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 / The Last Word / Testing for decentering by the numbers with AF

Testing for decentering by the numbers with AF

March 27, 2016 JimK Leave a Comment

Yesterday I posted the results of testing two lenses, the Sony 90 mm f/2.8 OSS G FE, and the Sony 70-200 f/4 OSS G FE, on the Sony a7RII. The tests were aimed at detecting and quantifying decentering, using visual appraisal, and showed both lenses to have minimal decentering.

Today I’m going to show you the results of slanted edge analysis of the same exposures.

Here’s the test scene:

_DSC6300

Yesterday I used the resolution rosettes in the corners of the chart for visual analysis. Today I’ll show you what Imatest did with the central slanted edges.

_DSC6285-3

 

_DSC6295_YB78_01_sfr

First the 90 macro:

90macro af mtf

You’re looking at MTF50, MTF at Nyquist, and MTF30 numbers in cycles per pixel in both horizontal and vertical orientation, in the center at the top and highlighted in beige, and each of the four corners, labeled, going clockwise from 10:00,  UR, UL, LL, and LR. Averaged horizontal and vertical values are highlighted in green.

You can see that the lower right corner is not quite up to snuff, when compared with the other readings. Looking at the images posted in yesterday’s post verifies that that’s not an Imatest error. Going back to the manual focusing testing here and here indicates that, in fact, there’s noting wrong with the lower right corner (DSC6288). It looks like an autofocus error.

This find of thing can happen with the best autofocus systems, The only way around it that I know is to average readings from several images, which makes the test much more time consuming.

Therefore, in spite of its potential problems with depth of field, I think the manual focus method described earlier is the better test.

For completeness, here is the results of testing the zoom with AF:

70-200 af mtg

In this case, the numbers indicate that it’s not decentered in any significant way.

The Last Word

← Testing for decentering visually with AF A book report – page flatness revisited →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

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

  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Jake on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • JimK on Who am I?
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • Stefan on Swebo TC-1 OOBE

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.