• 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 50S / Fuji GFX 50S AF accuracy restated

Fuji GFX 50S AF accuracy restated

February 26, 2018 JimK 5 Comments

This is a continuation of a series of posts on the Fuji GFX 50S.   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 50S”.

I’ve been presenting my autofocus accuracy data in a new form for the last two posts. Now I’ll do the same for some GFX tests. Comments are below the graphs.

Before we turn on the AF system, let’s get an idea of how much focus shift we’re dealing with.

The vertical axis is the diameter of the misfocus-induced circle of confusion (CoC) in micrometers. The heavier lines are the mean of the 10 samples per aperture per camera. The lighter lines are the mean-plus-sigma, and mean-minus-sigma data (Sigma is shorthand for standard deviation). I have established a convention which reports back-focusing as positive CoC diameter, and front focusing as negative diameter. 

The 63 mm f/2.8 has very little focus shift. The 45 mm f/2.8 has some. The 110 mm f/2 has some between f/2 and f/2.2 but settles down after that. The above graph has a coarse vertical scale (+/- 20 micrometers) because I couldn’t get all the curves on the graph at my fine scale. 

The 32-64 zoom has little focus shift at 32mm and 64 mm, but there is enough to be concerning at 64 mm. This graph has the fine vertical scale of +/- 10 micrometers).

In both AFC and AFS modes, the GFX compensates (actually over-compensates) for the focus shift of the 110mm f/2 lens. Back to the coarse scale. 

In AFS mode, the GFX provides excellent results with the 32-64 f/2.8. Note that I’ve changed the vertical scale back to the fine one.

Here’s a comparison of the 63 and the 110 to the 32-64 at 64 mm with the fine scale. In all cases, the CoCs are one the order of one pixel pitch, or less than that.

Finally, here’s a comparison to the D850 and the a7RIII:

There are focusing modes that narrow the spread of the D850, and there are Nikon lenses with much less focus shift than the 58mm f/1.4 so the apparent gap could be closed to some extent. But the above graph shows the D850 with optimal AF Adjustment tuning. The a7RIII and the GFX need no such tuning.

GFX 50S

← Tuning D850 PDAF for aperture PDAF striping on the Sony a9 →

Comments

  1. Ahmed Gencal says

    April 3, 2018 at 3:40 am

    Hi;
    In another post you have told that 45mm has a huge amount of focus shift and at last i must be focused in stop down mode with f4 or even f5.6And now here you say “The 63 mm f/2.8 and the 45 mm f/2.8 have very little focus shift.”
    I am a bit confused 🙂

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 3, 2018 at 7:56 am

      In another post you have told that 45mm has a huge amount of focus shift and at last i must be focused in stop down mode with f4 or even f5.6

      It appears to be a discrepancy. Let me look into that.

      Reply
      • JimK says

        April 9, 2018 at 2:27 pm

        Graph and commentary are now corrected. Thanks.

        Reply
  2. Ahmed Gencal says

    April 3, 2018 at 10:13 pm

    So sould i think it has minimum focus shift?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 4, 2018 at 7:45 am

      As I said above: “It appears to be a discrepancy. Let me look into that.”

      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

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • 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

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.