60D - has no AF Micro-adjustment. Is it needed? Useful?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by kl_chong, Aug 30, 2010.

  1. I currently have a 30D and noticed that the new 60D does NOT include the above feature unlike the 50D.
    Can anyone comment on how useful the AF Micro-adjustment has been in their experience? Has it helped you correct for any lens that you may have that has some focus calibration issues?
    There looks like an incipient campaign to write/petition/complain to Canon about this on the canonrumors forum. (I have not included a link here as I am not sure if that would violate the guidelines here - am fairly new to this forum.)
  2. Many people have found that one or more of their lenses needed appreciable adjustment, and in that case, MFA is very helpful--saves sending the equipment back to Canon. I have a 50D, which has MFA, but have not used it. All 4 of the lenses I tested were pretty much spot on. Haven't tested my one new one yet. Nonetheless, I would not want to give it up. It's nice insurance.
  3. I've never used it. I've also never tested my four current lenses (or any of the several others I've owned in the past) to see if they're slightly off on a focus test chart; in real-world use, I have not had problems with their focus accuracy. I suspect the majority, probably even the vast majority, of users also don't have problems that would require it.
    But if you do have a lens that's off, then as Mr. M suggested, the availability of this function would save the hassle of sending your gear in for calibration.
  4. Yes I use it to get my 17-55/2.8 IS to work with my 7D. Without the AF micro-adjust focus is way, way off.
    I think it's stupid of Canon not to include this feature. Now, let's see, if there's a defect we can get the user to fix it with a tiny bit of firmware, or the user can send it in for calibration. Which is the cheaper option for Canon? Duh.
  5. There was a similar discussion and a poll on FM recently. IMO It's a very usefull feature.
  6. stp


    I went through all of my lenses with MFA, ad some needed considerable adjustment. I'm glad I had it.
  7. I upgraded to the 50D a couple years mainly for MA since several of my lenses were off on my 20D. Strangely enough they all worked fine on the 50D without any MA. So it depends.
  8. I am glad I have MFA. Most of my lenses have benefited from it. It made the most improvements on my Sigma lenses, but it also made a big difference in my 24-105L.
  9. Bad decision not including it in the 60D. The 60D would have far more attractive to the hobby photographer and the professionals if they included it.
  10. MFA. Needed, not really, at least by most people. Most photographers got along just fine without it (in fact I still do myself). Nice to have "just in case", certainly yes.
    My guess is that it was left out so that people didn't pick the 60D over the 7D. That goes two ways. (1) Canon might sell more EOS 7Ds but also (2) Canon might sell fewer EOS 60Ds. I guess Canon are banking on (1).
    If you make the choice of camera a clear one, that's not always a good thing from the viewpoint of the manufacturer. You really want the customer still wanting something that's on the more expensive model just so that there's a chance they'll buy it.
    I'm thinking of a 60D but the lack of MFA leaves me a little undecided. Do I pay an extra $400 for a 7D and get MFA or do I save $300 and go for a T2i since neither have MFA. Or do I split the difference and go for a 60D anyway. The choice is certainly not a clear one and that's probably the way Canon intended it to be.
  11. Fooled around with it for days on my 50D. Got mad, got smart? Switched it off and never looked back.

    Me and/or my lenses don't seem to need it.
  12. One of the reasons why I bought a 7D. Some of my lenses were well off on my XTi to the point where I could not use them wide open for portraits. With the 7D all lenses still needed some MFA adjustment, and my 100-400 would have been unuseable without it, taking lovely pictures of the background but not the subject. If I didn't have it then I think I would have bundled every thing up and sent them off to canon to calibrate, not sure what they would have done about my Tamron 17-50 2.8. I hear photographers not having problems, maybe I'm just unlucky but every one of my last 3 Canon cameras has a different exposure setting, and only the 7e was spot on with focus.
  13. I'm with Bob, it is clearly to differentiate the two cameras within the market. One is at least considered a pro-sumer camera (7D) whilst anything below the 7D will be a consumer camera. If you are the type of shooter that is aware of MFA and need it, then shelling out for the 7D isn't an issue!
  14. Thanks guys for the thoughtful input. It helps clarify for me that this is a factor when considering the 60D.
    It certainly seems like quite a few people find it useful, though not all.
    I would agree with those who have said that like to have it,but not going to get the 7D instead just to get it.
  15. I have only needed it on one lens and that was only needed when shooting wide open at 2.8, if you dont shoot wide open I dont think its needed, but then maybe I have just been lucky.
  16. I checked all my lenses and the only one that needed it was the 70-200 -2. hardly worth the fuss of doing it. Maybe I am lucky but for most people for most of the time it is not needed. The thing that did surprise me is how accurate the AF is. So my thoughts are don't sweat it. I doubt you will need it.
  17. I have MA'd all my lenses.
    All needed a bit of adjustment. Nothing crazy but everybodies eyes are different and every lens is a little bit different.
    When I had my 20D I always saw posts from people recommending sending a lens and body together for calibration by Canon.
    I didn't do this myself but I always wondered if it was worth doing.
    I got the 5D2 and gave MA a go. MA is great for those of us who are pixel peepers. After MA'ing my lenses, it's one less excuse for an OOF shot.
    Any tools Canon give us can be used or ignored. I like MA.
  18. Have used it on both my 50D and 1DMK3. And guess what, not the same adjustment for the same lenses on both bodies. So it's not only the lens that might need adjustment for. I don't think I would go back to a camera model, old or new, that doesn't have MA.
  19. Hi
    I have a 50d and at least with my canon ef-17-40 doing 45 degrees to paper chart and moire test I did not have to make an adjustment. I have a Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 which -4 seems to produce a sharper image (but still testing).
    On a side note is the micro focus adjustment just a software adjustment and not really any movement of parts in camera? The reason I'm mentioning this is I have a chipped Contax Planar 50mm F1.7 and the chip lets me make micro focus adjustments. So if the adjustment is software the really should Canon include it in all cameras?
  20. This is all making me nuts. I had decided upon the 60d and now this micro-adjustment issue is making me worry about a feature I never had, never had problems with and never knew existed. Is this another example of Alvin Toffler's "over choice"?
  21. I'm adding this because the answers so far haven't really done a good job as to why Micro-adjustment is a big deal. Lenses and cameras are built to a tolerance, where as being off by a decimal place from ideal is ok. The issue is when you have a camera that's off by -3 and a lens that is off by +5, you now have an issue in your auto-focus that is 8 - and when working in a narrow depth of field (F1.2-F2) up close - you can have images out of focus really quickly. This is part of why you never focus on someone's nose - the nose may be in focus, but the eyes will be out of focus.
    When dealing with consumer lenses (f3+) this isn't as much an issue. When dealing with big glass wide open, it's a huge issue. Roger over at lensrentals.com has a really good write up. Yes, I picked up a 7d to properly train my 85Lii.

Share This Page