Fine tune camera to lens

realspeed

realspeed

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,827
Name
Bazza
Edit My Images
No
Just got around to checking my Nikon D810 and the Nikon 50mm f1.4 lens. What i do is tether a link from camera to TV so I can check on a large screen. If you know Nikon fine tune settings scale I had previously set the lens to +7 some months ago,. Now rechecking it looks sharper at+5% using the Spiderlens cal as the target.

I was wondering how many members on here actually fine tune a camera to a lens? interesting to see how many say they do or do not.
 
Last edited:
I found I had to with sigma lenses , canon and nikon were usually spot on . its hard to say whether it was in reality worth doing as the parameters seem to change with time and use , now using mirrorless so totally not needed
 
Jeff I did all my Nikon lens with the D810 and all were very near the zero mark give a bit of +/- either side which is quite impressive. Must some time do the same with the D800
 
If your only having to do plus or minus 5 then it’s really not worth doing imho , as you won’t really see any difference . As I said previously it also seemed to change over time I suspect through normal usage ,knocks bangs etc or even temperature changes
 
realspeed said:
I was wondering how many members on here actually fine tune a camera to a lens? interesting to see how many say they do or do not.
Click to expand...

Nope never bothered - or more accurately (pun?) - having tried the old ruler at 45-degress way of doing it a few years ago I couldn't see any benefit with the couple of lenses I tried it with

My biggest issue with slightly OoF images is usually my fault or the subject's fault for tiny movements - I'm thinking portraits on my 85 shot at f2/2.5 - but I also find the focus tends to be on the eyelash rather than the iris, so at these critical moments I simply shoot 3-4 frames on high speed burst and move forwards a few millimeters, works perfectly :)

I really doubt if a lens being + or -5 out would make any difference in the real world of shooting people, and none at all in landscapes

Dave
 
Tried it once. Too much of a faff and as DG I reckon any focusing issues are down to user error or subject movement in my case. At the apertures I prefer to use it's not much of an issue TBH, and sometimes it doesn't matter to me if a picture is slightly OOF if it's otherwise a good picture.
 
On a majority of cameras it is not a user option.
On mirrorless it is not even necessary.
I have never had to do it.
 
Just done a photo of our dog and the photo is so much sharper. the quality drops off sharply using igmur. the original RAW photo shows every hair clearly

ZNhKxKp.gif
 
Last edited:
I always fine tune my Nikon lenses every 3 months or so as focus can drift. Have tried several methods for tune can work well and is quick but it isn’t as accurate as justvtrial and error.

It’s been a delight not to have to do this with the Sony cameras I have purchased recently.
 
I used to fine tune them but since I've realised I focus manually most of the time I don't bother now. I'd only do it now if a lens looked consistently out of focus.
 
Stu Meech said:
I used to fine tune them but since I've realised I focus manually most of the time I don't bother now. I'd only do it now if a lens looked consistently out of focus.
Click to expand...
When my DSLR upgrades got me all sorts of easy focus checks and manual adjustments I started checking focus a lot more, and discovered it was much more often off than I'd realised, which also meant some of my lenses were better than I'd thought they were!

I resolved that my next camera would have micro focus adjust for lenses. It did, and it also had even better facilities for checking and adjusting focus manually. I tried to do the best micro focus adjusts I could, and found that critically best focus was sometimes dependent on distance and on aperture. So the best MFA was still a compromise. And often AF would be off anyway because it can't always focus on what I want, such as focusing on a bird in a bush instead of the leaves in front or behind. So I ended up only using unchecked and untweaked AF when I was in a hurry, otherwise AF, like exposure, has become something I let the camera's auto facilities get quickly near before I check and tweak if necessary.
 
I've done much more of this recently. Partly because I have a big thing for Sigma Art lenses and they never seem to be right straight out of the box, but also with older DSLR's which I tend to buy, they seem to creep over time. The more use a camera has had the more likely it seems I'll need to adjust it for all lenses. It's tedious task though!
 
I haven't had the need to in the past but with my D810 I have found the resolution is so high that it shows even the slightest bit of OOF error.

I have found it makes a big difference for this camera.
 
I don’t on my d600’s but the same lenses in my d7000 were miles out + or -20 it was
 
Had to do it with my D500 and Sigma 100 -400 ,it needed doing seperatly with and without the 1.4.
 
mikew said:
Had to do it with my D500 and Sigma 100 -400 ,it needed doing seperatly with and without the 1.4.
Click to expand...

Total pain isn't it! Hours of your life that you'll never get back.

The Sigma dock is good in terms of being able to get every aspect nailed down, but jeez the mounting and un-mounting and checking every focal range. Soul destroying.
 
I get a difference of circa 10 units when calibrating the same lens on 2 x D500 bodies which, I guess, demonstrates the manufacturing tolerance stack.

GC
 
My wife is going to Brazil for a week soon so it will give me a good chance to calibrated 3 cameras and 7 lenses without interruption, Yippee. I can leave it all set up tethered to the TV so I have a large picture to set the adjustments with
 
gad-westy said:
Total pain isn't it! Hours of your life that you'll never get back.

The Sigma dock is good in terms of being able to get every aspect nailed down, but jeez the mounting and un-mounting and checking every focal range. Soul destroying.
Click to expand...

Didnt use the dock just did 400mm and 560mm
 
I am a big advocate of lens tuning. But I like to use large aperture primes and accept if you don’t or have a less critical eye then fine tuning may be irrelevant. I haven’t had an issue with smaller aperture lenses.

Having ‘suffered’ the Nikon 1.8 primes 28-50-85 across two different bodies D750 and D600 I found they all needed significant adjustment up to -25 on both 85 1.8’s that I bought.

What I hear you say?

It doesn’t go to -25?

Your right! So they were useless! It was so frustrating taking 300 photos with 95% of them not critically focused and yet all 95% were all consistently focused slightly behind the intended focus point.

I switched to Tamron lenses with the Tap in console and haven’t looked back. Its a great tool that allows for much more accurate calibration than can be had ‘in body’. Indeed I could never go back to an in body only option because it doesn’t solve the problem it just moves it around for example if it was ‘out’ at close distance but ok at far then it simply swaps the problem around.

To all those who say fine tuning is unnecessary I say the following:

Your either very lucky that your body and lenses line up. This does happen. My 70-200 matched my old D600 perfectly without the need for any fine tuning. If that was my only lens then I would be wondering what all the fuss was about. Ironically both body and lens were out but paired up to compensate for each other’s deficiencies.

Or

You need to go to spec savers ;) I did it also helped!
 
Last edited:
Stu Meech said:
I used to fine tune them but since I've realised I focus manually most of the time I don't bother now. I'd only do it now if a lens looked consistently out of focus.
Click to expand...
I say this, and today fine tuned my Tamron 100-400 to +8 as it was quite out! And the lens I am mostly likely to use AF for when taking wildlife photos etc.
 
What I find odd is that pre digital, and for some time after, there was no way for a user to fine tune a lens to a body. Yet few people needed to.
Those that did sent them backfor a "repair".
Have Dslr makers standards dropped or have people become more critical.?
I have moved mirrorless so have never experienced the problem.

I can understand why manufacturers have now passed the problem to users, and/or are moving to non mirror systems.

It was a potential problem for TLR and rangefinder users but in very many years of using them never found it to be so.
 
I suspect the tolerance range is now more adaptable depending on where the camera/lens is. Going to the extreme they could be used in the Arctic or the Sahara and must have an some effect on the bodies.

Same with car engines as a comparison, they have a wide tolerance for the same reason,and can be tuned to get the peak efficiency where they are used.
So taking that analogy camera /lens manufactures have to make the same allowance. Also mass production with one tested in so many, bad copies are bound to slip through, even if they are fractionally out of true

With pre digital cameras it was the same BUT the cost of resetting the camera to a lens or just a lens the cost was prohibitive for what was needed, so most didn't bother.

Now with digital cameras fine tuning can be done at home, so it is quicker and easier than sending away, and no loss of being without a camera/lens

Now also with modern techniques OFF photos show up easier , yes can be corrected in editing but that is extra time spent which can be used more productively
 
Last edited:
Sony. most of the SLT cameras have a micro-focus-adjust system, except the A58 in the current range.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
What I find odd is that pre digital, and for some time after, there was no way for a user to fine tune a lens to a body. Yet few people needed to.
Those that did sent them backfor a "repair".
Have Dslr makers standards dropped or have people become more critical.?
I have moved mirrorless so have never experienced the problem.

I can understand why manufacturers have now passed the problem to users, and/or are moving to non mirror systems.

It was a potential problem for TLR and rangefinder users but in very many years of using them never found it to be so.
Click to expand...
That’s a very good question.

My first slr was fully manual so not an issue, my second a Minolta did have an af system but I only ever had a kit lens F3.5-F4.5 so perhaps never was a concern.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
What I find odd is that pre digital, and for some time after, there was no way for a user to fine tune a lens to a body. Yet few people needed to.
Those that did sent them backfor a "repair".
Have Dslr makers standards dropped or have people become more critical.?
I have moved mirrorless so have never experienced the problem.

I can understand why manufacturers have now passed the problem to users, and/or are moving to non mirror systems.

It was a potential problem for TLR and rangefinder users but in very many years of using them never found it to be so.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's been introduced since the fashion for shooting fast lenses wide open almost all the time came in?
 
AS cameras improve so do the demands of the photographer. If a camera is said to say it produces a razor sharp image then the photographer tries to attend that. that may mean having to fine tune to get the best out of it

Also fine tune the photographer at the same time :LOL:
 
Last edited:
I check all my long focal length lenses for accuracy at around 25 times focal length. Do the 200-500, 100-400 and 500. With and without converter.

I don’t find it that much of a chew to be honest. 10-15 minutes a lens tops. Don’t find that they drift much either.

Setting up my checking board is as much of a pain as doing the checking.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I wonder if it's been introduced since the fashion for shooting fast lenses wide open almost all the time came in?
Click to expand...
I would agree. Possibly affordability too as wide angle primes can be purchased fairly cheaply. Especially 1.8’s. Also the internet has enabled people to try these at no cost or nearly no cost through the much larger second hand markets.
 
One reason might be thafilm was rarely flat. I only ever had two film cameras with glass register plates in front of the film, one was in some rolleiflexes which had a removable glass plate, and the other was an aerial camera.
 
I'm another that used to advocate M/A mainly with sigma lenses , and like others found they tended to drift over time . thankfully now on mirrorless and the problem has totally gone
 
the black fox said:
I'm another that used to advocate M/A mainly with sigma lenses , and like others found they tended to drift over time . thankfully now on mirrorless and the problem has totally gone
Click to expand...

A few years down the line and people will wonder why we ever put up with it
There are enough other reasons to suffer from poor sharpness with out having to put up with poor registration in the focus train.
We should be able to rely on our cameras to be and remain accurate.
 
Last edited:
Having just received my new D810 I’ve not had a chance to go through the Tamron Tap in console process so did a very quick and dirty in body +5 on my Tamron 24-70G2 as I was taking it out today. The +5 was done at about 10 feet. Guess what all my photos taken at 10 feet were lovely and sharp. The ones further out?

You guessed it;)
 
Brazo said:
I would agree. Possibly affordability too as wide angle primes can be purchased fairly cheaply. Especially 1.8’s. Also the internet has enabled people to try these at no cost or nearly no cost through the much larger second hand markets.
Click to expand...

The internet is probably also to blame. If there weren't dozens of geeks posting about checking their lenses I bet most people would never notice if theirs were a midge's out!
 
I suppose back then we were never enlarging our images as much as we do now to 1:1. 8x10 was my max.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top