• 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 / The Last Word / D800E vibration testing

D800E vibration testing

March 11, 2014 JimK Leave a Comment

A reader has asked if I could take the methods that I developed for the handheld testing and apply them to tripod-mounted testing. The MTF-based technique offers the ability to test more conditions because of its automation, and provides objective, machine-generated results. However, the old procedure, with its visual analysis of ISO 12233 images, is more accessible to those with little interest in, or aptitude for, mathematics, and can be performed by anyone without having to purchase and learn how to use an image analysis program. You can also do the MTF testing with free Matlab code, but then you need to purchase and learn Matlab, a financially and intellectually more challenging undertaking than buying and learning Imatest.

I set up a D800E with a Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Apo Distagon ZF.2 in landscape orientation on an Arca Swiss C1 cube and the heavy-duty RRS TVC-44 legs. I used the Fotodiox LED-200WA-56 for a light source. I set the camera to self-timer mode with a two-second delay. I also the the shutter to a three second delay. That meant that the camera would wait two seconds after I pressed the shutter release, and then raise the mirror. It would then wait three more seconds, and trip the shutter. I put a Heliopan ND filter on the lens, and set it to about three stops attenuation. I focused wide-open, and stopped the lens down to f/5.6. I set the ISO to 200, the exposure mode to A, and the light to 40. I adjusted the exposure compensation to get a shutter speed of 1/40 second. I made a series of exposures of this SFRPlus chart:

_DSC2050

at 1/3 stop shutter speed intervals, achieving the shutter speeds I wanted my adjusting the ND filter and the light level. Then I did the whole series over with the shutter delay set to zero, so that the camera would wait two seconds after I pressed the shutter release, then raise the mirror and immediately trip the shutter.

I brought the raw files into Lightroom 5.3, adjusted white balance and exposure, with all other controls at default. I cropped to the target, exported s 16-bit TIFFs, and analyzed both vertical and horizontal edges in Imatest.

Here are the MTF50 results:

d800eOtusmtf50

Shutter speeds are show inverted. Hence, 8 on the horizontal axis means 1/8 second, and 0.25 means 4 seconds.

Here’s what the legends mean:

  • MTF50VND – MTF50, vertical edges, no shutter delay
  • MTF50HND – MTF50, horizontal edges, no shutter delay
  • MTF50VD – MTF50, vertical edges, three-second shutter delay
  • MTF50HD – MTF50, horizontal edges, three-second shutter delay

There are some who say that looking for the point on the MTF curve where the contrast has dropped to 30 is a more useful measure. If you’re one of them, this set of curves is for you:

d800eOtusmtf30

What do the curves tell us? First, they say that any observed changes are quite small, so that noise is a significant component of what we’re looking at. Second, they say that shutter delay mode helps a little bit at the longer shutter speeds, but that its advantage diminishes as the shutter speeds increase. Third, we can see that horizontal vibration, which affects vertical edges, is a larger source of blur for the undelayed shutter images at faster shutter speeds than vertical vibration, even though the shutter in the D800E moves up and down. That’s because the tripod is less stable side to side than up and down.

I ran a series of tests at higher shutter speeds without the ND filter, and the results were essentially uncorrelated with shutter speed:

d800eOtusmtf30HS

The dotted lines on the above chart are straight lines fit to the similarly-colored data with an algorithm that minimizes the sum of the squared errors between the actual and fitted points. Some people are more used to such lines being called linear regressions. The fact that they are nearly flat indicates little systemic difference that spans the compass of the graph.

Don’t compare the numbers in the above graphs with those of the first charts. I refocused in between and, given the D800E’s subsampled live view, probably didn’t hit the same focus point. Thus, focus errors are different, and focus errors affect MTF measurements.

This is a surprise to me, and a welcome one. I thought shutter delay would make more difference.

The Last Word

← An accidental handholding test The intellectual underpinnings of MTF analysis of handheld images →

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.