• 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 / Nikon D810 EFCS with 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar

Nikon D810 EFCS with 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar

January 23, 2015 JimK 19 Comments

A week or so ago, a reader asked if I could try to find out if there’s any vibration difference between a heavy carbon fiber tripod with the skinny legs extended first, or the fat legs extended first. I was doubtful that there would be any difference, and first tried to find out if there was measurable vibration with the skinny-leg-first regime.

I mounted the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo-Sonnar to a Nikon D810. I mounted a RRS L-plate, clipped it in landscape orientation into an Arca Swiss C1 head which was attached to a set of RRS TVC-44 legs. There are four leg sections in this tripod; three nested in the one that’s attached to the top plate. I extended the two skinniest legs.

I lit an Imatest SFRPlus target with a Paul Buff Einstein strobe set to 2.5 watt-seconds, which gives a 1/13000 second strobe duration. I set the ISO to 100, the shutter speed to 1/250 second, the shutter mode to 3-second delay and electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS), set the mode to mirror up, focused wide open, and set the aperture to f/5.6. I double tapped the shutter release 16 times. That gave me a set of baseline images with no — or at least minimal — vibration-induced blur.

Then I lit the target with a Fotodiox variable-output 5500K LED light. I set the power to max, and made 16 exposures at 1/125 second. I dialed the light down a stop, and made 16 exposures at 1/69 second. I kept doung that until I got through the 1/15 second sequence. I developed the images in Lightroom 5.7.1 with sharpening and noise reduction turned off, exported them as TIFFs, and measured on-axis MTF50 in both the vertical and horizontal direction.

The results:

D810-135VMTF D810-135HMTF

The top graph is for horizontal lines, and the second is for vertical ones. The thick lines are the mean values, and the thin ones are three standard deviations higher and lower. You can see that the higher shutter speeds are more problematical than the lower ones, though the differences are small. That’s because the time the second curtain is moving is a larger portion of the time the shutter is open when the shutter speeds are shorter.

You can also see that, since the shutter moves up and down, it affects the horizontal lines a bit more than the vertical ones.

You can also see that the effects are very small. One day, we’ll have global shutters, and the curves will be virtually flat.

But back to the issue at hand. It looks like there’s maybe a statistically significant worsening in the spread in the horizontal sharpness of the 1/125 second exposure over the strobe-lit one, even if the mean is about the same. The mean values for the two slower shutter speeds, both vertically and horizontally, are actually fractionally better than the strobe-lit case.

I dunno. I’m thinking that there will be too much variation introduced by taking the camera off the tripod, adjusting the legs, putting it back on the tripod in as close to the same place as the first time, refocusing, and making a new sequence to answer the original question. And anyway, from the tiny differences between the strobe-lit and continuously lit cases, if there is any difference, it’s unimportant in this case.

By the way, 1700 cycles/picture height is 0.344 cycles per pixel. That’s a very sharp lens!

15-6_YB10_01_cpp

Note the over and undershoot from the Lr default sharpening, which makes the MTF50 higher than it would be if there were no sharpening.

 

The Last Word

← COASTAL OPTICAL 60MM F/4 light falloff 3 28mm lenses on the Sony a7II →

Comments

  1. Rory says

    January 24, 2015 at 10:17 am

    Thanks Jim!

    Reply
  2. Max says

    April 6, 2017 at 5:24 pm

    Jim,

    I am 99% sure of this but will have to confirm with my own test but I think that Imatest calculates off of the entire picture width.

    Meaning that if you use the full photo of a D810 (7360×4912) and an ROI from the center, you will have a higher Imatest score than if you just use a crop and the same ROI from the same photo.

    The screenshot you have above shows a crop of 2779 x 1826 .

    Not sure if this makes sense in the whole scope of things but that’s how Imatest does it.

    Don’t lose any sleep on this – I’ll test in the AM.

    Max

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 6, 2017 at 8:18 pm

      Imatest reports MTFs in cycles/pixel as well. It’s up to the user (that would be moi) to convert to cycles per picture height. Imatest has no idea what the actual picture height is.

      Reply
      • Max says

        April 7, 2017 at 7:03 am

        I’ll try it both ways but my experience is that the Apo135 will do way higher scores on a D810.

        And I’ll be sure to turn off C1 import sharpening this time too. 🙂

        Reply
        • JimK says

          April 7, 2017 at 7:18 am

          The list of things that can affect the Imatest MTF50 scores is seemingly infinite, and includes printer, paper, target size, target distance, lighting spectrum, lighting geometry, and more.

          Reply
          • Max says

            April 7, 2017 at 8:35 am

            I try to eliminate those variables. Shoot the same target in sunlight. I account for distance by moving tripod to ensure the target fills the entire sensor.

            28mm shooting from 2ft away.

            135mm from 12 ft away (appx)

            Reply
            • JimK says

              April 7, 2017 at 8:52 am

              I’m saying that they are important when comparing your results with other testers.

              Reply
  3. Max says

    April 7, 2017 at 8:32 am

    Cycles per pixel – full size and crop

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/153475477@N06/33051111854/in/album-72157681921278456/

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 7, 2017 at 8:51 am

      Definitely sharpened in post. Plenty of overshoot, which is a dead giveaway. Overshoot is a sufficient, but not a necessary, indicator of sharpening in post. Once an image is sharpened in post, the question is how much sharpening, which makes comparisons of sharpened image MTF50s essentially a crap shoot.

      Reply
      • Max says

        April 7, 2017 at 10:48 am

        There was no sharpening in post. Only some exposure adjustment.

        Reply
  4. Max says

    April 7, 2017 at 8:48 am

    You won’t agree with this but here’s the Otus 28mm into C1 with and without import sharpening.

    Not possible but there the scores are.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/153475477@N06/33894921215/in/album-72157681921278456/

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 7, 2017 at 8:53 am

      Both are obviously sharpened. Look at the overshoot.

      Reply
      • Max says

        April 7, 2017 at 10:49 am

        They weren’t touched by any sharpening. Only the C1 import presharpening 1 on the 28mm.

        Reply
  5. Max says

    April 7, 2017 at 10:52 am

    Jim – hang on. You’re right. There was an output sharpening hidden in one of the export tabs. I’m doing it again.

    Reply
  6. Max says

    April 7, 2017 at 11:06 am

    Redid it w/o output sharpening – still got 1933 for the 135mm and 2473 for the Otus 28mm.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/153475477@N06/33896816645/in/album-72157681921278456/

    But the original question was does the crop affect the score ?

    Yes! Cycles per pixel of the same non-sharpened 135mm roi was only 701.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 7, 2017 at 11:15 am

      I don’t know what you’re looking at, Max. The left image on your link shows 0.241 cy/px. The right shows 0.288 cy/px. 701 cy/px is crazy. 701 is 1400 times Nyquist.

      Reply
      • Max says

        April 7, 2017 at 12:18 pm

        Why are my cy/px numbers lower but my LW/PH higher than yours for the 135 ?

        https://www.flickr.com/photos/153475477@N06/33896816645/in/album-72157681921278456/

        (the bug comment was a joke)

        Reply
        • JimK says

          April 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm

          I never reported lw/ph for the D810, or for any other camera that I can remember. The D810 has 4912 pixels from top to bottom. 4912 times 0.241 is 1184 cycles per picture height. Cycles are kind of like line pairs. They are nothing like line widths. It takes two line widths to make one line pair. This is pretty basic stuff, Max. Either I’m misunderstanding your confusion or you should read through the background material on the Imatest web site.

          Reply
  7. Max says

    April 7, 2017 at 11:13 am

    I give up Jim. I think there’s a bug in the process.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/153475477@N06/33053601424/in/album-72157681921278456/

    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.