why not take advantage of an extremely useful feature enabling me to make the adjustments myself, customizing them until I'm satisfied that they're exactly right?
-
I would buy one in a heartbeat if it was cheaper. I read about the one coming out that I guess may have less features. Why not just make the one that is supposed to work now available for a better price.
There is another company who is looking into making something very similar for a reasonable cost. He isaid s making sure he does not infringe on any patens.
No offense to the creator of this product but when there was no other competion its one thing but soon I think there will be.
BTW I have nothing to do with anyone making these now or in the future.
-
As I stated above we plan to have a less costly version available shortly. We are in the final testing phases now.
-
Will it be the same design? I do think , by the looks of it, your current product is superior to the other guys cardboard thing.
-
Yes, we believe that our new product will be superior to the "other guys" product. The new product incorporates many aspects of our current LensAlign Pro product. I would rather not say anymore here, lest this turn into a marketing spiel and/or pissing match. Let's let the product speak for itself when it is official announced. Thanks.
-
ok...hope I can hold out....doing a friends wedding in two weeks. Thanks
-
I sent an email to datacolour pointing out CDTobies weird response on the marketing materials.
Fortunately they seem to have other people working for the company with more sense:
Thank you for contacting Datacolor with your concerns and please apologize my delay.
You are perfectly correct that the proper response to any omission or simplification in marketing materials is to apologize and please accept my apology.
Our marketing departement has been informed and we will adjust our descriptions.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any other issues.
Best regards,
Sophie Colla Schwery
Global Sales Director, Consumer BU
Phone: +41 44 835 38 33
Mobile: +41 79 431 33 62
Fax: +41 44 835 38 20
Email: sschwery@datacolor.com
Skype: sophieschwery
-
ok...hope I can hold out....doing a friends wedding in two weeks. Thanks
Stick the camera in front of a computer screen, switch to liveview, maximize the moiré, finished.
instructions on the Northlight (Cooper) site.
Edmund
-
" lest this turn into a marketing spiel and/or pissing match.
That's quite sweet; took me right back to when I was around twelve or so and we used to acually hold such events in the school's junior Gents... as I recall, most of us were able to send it right above head level, in front of us, of course, never over the shoulder.
I don't suppose I ever found a good, practical outlet for such an ability in later life, quite apart from the fact that the altered power to weight issues that gravity and height impose changed the dynamic beyond repair. Interesting reminisce, though.
;-(
Rob C