Can you guys just agree to disagree, and move on please ?

When and if I ever feel the need to use this technique, outdated or not, I'm sure I'll find puma's tutorial interesting.

Fashions in all things come and go, then come back again.

I don't find your jousting interesting at all. By now, I think you should both appreciate each others opinions and leave it at that.

BTW: I don't do weddings.

The only time I've ever had camera problems is when I've had a 3rd party battery fitted.

I had some issues last year with my K-5 II locking up. After I replaced the no-name battery with a genuine Pentax one, no more problems.

As Mike points out, the required kit doesn't start and finish with one lens Charlotte.

It's possible that some of the image degradation that you are perceiving is due to the converter you are using. I'm not sure why you think you need it.

If it's high magnification you are after, a reversed decent 28mm lens might give you what you are seeking.

Some of your shots above are heading towards microphotography, perhaps choose larger subjects to work with whilst you perfect all of the other influences that make a good image, lighting being the main one of course.

Interesting that Mike thinks some of them could do with more processing. I think some are overdone.

The first spider shot looks well overdone in PP Charlotte.

I think maybe you need to look at your conversion process.

Here's one I prepared earlier:-

Well I am retired y'know

Not possible since infinity does not exist

But photographically speaking you'd need a very large target to focus on and placed several miles from your camera, so probably not worth the trouble.

I know that there was no need to take so many images, but I wanted to, partly influenced by the torrential rain we had yesterday and I had nothing much else to do.

I know all of the other methods used to adjust the AF focus and I've probably used all of them at one time or another. This 'different' method deserved a try out, so I did try it and considered that the more sample images it had to digest, the better.

There is absolutely no need to rename all of the images, all you need to make note of is the adjustment setting of image #40 (if that's the peak sharpness point in the curve). So in my case, images 1-4 where at -10, images 5-8 at -9 etc, etc.

Once I'd got into the swing of taking the images it took about 5 minutes to take the 84 images that I wanted to take. The lens that took the longest was my Sigma 150-500mm because my tripod proved to be not stiff enough to stop it vibrating when the mirror went up.

I imagine that the software works along similar lines to those used for stacking images where only the sharpest part of the image is chosen to be included in the final output.

Of course, once I've taken a few shots with these newly calibrated lenses I may well be in for generous helpings of humble pie if they turn out to be pants.

You are [missing something].

All the software needs is 4 shots at each possible adjustment setting.

The software then wades through them sequentially and determines how sharp/unsharp each one is.

The net result is a graph showing the sharpness curve. You then pick the adjustment setting that is at the peak of the curve, apply it to your camera, and job done.

This seems to me to be a very technical approach to focus calibration, and one that takes us users out of the decision process. All we have to do is take the 84 images necessary for each lens by following the included instructions.

It's more noticeable on faster lenses, and wide open to minimize DOF.

No, but some Canon and Nikon cameras output their adjustment settings, Pentax doesn't, which means you can only use the shot by shot comparison analysis method.

It does produce interesting results though.

I spent some time testing/adjusting some of my lenses today and the adjustments required vary from +2 for my DA* 50-135mm to -8 for my Sigma 150-500mm lenses.

I just need some decent daylight time now to test the adjustments that this software is suggesting.