• 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 / GFX 100 / GFX 100 AF-S and AF-C accuracy with 110/2 lens

GFX 100 AF-S and AF-C accuracy with 110/2 lens

August 12, 2019 JimK 5 Comments

This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 100. You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in this series; just look for “GFX 100”.

I do static testing of autofocus systems using the below setup:

 

There’s a checkerboard ramp next to the focusing target. Both the ramp and the target are lit with a Westcott 1×2 foot LED panel in a Westcott softbox. In the test below, I made 10 exposures under each test condition, and report on their statistics. I analyse the captures with a Matlab program that I wrote that finds the plane of focus by looking at the ramp in the images. Here’s a plot with the camera set to AF-S and using a medium-sized spot:

I’ve plotted the focus locations at the image sensor in micrometers (um) from the correct location. The three Adobe RGB planes are plotted separately, and the divergence of those planes near f/2 is an indication of the longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA) of the lens. I’ve plotted each of the sample points in the appropriate color. The thick lines are the means of the 10 samples per f-stop, and the thinner ones are one standard deviation (sigma) away.

To get an idea of how much that amount of misfocus affects the sharpness of images, the next plot shows the circle of confusion (CoC) diameter caused by the amount of misfocus in the above graph. The pixel pitch of the GFX 100 is a bit under 4 um, so COC’s on that order indicate focus accuracy that is acceptable for most purposes. Negative values indicate front-focusing, and positive ones are a sign of back-focusing.

Here’s the same thing for AF-C, with more f-stops in the series:

 

The GFX 100 has phase-detection autofocus (PDAF), which is faster than the contrast-detection autofocus (CDAF) in the GFX 50S and GFX 50R. For accuracy, CDAF is the gold standard. How much do we give up with PDAF in the GFX 100? I’ll show you each Adobe RGB color plane in a separate graph.

 

 

With the exception of shooting wide open or nearly so, we don’t lose much accuracy to get the improved speed in the GXF 100.

 

GFX 100

← A visual look at GFX 100 diffraction blur Averaging GFX 100 images →

Comments

  1. Isee says

    August 13, 2019 at 8:45 am

    For quite some time I have wondered why camera manufacturers do not put option “high precision but slow” focus selection on their OSPDAF implementations, which would turn PDAF off and just use the CDAF. Although, in most use cases that level of misfocus is negligble, and will easily be provided by moving photographer or moving subject in between focus and shutter release.

    I am in understanding that Fujifilm does short CDAF confirmation pull/push at the end of the PDAF focusing? Or so in X system at least. It does not help though, if PDAF misses the mark completely. This is something that has been plaquing X system occasionally.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      August 13, 2019 at 9:34 am

      I am in understanding that Fujifilm does short CDAF confirmation pull/push at the end of the PDAF focusing?

      I don’t know for sure, but that would make sense.

      Reply
      • Erik Kaffehr says

        August 13, 2019 at 4:29 pm

        Hi Jim,

        I am a bit confused about this…

        Doing CDAF after PDAF would make sense in AF-S mode, but I don’t think your data implies that is the way it works.

        Best regards
        Erik

        Reply
        • JimK says

          August 13, 2019 at 4:34 pm

          As far as I can tell, my data provides no definitive answers to that question, but the fact that the focus shift at f/2 is pporly corrected in the GFX 100 indicates that, if there is a CDAF trim phase, it’s not doing the job as well as the all-CDAF GFX 50S.

          Reply
        • Isee says

          August 15, 2019 at 9:32 am

          I may be totally wrong with this, but here’s my understanding:

          1) PDAF will tell almost immediately the distance in which to focus (NB: my understanding for PDAF acquisition is lacking)
          2) the lens is moved near to that distance
          3) CDAF is turned on, and lens is moved further, until any drop in contrast is detected, which is the final focus. This will be fast operation compared to CDAF only AF, which requires hunting the best contrast.

          The front/back focus will ensue when the PDAF for some reason estimates the distance wrong, and the final CDAF phase cannot therefore find better contrast or will stop immediately.

          I guess the better results with closed apertures would support this, as it would widen the margin for step 2. But I guess the same could go for PDAF only situation.

          But I am not in depth of this technology, and I mostly thought this way as the focus system is marketed as “hybrid” and some said OSPDAF cannot be very precise alone. Mostly these are bits and pieces I have gathered from forums, so all this could be misinformation or speculation at best.

          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.