• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / D850 / More on Nikon D850 PDAF with the 105/1.4

More on Nikon D850 PDAF with the 105/1.4

November 7, 2017 JimK 8 Comments

This is the ninth post in a series of Nikon D850 tests. The series starts here.

In this post, I reported on the autofocus accuracy of the Nikon D850 using both contrast-detection (CDAF) and phase detection (PDAF). As Horshack pointed out, in AF-S mode with PDAF, the camera does not refocus if it likes the phase detection readings it gets when the shutter button is depressed. He suggested racking the focus between each shot to force the camera to start over. That was a good idea. I did it.

Here’s the setup, same as before:

Here’s the protocol:

  • Nikon 105 mm f/1.4 on D850.
  • ISO 64
  • AF-S, single servo mode
  • Release priority: focus
  • Aperture exposure mode
  • f/1.4 through f/5.6in whole stops
  • 32 exposures at each f-stop
  • EFCS on
  • Mup used
  • Nikon remote release in intervalometer mode
  • Lens ring racked between shots
  • Wescott LED panels set to 5500 K.
  • Target distance, 3 meters.

 I measured the MTF50 for the three raw color planes using dcraw in document mode, MTF Mapper, Matlab, and Excel.

Here’s what I got for the green channel:

The vertical axis is MTF50, measured in cycles per picture height (cy/ph). I plotted the average of the 32 images, the average plus the standard deviation (aka sigma), and the average minus sigma. I also plotted the best and the worst results of each 32-image set.

Compared to the CDAF focusing, at wide apertures, this is not very consistent at all.

Here’s a plot of the sharpness of each exposure of all but the f/5.6 series:

I switched the focus mode from single servo to auto, and reran the test for the four widest apertures. Now the camera was using the whole chart, and not just the central Siemens Star.

Consistency has improved, but it’s nothing to write home about. By the way, I removed a few data points where the image was hopelessly OOF.

I thought that maybe the way the intervalometer was working was not giving the lens enough time to focus, so a reran all the single servo mode tests manually half-pressing the shutter release on the remote and verifying that the lens had indeed focused before pressing the button all the way down to raise the mirror, releasing it, and pressing it again to trip the shutter. 

The results were no better. 

This inconsistency can’t be the result of miscalibration of the PDAF system. That would yield consistent, but wrong, focus points. Well, it turns out that there is an interaction, which Horshack points out in a comment to this post. I will have more to say about this. To see how the PDAF results compare with manually focussed (or, more properly, robo-focused) ones for the same setup, look here.

I will try again with another lens.

 

D850

← Nikon D850 FFD Nikon D850 focus shift with 105/1.4 →

Comments

  1. Horshack says

    November 7, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    Awesome retest Jim, thanks. One thing I forgot to mention in my comments for other article is I tested various targets with DotTune and found that a variable-width cross hatch target produced the highest shot-to-shot precision. Its precision was noticeably higher than with other targets, including the Siemens star I used in my original DotTune video. I believe Marianne Oelund reproduced my results when she tried the target in her dpreview autofocus discovery thread. That said, there is just as much merit in using other targets than one that is the ideal, since the real-world doesn’t always present ideal targets.

    Here’s a link to the target if you’d like to try it – sorry I didn’t post about this in the last article:

    http://www.testcams.com/DotTune/CrossHatch_Target.png

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 7, 2017 at 12:47 pm

      I’ve used your target before, Horshack. It didn’t seem to make much difference on a7x cameras, which do CDAF trimming (or CDAF focusing, depending on the model) so I forgot about it. I have a printed target that I can dig up and use.

      Reply
    • JimK says

      November 7, 2017 at 4:34 pm

      I tried your target. The results were about the same, or maybe a tad worse.

      Reply
  2. Horshack says

    November 7, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    Regarding AFMA miscalibration manifesting as shot-to-shot inconsistency, here is a post I wrote in 2013 which theorizes how this can happen in practice:

    https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50781856

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 7, 2017 at 12:52 pm

      Thanks for that. I guess before I move on to another lens, I should calibrate the 105/1.4 at 3 meters and f/1.4.

      Reply
  3. Brandon Dube says

    November 7, 2017 at 8:33 pm

    Why does the mean+std curve rise above the best curve on one of the plots?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 7, 2017 at 8:50 pm

      Small sample set; non-Gaussian PDF.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Nikon D850 AF-S accuracy says:
    December 2, 2017 at 9:25 am

    […] You can see that at f/1.4 and f/2, the PDAF tends to get stuck in a rut; where it’s focused when the shutter release is depressed influences where it’s going to end up. That probably explains why, once it’s in that rut, that it’s more consistent than the CDAF, which you can see starting over if you look at the live view display when the sequences are running. To see what happens when the PDAF system is forced out of its rut, look here. […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.