• 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 / Nikon Z6/7 / Z7 w/ 105/1.4 static focus errors in various AF modes

Z7 w/ 105/1.4 static focus errors in various AF modes

November 8, 2018 JimK Leave a Comment

This is one in a series of posts on the Nikon Z7. 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 “Nikon Z6/7”.

Like the a7RIII, the Z7 has a mind-numbing array of autofocus options. For today’s post, I’m going to simplify things by only considering well-lit, high contrast, static subjects, and I’ve still got 15 different modes to test. I used a Nikon 105 mm f/1.4 lens for this test. I picked it because it’s a lens that I’d like to use on the Z7, and because it’s a struggle to get consistent critical sharpness with it wide open or close to that. I attached it to the Z7 with the Nikon FTZ adapter. I used one of the small, square RRS plates on the adapter, and clipped that into an Arca Swiss C1 head on a sturdy set of RRS carbon fiber legs. I aimed it at my checkerboard ramp focusing accuracy target, which was lit with a Wescott LED panel behind a softbox:

With release priority set to Focus, and using an external intervalometer, I made 16 exposures wide open with AF-S in each of the five main autofocusing modes: Pinpoint, Single, Wide S, Wide L, and Auto. I made the same number of exposures wide open with AF-C in each of the five main autofocusing modes: Single, Dynamic, Wide S, Wide L, and Auto. Then I made a set of the AF-C images with release priority set to Release. I brought all 240 exposures into a Matlab program I’ve written, and analyzed the focusing errors, converting them to the equivalent circles of confusion created by the measured degree of misfocus. Circles of confusion diameters cannot ever be negative, but I used the convention that I’ve used previously: positive diameters are due to back-focusing, and negative ones are due to front-focusing. I computed the mean and standard deviation of the each of sets of 16.  Here’s how it came out:

There’s something wrong with those curves. The CDAF scatter is higher than any of the others. Thinking there was a CDAF trim, I didn’t rack focus between the shots. Depending on how the PDAF system in the Z7 works, that could lower the scatter, but if there is indeed a CDAF trim after each PDAF move, probably not.

All that, and some comments from others, make me suspicious that the camera is not doing a CDAF trim on any mode but Pinpoint.

[Added the next day]

In order to gain some insight into that, I ran another test this morning, with four conditions:

  1. AF-S, pinpoint (which DPR says, and, from the behavior that I’ve observed, seems to be CDAF only)
  2. AF-S, single, no focus racking
  3. AF-S, single, focus racked toward infinity between shots.
  4. AF-S, single, focus racked towards minimum focusing distance between shots.

The results:

 

The lower standard deviation with no racking and single than with Pinpoint seems to indicate that the CDAF tweak, if it’s there at all, is small. The front-focus bias, small as it is, indicates that the CDAF tweak, if it’s there at all, is not doing the job intended. When I rack the lens toward infinity, it produces the worst average front focusing, and almost twice the standard deviation of CDAF. This looks like the overshoot effect that Marianne mentioned above. Racking the lens closer than correct also produces front-focusing.

This isn’t quite a smoking gun, but what I’m seeing here is consistent with no CDAF tweaking in Single mode.

Does this mean that AF Adjust is necessary for these lenses? Does it mean that focus shift won’t always be corrected? It will take some more testing to find that out.

Testing notes.

In all cases, I checked to make sure that the camera was focusing on the proper part of the target. It was, but with some of the wider modes, the area was larger than the target, mostly covering areas that were black in the image, but in some cases covering part of the front of the ramp, which would have the effect of pulling the plane of focus forward (negative CoC diameters on the above graph).

 

Nikon Z6/7

← Z7 shutter shock sample dependence Z7/FTZ AF fine-tuning →

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 How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.