Quadrantids Shoot Questions

Thanks all for the sharing of the post, tis much appreciated. I've received a few questions about the images and figured I'd take a moment or two to answer them to the masses even though I've responded directly already. The first question I'll address here was actually the most recently received, but for a bit of background on my process, I decided to answer it first.

What is image stacking, and how does the PhotoShop action work?

Essentially – image stacking is layering a series of images together so that you can then process them as a set. Because I shot from a tripod, and the illumination on most of the foreground objects stayed the same throughout the shoot, the sides of the houses, the chimneys, the trees, all have a consistent illumination. The sky is mostly black, except for where the stars are in any given shot. In each shot, they move just a little bit, not doing much more than adding a bit of blur to the star rather than a discernible trail in any given image. By stacking 683 of them, that lets the stars move through their arcs, the process pulling the brightest pixel from the column of images.  Now, PhotoShop doesn't have to actually stack all 683 at once, you start with a new PS document and fill it with black. As you run the automated batch process against your folder of images, PhotoShop grabs each one, and copies it into the "new" file, and then applies a lighten action to get the brightest pixel at each location. So, after processing the one image, the "processed" image looks just like the first one… from here, the changes are more subtle. The action closes that first image and works through each successive image, merging the new layer into the previously processed image and brightening fairly small areas.  Over time, this yields the streaks. 


Why 683 images? Why not a 3 hour exposure?

Okay – so that is a shortened version of the question, but the essence is the same. Why do folks stack rather than using longer exposures or a very long exposure?

I've not searched for an answer but a few quick reasons come to mind. First off, early digital cameras had more noise the longer the sensor had to gather data to process, so to avoid this extra noise, you had to keep your exposure times short. Even now, there are settings in DSLRs that enable or disable long exposure noise reduction on images; so there is still some noise generated by a longer exposure.

Another practical reason is that most cameras' longest exposure time (excluding bulb) is 30 seconds; but again this changed with the advent of intervalometers (such as my canon TC-80N3) – devices that allow you to set exposure time, time between exposures, and number of exposures, greatly simplifying time lapse photography. There are even firmware builds (such as Magic Lantern unified, available on several Canon bodies) where countless additional features can be added to your DSLR. Without one of these devices (or a firmware modification), it is easy (as I did, see yesterday's post) to set the camera on continuous shooting and just slide the latch to lock the shutter into the "shoot" position… the camera dutifully shoots till it runs out of battery or storage.

Test shots are much easier to evaluate in shorter exposures. You can always do the math and calculate how a longer shot needs to either have the aperture cranked closed, or iso lowered, or both; but why not just go ahead and do 25 or 30 second exposures?

Flexibility in post processing pops to mind as well. I is fairly easy for me to process 180 or so images:

instead of the full 683:

(Click either to enlarge)

It nets a very different result. I could also skip sections of images to add some gaps… hmmm… spelling out a secret message in morse code anyone?


So, did you actually capture any meteors?

Yes, I think… well, one… maybe. How's that for decisive? LOL  Well, based on info discussed in yesterday's post, I think I ended up with one meteor, and one satellite.  Both came from the lower portion of the image towards the upper portion… both were caught in multiple frames. The first item I saw was what I think was a meteor:


(click to enlarge)

and what I think is a satellite – tho it may be a faint meteor. It is a longer trail, but the trail is pointy at the end, so it may have been a more glancing blow to the atmosphere – but while it is faint – the trail goes all the way into the tree… so perhaps tis a satellite after all:


(click to enlarge)

There are gaps in both due to them being captured in two frames each. There is a slight pause between closing the shutter and re-opening it. I got "lucky" both times – LOL

If anyone can give me a bit more info on meteor vs. space junk, I'd appreciate it.

All for now – keep those questions coming!

Thanks for reading!

Quadrantids Meteor Shoot

Ahh… celestial photography. A fun topic that I've rarely had time to explore. I've done occasional shots of the moon, usually to test a new long lens or stacked teleconverters, but have never tried to shoot a meteor shower or star trails.  I've done some other time lapse stuff lately, and other long exposure photography, so I've had it at the front of my mind. As I was surfing around the other day, I saw a post about the Quadrantids meteor shower, and how it was that night. I did a bit of surfing about where and when it would be visible but didn't think too much of it. As luck would have it, I got stuck at the office late after a fairly long day and noticed it was crisp and clear in Austin as I headed to the car.  On the drive home, tinkering with some long exposure photography seemed a great way to relax and unwind.

When I got home I went into the back yard and realized that a) I'm to the south of downtown Austin, so the views north to northeast from the back yard were polluted by light; and 2) [sic] that with the houses of my neighbors also cluttering up the sight lines, I'd be pretty much guaranteed to get squat for meteor shots.

Undaunted, I figured I could use this as a great way to tinker with exposures, apertures, ISOs, and lens selection. I soon had my 5D2 in the back yard with my 17-40L f/4 mounted atop my tripod and ballhead. I wanted to go for a longer exposure (figuring I'd go "simple" with my camera's shutter options) but didn't know what ISO, f-stop, etc. I ran a series of tests with the lens wide open at f/4, and thought I'd be happy with an 800 iso 25 second exposure @f/4, but ran a few other tests while I was at it.  I played with different shutter speeds at 400 and 1600 ISO, as well as halving the exposure time and bumping a full stop to 5.6.  I was a bit surprised at how much I'd liked the 800 ISO f/5.6. It was definitely sharper, and with some lingering humidity in the air (along with the light pollution to the north), the reduction in overall exposure made it all look so much crisper. I had thought I'd want to be a touch overexposed to ensure I caught every possible trail, but with the reality of the houses and lights, I figured this might be a better star trails exercise, so I leaned towards a slightly darker image.

As for which "exact" direction to point the camera, I leaned on (as I say it) the AKASG – all knowing all seeing Google – In this case – the Google Sky Map app on my Android based device (tho I'm pretty sure tis free for iOS and Blackberry devices). I figured I could use it to help ensure I knew which way was NNE, but I was surprised to see that meteor shower focal points (essentially the point at which it looks like the meteors are coming from, they radiate out from the focal point) is a selectable option to include in the view. So it was very easy to see where the shower currently was (at this point, it was bout 11:00 PM and the shower's focus was still below the horizon) but knowing where Polaris (the north star) was, I could figure out where the shower's radius would "rise" and how it would track across the sky.

I'll admit I got lazy and didn't over research the ability of the 5D2 to lock the mirror up and stay up between images. I thought I could "fool" it by going into Live View (which locks the mirror up so the sensor can read real time) but wasn't sure if I'd be wasting valuable battery juice powering the back LCD panel. As I thought through the mirror lockup, I decided that since the up and down of the mirror would be such a small portion time wise of the 25 second exposure, it wasn't worth fooling with. Overall battery life was indeed a concern as I'd no idea as to the duration of a gripped 5D2 with two batteries in the cold 35 degree Austin night, so I was trying to err on the side of caution. I wasn't sure if the cold and draw of the long images would run the battery out before my 16gb CF card filled up.

As for how to trigger the sequence. I did have a few options. I have a nice long USB cable with a repeater built in (for longer than standard) runs, and I could have run the cable from where the tripod was in the yard, through the dog door, and to my laptop on the counter, but – the dog door – that's the rub.  I didn't want the dogs rushing out in the middle of the night chasing some random noise and tearing into a cable… destroying either my camera, my laptop, or both. So I went (again – sense the theme for the evening yet?) easy… I just used my TC-80N3 timer control, but dumbed down. Rather than setting an interval, I simply set the camera on repetitive "rapid fire" (a bit humorous when doing 25 second exposures) and I just slid locked the trigger in the "on" position.  This would have the camera repeat 25 second exposures one after the other, knowing it would take shorter than 25 seconds to write the previous image to the card, so no fear of the buffer filling. It would just be a race – what would run out first? The battery (knowing it was hampered by the cold) or the card capacity?

My final setup was as follows: Gripped Canon 5D2, EF 17-40 f/4 – 17mm for 25 seconds @f/5.6 ISO 800

Hurry up and wait, I had topped off my spare pair of batteries as I was doing my tests, and then I kept them in my pockets to warm them in hopes of squeezing out every shot possible. I finally started the process about 1:30 AM Central time (the focus was just coming over the horizon and was still blocked by houses and trees), went off to bed, and figured I'd have at least 2 hours worth of exposures.

This morning, I found that the camera still had about 30% battery left, I'd filled up the memory card first. Yes, I had considered reducing the resolution, but not knowing how faint or bold the meteor streaks would be, I went for resolution. 683 images was the final tally.

(click to enlarge)

I took a quick peek after importing them into Lightroom, I did a quick scan and found some cool airplane traces but didn't have time to examine all the images. One that caught my eye (above) had an airline trace that curved; I can't recall seeing a curved trace in a sky shot of mine before. The images looked great, but I bumped the blacks to 15, and pulled the color temp back to 3750 (from an as shot of 4500 or so) which brought the tone from orange-y, and more like a nice cool toned night shot. The adjustments applied, I kicked off an export for some testing – 1600 pixel wide 70% quality jpg images.  I had some coffee, hopped in the car with the laptop on the passenger seat and motored up to the office. It took about an hour to render the images from the 21mp raw files.

On the drive, I figured I'd try two different ways to locate any meteor traces. I'd try a "star trails" stacking of the images, hoping that any non rotational trails would stand out better that way; or, alternatively, I could convert the sequence of images into a time lapse movie and look for the streaks by "scrubbing" the positional control back and forth as I looked at different areas of the screen.

Another visit to the AKASG brought me to a star trails action for PhotoShop CS4. A quick install later, I followed the instructions on the linked page and found what I thought to be the only meteor in my shot:

(it is diagonally up-left from the center of the swirl – click to enlarge)

Using Apple Quicktime to import my sequentially numbered sequence, I was soon happily scrubbing through a 6 fps frame rate version; watching the big dipper rise and set, as I looked for the meteor trail I'd seen in my stacked image. It wasn't hard to see that the image was near the end of my sequence. I referenced other more visible cues and soon knew it was after my neighbor switched on a light in a bathroom (which threw a vertical broad flare at about 1:44 in) and then right after a distinct long trail from chimney to tree to the right of the house. Within a minute or so, I'd found my image. Another "scrubbing" session showed another trail, a longer faint one just to the left of the tree (about 1:48).


After a bit of well timed research (thanks, via Google+, Jennifer Yu) seems to point towards my capture of one meteor (the first one I spotted), and one satellite (the longer, thinner trace). Jennifer's top tip – meteors are usually in just one frame, while satellites and other space junk will be in more than one. Also – meteors will usually be pointy at one or both ends while the satellite or other space junk will be a more even intensity across the length of the trace… Sorry to keep you in suspenders, but I've only the time and the energy to fight off the sandman long enough to post the images I've already referenced. I'll post a set of shots of the meteor and space junk later.

Thanks for reading, and please ask questions early and often either through comments on this post, or via the contact link in the header above!


Canon 50D Shutter Actuations Counter (and Canon 40D too!)

Just a quick post before knocking off for the evening.

Saw a post today on canonrumors.com that had a link to a site that has a free piece of software that can read the (until now) Canon Support territory of how many actuations a shutter has. The idea is pretty basic – it uses the EOS Utility drivers (you put this .exe file in the same directory as the EOS Utility) to access the information from the camera. You plug in the camera to your computer with a USB cable, turn it on, close the EOS Utility if it starts, then start this application. Click the "Get Count" button and voila!.

This program accesses information from the Digic III processor (or the Digic IV) so the app will work on the 40D, 50D, and the 5D Mark II, but not on the 30D, or 350D,400D, etc…

It was interesting to see that my 40D has 27,010 actuations, but how accurate is it? Well, my 50D shows 3,961 – which shows 4 more than the highest image number. This results from some "remote shooting from PC" which counts as a shutter actuation, but since the file is saved directly to the computer, so the compact flash card count doesn't get increased. So I'd say that the 27k actuations reading on my 40D is pretty accurate.

This is only for the PC, not for the Mac, but you can read all the details here.

Thanks for reading!

Canon 50D Hot Pixel Fix

Well – when I took my Canon 50D out of the box a week or so back, IHotpixelbefore found after a bit of pixel peeping on some images, that I had two hot pixels on the sensor.  I was immediately disappointed and thought I'd be without my new camera for a week or more while I returned it and waited for the dealer I got it from to send it back.

If they had been more out of the way – well – one was bottom right, and not too much to worry about; the other was about midway up, about a third of the way across the sensor. I'll also post 100% crops of the .jpg images that show the hot pixels. What seems a bit odd to me, the RAW files didn't show the problems, just in the jpegs… curious. Here are the two crops one blue pixel on the left side of the sensor, and a brighter pixel in the lower right corner (the pixels are centered in both crops below):

Hotpixelbefore1    Hotpixelbefore2

I figured I'd do a quick search to see what other folks had experienced when sending cameras back and soon Googled "canon 40D hot pixel"… one of the first pages talked about a fix that had worked for this person, and supposedly others. A quick read had me thinking it was well worth a shot – and whaddaya know, it worked for me as well!  I'd post images "after" but it seems ridiculous to post black squares… <chuckle>.

Here is the fix, I'm not going to venture any theories as to why it worked, but one page I read said they thought it "re-calibrated the sensor"… To be honest, I don't care – my sensor seems to now be working a-okay!.

Hot Pixel Fix for the Canon 40D which worked on my 50D:

  1. Remove the lens and put the body cap in place on the camera
  2. Put the camera in to "manual sensor cleaning mode". It is the same for both the 40D and 50D – Press the "Menu" button, then select the middle "yellow wrench" tab, then "Sensor Cleaning" then "Clean Manually". You will hear the click of the mirror coming up (so you *could* be using a swab on the sensor – but don't do that – leave the body cap in place).
  3. Leave the camera in this mode for 30-60 seconds, I kept it this way for closer to 60 seconds.
  4. Power off the camera off – you should hear another click as the mirror drops down into place

That was it. Test the camera and see if the dead pixels are gone – they were for me.

Thanks for reading!

Canon 50D AF Microadjustment – Instructions/Tutorial

Next chapter in our ongoing 50D review:
Auto Focus (AF) Microadjustment

(Also known as C.Fn.III-7 fun-o-rama!)

I’ll fess up, one of the first things I did after getting my Canon 50D was to pop my EF 24-105 f4L IS in place, put the camera on a tripod, point the lens at the concentric circle AF Microadjustment target that seems to be making the rounds, and start trying to tweak my auto focus. I thought it would be quick and easy – and that I’d see great new sharpness from all of my shots… <chuckle>

Okay – so I didn’t think it was going to be that easy, but I didn’t have much luck in my first attempt.

The pattern I used, which I found by searching with good old Google, is posted later in this post. I found the first versions of it in this thread on openphotographyforums.com. I also found a page w/ a similar target (same pattern, different file size) on Northlight Images’ website here; but the instructions seemed a touch incomplete to me.  (As an FYI – I do think the Northlight page – the one linked to the word "here" – is worth reading – it is much shorter than the series of posts, responses, questions, etc. in the thread.)

Allow me to ‘splain – no – there is no time…
Allow me to sum up…

In short – you need to use a special target on an LCD based monitor (a printout will not work – it has to be shown on a LCD) – the test procedure counts on the interference between the LCD screen showing the pattern and the sensor to show as a pattern (called moiré – pronounced "mwah-ray") when the focus is sharp. Show the pattern at 100% on said monitor, set the camera for center AF point only, aim your camera square to the screen at the center of the pattern, turn on live view, get the most distinct interference pattern you can, turn off live view, and then watch the distance indicator window on your lens as you half press the shutter to have the AF focus on the screen. If the scale moves in the window, the AF Microadjustment is off… Make a tweak and then re-test. Oh – and be sure to do each lens individually, I’d be shocked (and would tell you to go out quick and buy a lottery ticket) if all your lenses came back the same correction…

Sounds pretty easy… but… I had just a few questions after reading the post I reference above:

  1. How far away should the camera be from monitor showing the target?
  2. What aperture should I shoot with?
  3. So, if the distance scale does move, which way do I need to "adjust" the lens? + or – ?
  4. Is the pattern test the best test?

The first attempts were admittedly rushed, and I had a hard time seeing any real difference, and I thought that zero adjustment was the best for the 3 or 4 lenses I tried… But I knew intuitively that couldn’t be the case, so I stopped that test, and got on with some other playing with my new camera that day.

After doing some shooting, the dead pixel testing with its discoveries/fix (doh! – been meaning to post that one – perhaps Thursday), and the shooting of an event behind me, it was time to get back to the AF Microadjustment.

So today I got things setup; and, being just a touch less rushed, I was able to refine my process just a bit (okay – quite a bit), and was soon seeing some results.

After reading through the long series of posts from the OPF, I was clearer on a few things. 1 – keep your lens zoomed to its maximum zoom level; and 2 – be sure to keep your aperture cranked as open as possible (smallest number your lens will shoot). This does two things – it ensures the shallowest depth of field, and it ensures the shallowest depth of field… (no – that wasn’t a typo, both actions minimize the DoF).

So having thought on this a bit since my first attempt, I figured that when the tiny pixels on my laptop’s high res but not huge screen combined with the finer resolution of the sensor on the 50D, and with the finer resolution on the camera’s screen, perhaps the moiré wasn’t the best test for the 50D AF Microadjustment. I quickly  created my own test pattern with one pixel wide lines in a grid, with a few of the lines either wider or a different color so you could tell where you were in the grid when zoomed in on live view. My thought was that I should use laptop monitor at a 45 degree angle to the camera, and I could then use the tight DoF and the snazzy new screen to pixel peep to see which individual pixels on the laptop monitor were out of focus relative to where the center point focus pipper was placed. I guessed it would work better than the tutorials which had been created for the 1D Mark III and 1Ds Mark III with their lower resolution screens.

To save details – nope – didn’t work so great for the short lenses, but did come in handy later… I found that the moiré works great for wide to medium lenses, and that my pattern worked better for longer lenses.

The Answers: (well – what worked for me at least)

Keep in mind that you should have the zoom at its maximum zoom – I had live view set to "Quick Mode" and never hit the "AF-On" button – I manually turned the focus ring. Oh yeah, and one shot AF with the center AF point selected.

1. How far away should the camera be from the monitor showing the target?
When testing wide to medium zoom (say, up to about 100 mm), I used the circular pattern and found that it helped to have the pattern come close to filling up the frame top to bottom. For my 24-105, it turned out to be about 50 inches from screen to where the sensor is in the camera (you know that little circle w/ the horizontal line through it that you see when looking down on the top of your camera? That horizontal line shows where the lens is focusing – the front of the sensor); for my 17-55 – about 30 inches; and something like 20 inches for the 10-22. When in live view, just ensure you see the interference pattern clearly – play around with the 5x and 10x live view if need be.

2.  What aperture should I shoot with?
Use the most wide open aperture (the smallest number) to minimize DoF.

3. So, if the distance scale does move, which way do I need to "adjust" the lens? + or – ?
I was a touch confused by the "Forward" and "Backward" labels on the adjustment screen. I then almost scratched a hole in my head trying to come up with a way to explain what they meant – I soon gave up and came up with how I got my head around it.

Seated behind the camera, I’d see the distinct pattern in live view; I’d turn off Live View then half press the shutter. If I saw (for example) the distance scale shift to the right as I looked down, that meant I had to turn the focus ring counter clockwise (or – ) to get the moire pattern back. If I saw the scale jump to the left, that meant I had to turn the focus ring clockwise (or + ) to get the pattern back. So I soon ignored the words on the adjustment menu, and just moved the pipper to the – or the + as needed.

4. Is the pattern test the best test?
Well – yes and no. I found that for my 10-22, 17-55, and 24-105 – the circular interference method worked the best; but when the longer lenses came out, my 70-200 (zoomed to 200 – remember – zoom to high end) and 100-400, I found that it took so little to shift the pattern, that I had difficulty getting a distinct pattern to be consistent. It might have been that I was testing in my kitchen and was running out of room to move the tripod away from the monitor, but I found using my target worked pretty darn well. Again – show the target at 100% view, but this time, turn the monitor on an angle so that it is about a 45 degree angle to the camera. Center the camera on the thick lines that cross in the center of the target. Now turn on live view, zoom to 10x and you should be able to manually focus so that the vertical line is sharp, with DoF fall-off to the left and right (assuming you pivoted the whole laptop on the counter/desk, if you tilted the monitor away – the horizontal line should be sharp w/ DoF fall-off above and below).  Now turn off Live View, half press the shutter to let the AF operate, and then turn Live View back on – zoom back to 10x… if the live view display has changed, you easily be able to see if the focus has shifted to a portion of the screen that is closer to you (if so, you would need to turn the focus ring clockwise, so add to the AF Adjustment) or if it is focused further away (you need to turn the focus ring counter-clockwise to get the center point back in focus, so subtract to the AF Adjustment).

A few pics w/ my target being used (click to enlarge):
Afm1_4 Afm2_2 Afm3_2
From left to right:
My setup;
the pipper on the crosshairs of my target;
this 10x zoom shows what it would look like if you needed to subtract correction.
micro adjustment, micro adj, nikon, 1D mark III, 1D mk III, 1Ds mark III, 1Ds mk III, sigma, tamron, micro-adjustment

Okay – so that’s it then? You betcha!
But wait – there’s more!
NOW how much would you pay?

For those who are interested in a longer winded version of the test… here goes… I’ll just try to bang this out as it is getting late and I do need to get some shut eye.

1. Be patient – take your time – don’t rush this – or you will get *very* frustrated. The moiré pattern’s changes as you barely nudge the focus ring can be VERY SUBTLE (in caps for irony’s sake) – so don’t do this after three espressos and a red bull.

2. Setup your camera on a very steady tripod. When you get to your longer lenses, you will notice any subtle movement is magnified greatly by the distance to the screen. (See step 1…) Ensure your camera is leveled.

3. Display your choice of target at 100% on a LCD display – I put my laptop on the kitchen counter.

4. Set the height of the center of your lens to be the same height as the center of the target you are using.

5. If you are using the moiré target, square up the camera to the screen – if you are using my target, angle the screen at about a 45 degree angle to the camera.

6. Set your Live View to quick mode, your aperture to wide open (lowest number), set AF to use only the center point, and set the distance between the camera and the target to the closer end of the focus range of the lens. As an example If your lens can focus at 1/2 meter, then move the camera to about 3/4 of a meter away from the target. The target should fill most of the height of the frame (you don’t want it too big – unless you are using my target). Some lenses that have IS (image stabilization) will sense if the camera (or lens) is mounted in a tripod, but to be sure – I suggest you turn it off manually to be sure.

7. Focus on the target in Live View – If you are using the circular pattern target, get the most moiré pattern you can (see the example images on this page from Nortlight-images.co.uk), or if you are using my target – focus on the intersection of the thick black lines (3 px wide) at the center of the target.

8. Turn off Live View, watch the focus distance scale in the window on your lens to see if it moves while you 1/2 press the shutter to activate the camera’s auto focus. remember which way the focus scale moved

9. If the focus distance scale didn’t move – you are done! (If this happened the first try – you might try steps 7-9 a few times to ensure that your precision in step 7 was accurate) You can also verify by going back into Live View and seeing if you see the same amount of moiré you did before. Or if you are using my scale, see if the thick line is still in focus properly.

If the scale did move – proceed to step 10

10. hit the "menu" button, index wheel over to the Custom Functions menu (the second from the end) and choose "C.Fn III: Autofocus/Drive", then choose 7 – AF Microadjustment, and ensure it is set to 2 – Adjust by lens.

11. If this is the first time AF Microadjusting this lens on this camera, hitting the "info" button below the LCD will "register" the lens and take you to the AF-Microadjust screen; if you’ve had this lens on before and adjusted it, or if you are looping through, making changes and checking, hitting the "info" button will allow you to "change" the microadjustment in the AF-Microadjustment screen.

12. Now – make an adjustment to the correction value. If it moved a lot, try adjusting the value by 10, if it moved a little, try 5. + or – ?  Well – if you are using the circular rings target:  If the distance scale shifted to the right – adjust in the minus ( – ) direction… If the distance scale shifted to the left, adjust in the plus ( + ) direction.  My Target: if the focus shifted to a portion of the pattern that is closer to you, adjust in the plus ( + ) direction… if it is focused on part of the pattern further away, adjust in the minus ( – ) direction.

13. Be sure to hit the "Set" button (the button in the center of the thumb-dial) to save your change!

13. Now go back up to step 7 and repeat the process until you do not see the focus ring shift.
nikon, sigma, tamron, micro adjustment, micro adj, 1D mark III, 1D mk III, 1Ds mark III, 1Ds mk III, micro-adjustment

Okay – that pretty much wraps it up…

Just as an illustration, here are the adjustments that my lenses needed:

Lens: Adj:
EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 -5
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS +7
EF 24-105 f/4L IS -7
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS -4
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x TC +1
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 2x TC -3
EF 100-400 f/3.5-5.6 L IS -4

Be sure to note that the camera does save separate micro adjustments when you are using TCs with your longer zooms. So there are three adjustments saved with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, one by itself, one when using the 1.4x TC, and one when using the 2x TC. Pretty cool.

The Targets:

The moiré target from this thread at OPF:

My target – feel free to share early and often:

Okay – I’m going to have to crater now – good night and thanks for reading!
micro adjustment, 1D mark III, 1D mk III, 1Ds mark III, 1Ds mk III, nikon, sigma, tamron, micro adj, micro-adjustment