the last word

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

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / GFX 100 / Repeatability of MTF50, LoCA, and microcontrast tests

Repeatability of MTF50, LoCA, and microcontrast tests

June 27, 2021 JimK Leave a Comment

This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 100S. 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 100S”. Since it’s more about the lenses than the camera, I’m also tagging it with the other Fuji GFX tags.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been posting a lot of graphs comparing several lenses. Many of the differences have been small. I wondered what kind of repeatability the tests I’m doing have. Are many of the small differences explained by noise in the test results?

I picked a difficult case. I put the Fujifilm 100 mm f/2 on a GFX 100S and set it to close to its best on-axis f-stop, f/4. I made 6 sets of 80 exposures, repicking the region of interest for each set in case small differences in the ROI produced meaningful variations in the results. I put all 6 sets through my usual number crunching.

Here’s the MTF50 of the white-balanced raw channels.

 

Not much difference.

How about microcontrast?

 

Not much difference there, either.

How about LoCA?

Not much difference for the red channel against the white-balanced result. Not much shift, either.

There’s more difference in the green LoCA plot.

There’s a little variation in the blue LoCA graph.

If I were writing a scientific paper, I’d do a few hundred tests so that I could plot statistically-defensible error bars on my graphs. I’m not doing that, so, in the absence of something that makes me question the results, this is about all the work on repeatability You’re going to see.

GFX 100, GFX 100S, GFX 50S

← Actual vs calculated depth of field for long GF lenses on the GFX 100S Off-axis testing of the Fuji 110/2 GF on the GFX 100S →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

May 2022
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • 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 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

  • James on Uncurling the Leica Q2 Monochrom strap
  • JimK on D850 exposure strategy — manual settings
  • Alex Ramsay on D850 exposure strategy — manual settings
  • Michael Klein on Moving away from Sony cameras
  • JimK on Leica Q2 has a real raw histogram
  • JimK on Leica Q2 has a real raw histogram
  • Srdjan on Leica Q2 has a real raw histogram
  • JimK on Leica Q2 Monochrom vs GFX 50S — Siemens star
  • JimK on Leica Q2 Monochrom vs GFX 50S — Siemens star
  • James Sullivan on Leica Q2 Monochrom vs GFX 50S — Siemens star

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.