I was wondering the same thing, that's why I posted an image with centre of image and focus indicator point marked on them.
But the perpendicular image I used for levels was way out of focus also, and that wouldn't be affected by the position of the centre point, so my camera is definately not focussing properly.

I took a picture of a camera and the spirit level while I was there and they both showed focus was behind.
I think the chart is definately flawed if not used with caution.

Thaks Matt, I'll check this out and get back to you.

Yeah that did occur to me, but this is after the shop visit. I asked them to check the body for back focus, but they didn't appear to test it with any other lens.
They were a joke, they kept my camera and 16-45 and told me they would get back to me. took a bunch of pictures outside - all out of focus, then 25 shots went missing then they went inside and tried the printed sheet test. like I said they supposedly managed a couple of good shots but I wasn't there and I haven't managed anything in focus since getting it back. Their comment in front of other customers that my test shots in the park were blurred by camera shake really pissed me off, as all the shots were a minimum of 250th second and all showed areas in focus behind the subject.

How easy is it to adjust the camera and how likely is it to be just the lens as my other lenses seem to be less affected. (tolerable mostly).

BTW I took the lens in to them a couple of weeks ago and it came back 'fixed' but it seems worse if anything.

thanks Matt, i took it to the shop and they managed to get a good image of the chart (somehow) so they declared the camera good and pronounced my technique (camera shake) as the culprit!...500th second, I think not.
I didn't want to fiddle with the debug menu until I had given them a chance to look at it.
After they had it, my card had three unusable (out of focus) images of outside their shop then a suspicious gap of 28 images then two reasonable shots of the chart!
my other AF lenses exhibit a degree of back focus but not as much.
Is it possible to set it up for different lenses? could the lens itself cause this?

any thoughts on my wonky picture? is this normal? (happens everytime)

would someone check these full size images please?
This shot was taken from a tripod with everything perfectly square in the view finder and auto-focused.
several shots all display wonky like this. and all shots display apparent back focus.

this one shows the test chart at 45 degrees. red focus indicator went off where the green box has been drawn. but the red lines show the exact centre of the image. I waited for the green focus light (in both cases).


I have a whole load more, if these are inconclusive.

Actually I need to eat humble pie and say that after much more rigorous testing using that printed chart and a tripod, all three of my AF lenses exhibit a degree of back focus.
The 16-45 is about 30mm behind at 45, and 40 to 50mm behind at 16.
The 10-17 fish eye is roughly the same, although I am not sure it can do this test really.
The Tamron 70-300 is just in focus at 180 (macro) with the best bit behind, and at 70 it's difficult to tell because it's soft and fringed! but essentially about 30mm back focussed.

The Winner The SMC 50mm M 1.7 absolutely sublime! bang on and you can see the paper grain. I ignored the view finder and waited for the indicator lights. (although my eyes 'agreed' with it).

So does this mean I have a camera body that needs adjusting? and if so how do I do it? and can it cope with the differences? - the 16-45 really is appalling wide open.

Thanks Golfdiesel (is there any other kind!),
This is the only lens of mine which does this. I tried the tamron and m200 (using the beep) at the same time and both focussed exactly on the bottom of the match box sat next to a tape measure. As a second test, when walking around the park I focussed on several high-contrast objects and the 16-45 either back focussed on 45mm or everything soft at 16mm

My 16-45 actually rattles as I walk never noticed this before.

Sorry, I seem too have dropped this into the wrong forum, feel free to move it.

I have been trying to work out why I hate my 16-45 and everyone else raves about them. I did some tests using a tape and matchbox and concluded that it rear focussed. took it to the shop and it came back from Pentax 'fixed' (apparently), so I took some more shots - no change.
When it came back from Pentax, the lens seemed to rattle and the front element is really loose - about 2 or 3mm movement in every axis including in and out. Maybe it has always done this and I hadn't noticed.
I think the lens has not been fixed at all, because it almost never produced sharp images and still doesn't. But I will get back to you on this.
Yesterday in the park, shooting my 1 yr old - bright sunlight, F4 mostly, wide angle mostly, some shots composed in the view finder, some just snapped at ground level. about 2 thirds were out of focus despite having loads of contrast and being in the middle of the frame. This has been my experience for about 10 months. Is this lens really slow to focus? or really prone to focussing on the wrong object?

[edit] I have just done some tests and I am certain I have a dodgy copy of this lens. every shot is focussed behind the object and wide open nothing is focussed at all. So I just need clarification on how 'tight' the front element should feel.
ta

now you know why I call my Tamron the 'soft Tammy purple fringe master'.
Since scoring an SMC M 200 f4 and a 135 3.5 for a few quid on eBay, my modern zooms have just collected dust. there's just no comparison.
The old 135 is almost too sharp! and they're both so lovely and small.

Maybe I'm just weird, I also hate my 16-45DA which everyone else raves about....

ah well, worth asking, he has said I can borrow the 1D also, but he is 100 miles away so I would be in for a lot of driving if I had to keep giving the body back every day. whereas the lens is just a door stop most of the time.

Hows the Bigma Clarky? I don't think I've heard anything bad about them, apart from a few gripes about weight and needing a tripod
Are you happy with it?