Datacolor User to User Support Group.

>>When will this be available via Amazon (i.e. Free Shipping)?
I would like to check it out and see how it works compared to LensAlign.

LensCal is proving to be a huge hit, so it's hard to say when supplies will become available at any particular reseller. It will be "get it where you can" for a while. 

We did several hundred camera/lens calibrations on the show floor at PhotoKina. While LensCal doesn't offer some of the exotic features of LensAlign, it's affordable, portable, and with a bit of common sense does an excellent job of adjusting lens auto-focus. 

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging and Home Theater
Datacolor inc. 
cdtobie@datacolor.com
www.datacolor.com

On Oct 1, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Vampire D <vampired@...> wrote:

> When will this be available via Amazon (i.e. Free Shipping)?
> I would like to check it out and see how it works compared to LensAlign.

>>When will it be available on your site, it still shows as back ordered/pre-order.

Same answer...

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging and Home Theater
Datacolor inc. 
cdtobie@...
www.datacolor.com

On Oct 2, 2010, at 3:24 AM, Vampire D <vampired@...> wrote:

> When will it be available on your site, it still shows as back ordered/pre-order.

>>
I got my hands on a SpyderLensCal and have been testing it with different lenses.   There is no way to guarantee the camera body is aligned to the target perfectly which seems to allow for some variation in results.  The LensAlign and popular mirror do it yourself method has the ability to do this.  Why was this not added to the SpyderLensCal system?  

There is a small target image at the very edge of the main target. If you aim at this, instead of the center of the target, then any error caused by misalignment will be very minimal, since the distance between the focal point and the ruler will be close to zero. It's still a good idea to be as perpendicular as possible, but unless your lens's focal zone is tiny, this should put you more than close enough for checking you focus.  

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@Datacolor.com

On Oct 15, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Vampire D <vampired@...> wrote:

> 
> I got my hands on a SpyderLensCal and have been testing it with different lenses.   There is no way to guarantee the camera body is aligned to the target perfectly which seems to allow for some variation in results.  The LensAlign and popular mirror do it yourself method has the ability to do this.  Why was this not added to the SpyderLensCal system?

>>That's what I was doing, distance was whatever I needed to fill the center point focus with that box.  The instructions are very vague and don't really tell you much.

If you mean the printed quick start guide in ten languages, yes, it's just a quick overview of the process. You can find more info on the website, in the form of a Users Guide, videos, and FAQs. 

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@...

On Oct 16, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Vampire D <vampired@...> wrote:

> 
> That's what I was doing, distance was whatever I needed to fill the center point focus with that box.  The instructions are very vague and don't really tell you much.

--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, Vampire D <vampired@...> wrote:

> I would like to check it out and see how it works compared to LensAlign.

I wrote up a review a while ago

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/photography/spyderlenscal.html

It works just fine - it doesn't need to be any more complex

My thoughts after testing it are that the sense of heightened accuracy and precision required after looking at all the LensAlign sales pitches is almost entirely spurious.

The oft quoted requirement for absolute parallelism is much overrated and you can set up the SpyderlensCal perfectly well by eye.

I'm sure that many people who've tried to set AF microadjustment have been slightly disappointed by the lack of apparent precision they've encountered.

Add to this the rather vocal part of photography that thinks that better (read $$$) equipment will be the answer to their perceived failings, and you have an ideal market to sell expensive and IMHO unnecessarily precise alignment equipment.

Having set up optical systems in the past, I know where extreme precision makes a difference, and lens AF microadjustment  really does not fall into the category that some might want to believe.

As someone from a technical background I just don't like seeing spurious engineering precision being used to market needlessly overcomplex and overpriced solutions to questionable problems.

Of course the real problem is that (IMHO) rather too many people have let themselves believe that there is a technical ($$$) fix to improving their photography when the real answer is learning more about their own drives/interests/motivations/vision - oops, sorry, that takes real effort :-) :-)

Anyway minor rant over - the SpyderLensCal works just fine ;-)

bye for now
Keith Cooper

On Oct 16, 2010, at 9:50 AM, keith wrote:

> It works just fine - it doesn't need to be any more complex
> 
> My thoughts after testing it are that the sense of heightened accuracy and precision required after looking at all the LensAlign sales pitches is almost entirely spurious.
> 
> The oft quoted requirement for absolute parallelism is much overrated and you can set up the SpyderlensCal perfectly well by eye.
> 
> I'm sure that many people who've tried to set AF microadjustment have been slightly disappointed by the lack of apparent precision they've encountered.
> 
> Add to this the rather vocal part of photography that thinks that better (read $$$) equipment will be the answer to their perceived failings, and you have an ideal market to sell expensive and IMHO unnecessarily precise alignment equipment.
> 
> Having set up optical systems in the past, I know where extreme precision makes a difference, and lens AF microadjustment  really does not fall into the category that some might want to believe.
> 
> As someone from a technical background I just don't like seeing spurious engineering precision being used to market needlessly overcomplex and overpriced solutions to questionable problems.
> 
> Of course the real problem is that (IMHO) rather too many people have let themselves believe that there is a technical ($$$) fix to improving their photography when the real answer is learning more about their own drives/interests/motivations/vision - oops, sorry, that takes real effort :-) :-)
> 
> Anyway minor rant over - the SpyderLensCal works just fine ;-)

The other issue that never seems to get addressed is the number of moving, removable, magnetic, and losable parts in LensAlign. The goal with LensCal was that it be one durable piece, no removable parts, nothing to lose or worry about. So it offers a much more foolproof tool for travel, classrooms, camera clubs, workshops, and other real world environments where total control of the situation is not possible. At Photokina we calibrated what I estimated to be about two million dollars worth of bodies and lenses in a week, on a crowded tradeshow floor, amongst a surging crowd of interested on-lookers. LensCal worked wonderfully in that rather challenging environment.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...

Just for my clarification, of the "two million dollars" worth of equipment
you calibrated, what percentage actually needed adjustment?

pjs
"Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it.
Love it. But above all, know light.
Know it for all you are worth,
and you will know the key to photography."
George Eastman
RIP Kodachrome 1935-2009

On Oct 16, 2010, at 12:45 PM, PJS wrote:

> Just for my clarification, of the "two million dollars" worth of equipment
> you calibrated, what percentage actually needed adjustment?

Gianluca Colla did the actual calibration, and he was more interested in sharing horror stories with me (multi-thousand dollar lenses that focused behind the wall, for instance) than statistics. But many, if not the majority, of lenses tested justified at least some adjustment; and a surprising number required significant adjustment. Then there the ones that could be checked, but not adjusted... thats a frustrating experience, but a few such users were pleased to have the test images as leverage to get the companies involved to either adjust, or replace, the lenses in question...

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...

On Oct 16, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Sat Tara Khalsa wrote:

> I can't speak for SLC, but I've had a LensAlign since it was introduced (not that long ago). I've done 4 Canon L lenses, all with a 5d mk II body. (about 7 grand worth of lenses - and these are GREAT lenses (not just expensive lenses) and a great body - not poor quality outliers) All needed some adjustment. (not a huge amount on any of these lenses - they'd be OK w/o adjustment, but I'd have to compensate a tiny amount in really critical situations). I'd expect the differences to be dramatically higher in 3rd party lenses, say Sigma or Tamron w/ the same body.

Exactly... and that would be the same results for SpyderLensCal... it will just make this capability more widely available, to a less "gizmo" oriented audience.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...

--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, Vampire D <vampired@...> wrote:
 
> I've been trying to fix it with the SpyderLensCal but I haven't been having
> much luck.  I was shooting  wine bottle and seem to be noticing the
> difference more, but even at f/2.8 the DOF is large enough to make the test
> difficult.

Yes, that's why I ended up doing the sequence of shots (and the movie clip) from -20 to + 20 in the review and always making sure that I started each shot with the lens at infinity.

The  depth of field with slower lenses (say f/5.6) makes the whole thing feel a lot less precise than many initially expect (want) it to be. It's hardly surprising that some then go on to blame their lenses, their own (imagined) ineptitude, or the methodology they've been using.

As I mentioned, it's the tendency to think that good photography comes from the cost of what you're holding as opposed to what's in your head, that drives much of this - curiously I've noticed that it's almost entirely a male preoccupation - I guess women rarely buy $100/foot speaker cables either :-)

bye for now
Keith

To check close focus adjustment the tool works very well provided a tripod is used for camera and the lens cal tool is stationary and relatively parallel to the camera sensor.  The problem I have encountered is that using Canon's and other's recomendations that the distance be 50 times the focal length of the lens is the entire ruler is pretty much in focus at this distance especially with f4 or smaller aperatures.  What stability is there with the steel ruler and how long is the one you use?  Perhaps Spyder could come up with an accessory ruler to allow calibration at the recommended 50 times focal length?  I have used the device to focus close, set the micro-adjust setting, and then picked more distant objects to see if correct focus persists when focused further away.  So far this has worked on a Canon 24-105 f4L fairly well.
Paul

--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, Cdtobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:

>
> Not sure the rule would be your limiting factor, but I've used rubber bands to put a longer steel ruler onto the LensCal rule in cases where I wanted to determine in a single pass just where the "zone" was...
> 
> C. D. Tobie
> Global Product Technology Mngr.
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> Datacolor.com
> CDTobie@...
> 
> On Oct 17, 2010, at 3:11 PM, "Lloyd O'Daniel" <lhodaniel@...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > I need to buy one of these devices. I certainly like the price and simplicity of the SpyderLensCal over the LensAlign. The lens that I need to calibrate most is a Nikon 80-400VR with my new D700. Calibrating @ 400 @ 25 to 50 times fl would be in the 33 to 65 ft range. That, coupled with a f/5.6 max aperture, makes me wonder if depth-of-field would render SpyderLensCal useless under these conditions. LensAlign sells a long ruler kit for this situation. Would I be able to use the standard ruler of the SpyderLensCal satisfactorily for this lens?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>

I happen to own cork backed stainless steel rules in 18 and 24 inch lengths; they work just fine this way. Since the rule is centered on the LensCal unit, which is mounted on a tripod, there are no structural or stability issues. 

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@...

On Oct 17, 2010, at 9:27 PM, "bwinkjet" <bwinkjet@...> wrote:

> To check close focus adjustment the tool works very well provided a tripod is used for camera and the lens cal tool is stationary and relatively parallel to the camera sensor.  The problem I have encountered is that using Canon's and other's recomendations that the distance be 50 times the focal length of the lens is the entire ruler is pretty much in focus at this distance especially with f4 or smaller aperatures.  What stability is there with the steel ruler and how long is the one you use?  Perhaps Spyder could come up with an accessory ruler to allow calibration at the recommended 50 times focal length?  I have used the device to focus close, set the micro-adjust setting, and then picked more distant objects to see if correct focus persists when focused further away.  So far this has worked on a Canon 24-105 f4L fairly well.
> Paul
> 
> --- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, Cdtobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>> 
>> Not sure the rule would be your limiting factor, but I've used rubber bands to put a longer steel ruler onto the LensCal rule in cases where I wanted to determine in a single pass just where the "zone" was...
>> 
>> C. D. Tobie
>> Global Product Technology Mngr.
>> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
>> Datacolor.com
>> CDTobie@...
>> 
>> On Oct 17, 2010, at 3:11 PM, "Lloyd O'Daniel" <lhodaniel@...> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I need to buy one of these devices. I certainly like the price and simplicity of the SpyderLensCal over the LensAlign. The lens that I need to calibrate most is a Nikon 80-400VR with my new D700. Calibrating @ 400 @ 25 to 50 times fl would be in the 33 to 65 ft range. That, coupled with a f/5.6 max aperture, makes me wonder if depth-of-field would render SpyderLensCal useless under these conditions. LensAlign sells a long ruler kit for this situation. Would I be able to use the standard ruler of the SpyderLensCal satisfactorily for this lens?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>