• 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 110/2 AF performance on GFX 50S

Fuji 110/2 AF performance on GFX 50S

July 3, 2017 JimK 17 Comments

This is the 66th in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX-50S. The series starts here. 

In this post, I reported on Fuji GFX 50S systematic autofocus errors at certain f-stops (mostly one, actually) using the 23 mm f/4 lens. I have seen similar behavior with the 63 and 120 macro. When I made the photographs for yesterday’s visual comarison of the 110 on the GFX and teh Otus 85 on the Sony a7RII, I shot some AF pix with the GFX just to see what would happen. In all cases, at least one one of my manually focussed images was sharper. At f/2.8, the manually focused ones were a lot sharper. 

Thus, it was with some trepidation that I set up my controlled af test. I used the following low-contrast target:

 

I have marked the region of interest that I used in red. Here’s the procedure:

  • ISO 100
  • AF-S
  • Spot and Zone both tested (this is new; I just tested spot before)
  • Spot set on the ROI, which included a bit of the zone plate.
  • Zone set the same plate which included all the zone plate and some or all of several squares. 
  • Release priority: focus
  • Pre-trigger: 500 milliseconds, which was long enough for focus confirmation green square to flash and confirmation beep to sound in all cases
  • Manual exposure
  • Wescott LED panels set to 5500 K.
  • Electronic shutter
  • Cognisys computer-driven focusing rail
  • 32 exposures 4 mm  apart
  • Target distance at the center of the rial, 3 m.
  • RAF converted to DNG in Adobe DNG Converter
  • DNG exported as TIFF mosaiced file in dcraw (document mode)
  • TIFFs cropped and raw channels selected in Matlab program
  • MTF50 of cropped TIFFs measured with MTF Mapper
  • Data assembled in Matlab
  • Data plotted in Excel

The spot mode data for the red and blue raw channels, and the Gr one:

What you are looking at is a standard measure of sharpness, MTF50, as measured in cycles per picture height (cy/ph) at the whole stops from f/2 through f/11. The orange line is the average, or mean, of the 32 exposures at each aperture. The gray line is that average, plus the standard deviation for the 32 exposures, and the blue line is the average minus that standard deviation. If the data were Gaussian (which it isn’t) two thirds of the values would be between the gray and the blue lines. 

For comparison, here’s a run of 100 images 1.6 cm apart with the focus fixed using MF at f/2.8, the sharpest aperture for this lens, and the one that seems to give the AF algorithm the most trouble:

 

You can see that peak sharpness is about 1400 cy/ph. This is much lower than we get with the high contrast target, but we’re just interested in relative sharpness here. The average sharpness using AF at f/2.8 is less than that, but not by much. Focusing at f/2.8 is not very consistent, though. AF is pretty consistent at the other apertures. This is the best AF performance I’ve seen in hte four lenses tested.

Now let’s look at the results in zone Ad MODE:

 

 

At f/2.8, the AF performance is much more consistent, and the results are very close to the best you could do focusing manually. 

This means that I’m going to have to go back and run the other three lenses through the same tests in zone mode. 

Note that the blue channel, which was weak at f/2 in the manual focusing tests using the razor blade target, is fine here. I’m not sure what that’s about.

GFX 50S, The Last Word

← Fuji 110/2 on GFX, Otus 85/1.4 on a7RII Fuji 120/4 AF performance on GFX 50S revisited →

Comments

  1. Brandon Dube says

    July 3, 2017 at 6:04 pm

    Why does the contrast of the chart have such an impact on the MTF? If the chart is sufficiently sharply printed, the global contrast should be normalized out and not impact the measurement.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      July 3, 2017 at 6:54 pm

      It’s not just the contrast; it’s the edge sharpness. The low contrast chart is printed. The high contrast chart is a physical razor blade.

      Reply
      • Brandon Dube says

        July 3, 2017 at 10:13 pm

        Ah, so the answer to “if the chart is sufficiently sharply printed…” is that an injet print limits the test. Thanks

        Reply
        • JimK says

          July 4, 2017 at 10:00 am

          Yes. That is demonstrated to me by the fact that the MTFs go up as I back away from the printed target, and don’t with the razor blade.

          Reply
          • Jack Hogan says

            July 4, 2017 at 12:54 pm

            Ah, interesting insight.

            Reply
  2. CarVac says

    July 3, 2017 at 10:32 pm

    The blue channel isn’t actually better here, it’s just not much worse than it was on the high-contrast edge. The other colors are significantly weaker, though.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      July 4, 2017 at 9:59 am

      Good point. However, I don’t think that explains with relative differences, since blur sources tend to add as the square root of the sum of the squares. If it wre just the sharpness of the edge, I’d expect to see more difference in the channel MTF50s with the printed target.

      Reply
  3. Frans van den Bergh says

    July 3, 2017 at 11:12 pm

    Hi Jim,
    Is there a difference in the length of the edge extracted from the low-contrast target, and the length of the edge extracted from the razor blade?

    My rule of thumb is to aim for an edge length of 80 pixels. When using –bayer green, you would have to double the edge length, and in –bayer red and –bayer blue, quadruple the edge length (320 pixels!) to maintain the number of individual samples used by the slanted edge method. In practice, you can probably get away with somewhat shorter edges, but that depends on the overall SNR (across the edge).

    Anyhow, a large difference in edge length could explain the observed difference in the blue channel performance.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      July 4, 2017 at 9:56 am

      For both the printed target and the razor blade, I have been using 200×200 pixel crops in the GFX lens tests. The exception is the 23mm lens, where I didn’t want to get close enough to get the razor blade big enough in the image for a 200×200 crop, so I used 100×100. The 200×200 crop gives 100×100 in each raw plane. The 100×100 crop gives 50×50, which is below your standards, and probably explains the noise in the resultant data.

      Thanks for stopping by Frans, and for all your help. The new version of MTF Mapper is working perfectly for me.

      Reply
  4. Ahmed Gencal says

    July 10, 2017 at 6:56 am

    Hi;
    I am a gfx user and having focus shift and focus inconsistency problems with 120mm f4 especially at f5.6.Do you think zone focusing can solve this problem instead of using single point?Single point is always adviced for better af but i am confused.

    By the way will you make a comparrison at landscape distance of 120mm and 110mm ?I really wonder if 110mm is sharper than 120mm let’s say at f4 to f11.

    Thank You

    Reply
    • JimK says

      July 10, 2017 at 7:00 am

      I’ll look at doing the 110/120 test. It will have to be a visual, qualitative, test. I have no way of doing quantitative tests at great distances.

      I haven’t tested the 120 with zone focusing yet, but it certainly had a problem for me at f/5.6 with spot focusing.

      Reply
      • Ahmed Gencal says

        July 10, 2017 at 7:10 am

        It will be great to see which is sharper at your visual test.

        From the writing i tought that you said 120mm is focusing more consistently with zone focusing ?

        Reply
        • JimK says

          July 10, 2017 at 7:43 am

          You are right. I had forgotten that I did that test. Note, though, that it seems to be target dependent. The f/5.6 values in the zone vs spot test weren’t as bad as in the first spot test that I did a couple of month ago.

          Reply
          • Ahmed Gencal says

            July 10, 2017 at 8:06 am

            I am speaking with Fuji lens design team in Japan about the focus shift issue.What they have told me is they measured the focus shift in different distances and fine tuned it by the last firmware.But when shared them my findings after firmware update they did not understand the problem so they started to measure the lens again.I will let you know their findings.

            Reply
            • Cos says

              November 25, 2017 at 2:12 am

              Please let us know if you get some more info form the Fuji lens design team. I am also curious if they will further improve focus shift and AF performance with the upcoming FW 2.0.

              Reply
              • JimK says

                November 25, 2017 at 7:33 am

                Sad to say, but the Fuji designers don’t have me on their contact list.

                Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Fujifilm GFX 50S: Roundup | Fuji Addict says:
    July 4, 2017 at 9:52 am

    […] The Last Word – Fuji 110/2 AF performance on GFX 50S […]

    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.