Reikan Focal AFMA Software

Tested on a different body and get the same results pretty much.

Had camera on a tripod and took pics with the suggested -14 on and off and seem sharper when it's back to 0.
Also says the astigmatism % is higher than average and lens elements could be misaligned... so stressful. I'm at a complete loss [emoji53]
 
Last edited:
munchycarrot said:
Tested on a different body and get the same results pretty much.

Had camera on a tripod and took pics with the suggested -14 on and off and seem sharper when it's back to 0.
Also says the astigmatism % is higher than average and lens elements could be misaligned... so stressful. I'm at a complete loss [emoji53]
Click to expand...
As said on the D500 thread, as long as you have done several Focal checks, getting the same results from a different body and the initial dissatisfaction with image quality would lead me to return it.
 
gramps said:
As said on the D500 thread, as long as you have done several Focal checks, getting the same results from a different body and the initial dissatisfaction with image quality would lead me to return it.
Click to expand...

We have spent the whole day testing and re testing on Bens super duper Feisol legs, his body, my body and I fear it does need to go back.
Not the end of the world and it will be interesting to see what Nikon repairers have to say too.
It's a shame coz that 'new gear out of the box' feeling isn't there and never really has been. It's been niggling away at me and yesterday was the final confirmation.
You spend all this money on class gear and I just feel disappointed.

Thanks for taking the time to reply Roger... much appreciated (y)
 
Just to add, I think subject distance are coming into play so further reinforces the misalignment, been looking at charts of misaligned glass vs perfect and the results are echoing mine.
Ben has spent pretty much the whole day since 8am reading, testing and more testing with me. We just had a sit down and a chat and both agree.
Will get the ball rolling tomorrow [emoji848]
 
munchycarrot said:
Just to add, I think subject distance are coming into play so further reinforces the misalignment, been looking at charts of misaligned glass vs perfect and the results are echoing mine.
Ben has spent pretty much the whole day since 8am reading, testing and more testing with me. We just had a sit down and a chat and both agree.
Will get the ball rolling tomorrow [emoji848]
Click to expand...
Hope it's a quick and successful turnaround for you ... when right it's a truly revolutionary lens. :)
 
Sent off just now to a company in Glasgow... hopefully it won't take too long :)


Edit nearly 2 weeks on (28th)... still waiting. They couldn't find a fault, then they retested & found that it needed recalibrating, now the report is they've found something that they're not sure about so they have contacted Nikon.
HDew said give it a few more days and if it's not sorted & back here working 100% they'll replace it
So much for that quick turnaround
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
Hope it's a quick and successful turnaround for you ... when right it's a truly revolutionary lens. :)
Click to expand...

Little update... The repairers are still awaiting parts from Nikon so Hdew said it's gone on long enough and a new one is en route (y)

Wouldn't have found this so quick if it wasn't for the FoCal software
 
munchycarrot said:
Little update... The repairers are still awaiting parts from Nikon so Hdew said it's gone on long enough and a new one is en route (y)

Wouldn't have found this so quick if it wasn't for the FoCal software
Click to expand...

Hat's off to HDEW then, hope you are soon back out with your nice new lens :)
 
Is there any feedback on recent versions of the software? It seems like a cheap price to pay to squeeze a little bit more performance out of the lenses.
 
Doug said:
Is there any feedback on recent versions of the software? It seems like a cheap price to pay to squeeze a little bit more performance out of the lenses.
Click to expand...

I have the Pro version on a Mac.

Stable and consistent. They have made the target setup module less pedantic over the last 6 months or so and that was my only gripe with it.

I suspect it prefers their own hard targets over the home printed PDFs that I use.
 
Last edited:
JohnM100 said:
I have the Pro version on a Mac.

Stable and consistent. They have made the target setup module less pedantic over the last 6 months or so and that was my only gripe with it.

I suspect it prefers their own hard targets over the home printed PDFs that I use.
Click to expand...

That's good to hear.

Do people find the Pro version has features that they couldn't live without? Just debating between the normal and pro versions.
 
If you don't have a lens over 400mm then I think the normal version should be okay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top