I'd like everyone to know that a small team of us is working very actively towards being able to report valuable results from testing the D800(and the D800E) with various lenses.

Eric Bowles has agreed that the topic needs a forum of its own - but until that has been sorted out, we should continue to post results and interpretations on this forum.

Please note that, from scrutinising results, it appears that FoCal can be used to compare the sharpness of lenses AND sensors!

*** Watch this space ***

With regards to all,

Pete

Pete,FWIW, I think that this sort of forum really belongs on the the FoCal website not on Nikonians. The FoCal site states that in the future, test results will be displayed there in a database.
The customer support at FoCal is wanting, they (FoCal) need to setup a site with a FORUM in which users such as you and I can If we choose, submit various camera and lens test results. As well as a forum for getting direct support for users when issues arise.
If Nikonians is to have a FoCal forum, do you also wish to see a LensAlign and a SpyderLenscal forum?.

John
greyscale

Hi John,
I respect and thank you for your opinion. I, too, look forward to there being a result database on the Reikan web site - but having "read the tea leaves" after several communications with FoCal's developer, I wouldn't hold my breath... Frankly, I hope that Reikan is going to fix all the bugs with the current version and add a little polish to it before attempting any major new developments. It's FAR from being a production-worthy application at the present time.

The forum thread that was started under this D800 forum, grew so large than the Moderators HAD to close it down after it reached 235 posts. Although I am not privvy to their detailed thoughts, it rather looks as if we might end up with a main "Testing" forum with some subsidiaries. I am guessing, but the subsidiaries might well relate to the particular tool/application used to gather data. Therefore YES, I definitely envisage LensAlign, FoCal and any other tools that become available, having equal billing. Eric Bowles was the first Moderator to get involved. He may be leading the effort to determine the best approach for the community. This data clearly doesn't belong under any one camera body, nor lens type.

Apart from using the tool(s) to help optimise my own body+lens combinations, my personal interest is in the general problem of defining test methodologies, that can be easily reproduced by fellow Nikonians, and used to arrive at reliably comparable results. Without result reproduceability, measuring tools are not viable - and the jury is still out regarding FoCal.

This isn't just about finding the best FT values for a particular lens on a given body. I feel that a large part is about you and I being able to quantify image sharpness with easy-to-run tests whose results are reliable.

Larry Jordan is by far the most experienced member of our little group but the rest of us are gaining speed. We are carefully scrutinising results that should be closely comparable and trying to understand how differences in test methodology affect results. We are testing the effectiveness of a detailed checklist that we can ALL use to minimise result differences for nominally the same hardware. Hopefully, we will be able to share some useful results quite soon.

Although, as someone observed, there may only have been around 20 regular contributors to the previous thread, I'd love to know how many Nikonians "subscribed" to it. I'd be surprised if that statistic isn't available to Moderators... Eric?

With regards,

Pete

I'm looking forward to trying FoCal, too, as soon as the Mac version is released. Although I read that you really need thick paper to print the target out with?

Hi Neil,
It definitely appears that Reikan is working hard towards releasing a Mac version ASAP as only a few days ago the leading developer indicated that was their highest priority.

With regards to targets: Whether-or-not the target is printed on heavyweight paper doesn't seem of great importance. I believe that it is more important to mount the print on something fairly rigid. In my own case, I have my targets mounted on 1/2inch foamcore. While I cannot rate the importance, it makes a great deal of sense to print the target(s) on a MATTE surface paper, with a fairly high resolution INKJET printer - ideally using a matte black ink.

FoCal seems to be pretty fussy about both the camera and the target being held as rigidly as possible. This is particularly challenging for users of Nikon camera bodies as the "operator" has to manually enter values for the FT adjustment settings after they have been requested on-screen by the application. It is very important that doing so does not move the camera! For Nikon bodies, FoCal is able to READ the current FT setting, but cannot SET it. This is due to Nikon not publishing an API (Application Programming Interface) for that function. Apparently Canon does - so more of FoCal's tests can be fully automated with Canon hardware than for Nikon.

Pete

I agree with Pete re Reikan setting up a forum, blog or database. Reikan appears to be a one-man show with limited resources. I am not even sure that Rich, the developer, works on the project full time. His bio does not say so. The only responses I have seen from him regarding support is that he is heads down developing the Mac version.

Pete and I exchange lots of information about FoCal testing, including the test checklist Pete mentions. We have also exchanged detail test reports to see if we can come to a clear understanding of the variables and how they impact test results for the D800.

Until Reikan comes through with a support system, I would like to see posts here of significant findings that can help other D800 owners.

I will be receiving a D800E tomorrow (fianlly!), and I will start to test it side-by-side with my D800 on Saturday. I hope to able to report findings about those results. Even though they will represent only two camera bodies, the results may be informative for some D800 owners or those considering a purchase.

However, if you guys object to these postings, I will just exchange them with Pete and some other friends who are also participating in our FoCal test project.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

FoCal does a lot to tell you if your target is aligned properly with your camera/lens. It will also tell you if certain parameters such as the EV exposure of the target is too low. However, the software does not tell you everything you need to know to get the best results. You have to read and re-read both of the FoCal manuals to decipher that information.

I have run all FoCal tests with my D800...some of them up to four times with the same set of lens that you see listed below...with new targets and changes in lighting. I am just starting to really understand what environmental conditions and target conditions matter and which do not have much impact. Together, Pete other friends and I will figure what matters and hopefully let you know.

As to my own targets, I print them on the back side of thick photo paper because the back side is the matte finish the FoCal manul describes. However, I do the printing with my laser printer. One of the tests I plan to do on Saturday is to try a target printed with my wife's inject on regular paper to see if the printing really matters.

My conclusions so far is that a lot of these setup things matter in an absolute Quality of Focus (QoF) sense for the tests, but not in a relative sense. The AF fine tuning is comparing relative results to find the best AF fine tuning set point for a give lens. The Aperture Sharpness test shows you relative sharpness at each aperture for that lens. However, if I wanted to compare my test results with Pete's, then I have to start looking at the impacts of lighting, distance to target, white balance, etc on the highest QoF that I can get with my D800 with a given lens.

I hope that makes sense.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

I bought the FoCal Pro Version 1.5.0.121 software, and I'm trying to use the Parallels software, which is a virtual Windows application for the Mac that allows Windows 8 (and also 7 if you have a CD,) to work on the Mac. Focal supplies Window 8 free. I will start today to see if I can use FoCal Pro with the D800 camera. And will report here how it went. So far, I can get the Parallel's Desktop, where FoCal would run, but what I don't like is that it takes command go my mouse, and to get back to the Mac, I have to Force Quit Parallels. However, it should not hamper the testing with FoCal. We shall see. If Parallels works with FoCal, I'll buy it, about $80.

Juan

I remember reading somewhere in the instructions that one of the reasons for using the heavy weight matte paper is because the regular thinner paper may show fibers that would be seen by the telephoto lens and this could possible cause a problem with the programs reading of the target.

"Step into my world and see as I see"

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I believe the reason for using thick paper is to prevent it from curing up if you hang it on a wall without a frame. I have mine in a frame so I can hang it on a wall, but I still used thick paper. The fiber issue is when you get close to the target. I stay at least 2.5m from the target to prevent issues.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

OK guys, I have finished the first round of FoCal testing using the 24-70mm f/2.8 at 50mm with my D800 and new D800E (just out of the box this afternoon) side by side.

I did the following with both:
1. AF fine tuning first
2. Aperture sharpness test
3. AF consistency test
4. Multi point sensor test

Nikon did one of the following with my D800E:
1. They saw my ravings on Nikonians and made darn sure they sent me an incredible copy
2. They have significantly improved the AF sensors and their tuning since they fixed my D800
3. The D800E is actually a higher quality machine than anyone is telling you

My results using the exact same camera settings, lens, lighting and distance to target are showing about a 50-70% higher quality of focus for the E in the multi point test for all sensors and the same in the aperture sharpness tests at specific apertures for the center sensor. At f/22 the sharpness of the E is higher than at any aperture on the D800.

Nikon hit a home run with this baby!

Glad I bought the D800E and FoCal to test it. This is eye opening!

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Thanks for the report, Larry. Looking forward to seeing and hearing more.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

>My results using the exact same camera settings, lens,
>lighting and distance to target are showing about a 50-70%
>higher quality of focus for the E in the multi point test for
>all sensors and the same in the aperture sharpness tests at
>specific apertures for the center sensor. At f/22 the
>sharpness of the E is higher than at any aperture on the
>D800.

Since the test is measuring (I presume) edge sharpness, is it possible the AA filter on the non-E is the difference, i.e. it is a more precise edge in general?

How do the saved images themselves look by eye? Can you see a difference?


Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

I have not taken image shots with the D800E yet. I am still doing AF fine tuning with all of my lens and aperture sharpness testing. So far with three lens I am getting an average of 50% higher QoF with each lens than I am getting with the D800. Not sure what this means in an absolute sharpness of image measure. Someone with more MIPS than me will have to answer that question.

The AF fine tuning settings are coming out at about the same between the two bodies...good indication of mount consistency.

The tests on my 70-200mm have confirmed that VR does not work right. I am getting exactly the same scatter of points for both bodies when doing AF fine tuning with VR turned on but not when I turn it off. Huge difference.

Having two D800 bodies side by side show the clear consistency of FoCal testing because all settings are the same and all target conditions. It just comes down to the difference in the camera sensors.

If FoCal did not fail so much when doing the AF fine tuning, the testing would go faster. About 20% of the time the software goes off calculating at the very end of the AF fine tuning and never finishes the calculating. The predicted AF fine tuning adjustment is good based on subsequent testing, but it just does not finish. The developer is really insulting buyers by leaving this bug in the software.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

So Ferguson, if AF fine tuning produces a ski slope going up to the right and just about levels off before you hit +20, has a setting of +18 or +19 actually corrected the focus point...or just improved it?

I had that happen with my 50mm f/1.8 and when I put the 1.4x TC on the 70-200. The adjustment for the 70-200mm without the TC was zero.

Interestingly enough, the QoF with the TC on the 70-200mm was actually a little higher than before I put it on (VR was off for both) after I did the AF fine tuning with it on. On my D800, the QoF stayed about the same with and without TC. Both results are a great endorsement for the 1.4x TC on a 70-200mm f2.8 lens. (Not so with the TC on a 200-400mm f/4 with the D800. That is my next test with the D800E.)

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

>So Ferguson, if AF fine tuning produces a ski slope going up
>to the right and just about levels off before you hit +20, has
>a setting of +18 or +19 actually corrected the focus
>point...or just improved it?

Just from a math standpoint I would say if still clearly ascending it means you have insufficient correction to make it the best - but if it's leveling off maybe you are close enough?

>I had that happen with my 50mm f/1.8 and when I put the 1.4x
>TC on the 70-200. The adjustment for the 70-200mm without the
>TC was zero.
>
>Interestingly enough, the QoF with the TC on the 70-200mm was
>actually a little higher than before I put it on (VR was off
>for both) after I did the AF fine tuning with it on.

I wish we knew more about exactly what those values mean. For example, if they are simply a measure of how clear the edges are on the target, then the 1.4x is magnifying them and so may by its nature give a higher value. Kind of like a person looking at a sparrow at 100 yards through a 600mm lens versus as 60mm. Do we really know if it's measuring pure focus or does relative size of the target matter. I just got home from travel, I plan to do some testing, if I get ambitious I may try two targets in otherwise identical situation, with different scale of the targets. Got to figure out lighting first for different distances.


Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

I just finished all of my 200-400mm f/4 testing with the D800E.

I got the same results that I got with the D800 except higher QoF values across the board. VR made little difference at 400mm. When I put the 1.4x TC on (bringing the focal length up to 550mm), the QoF values dropped dramatically. Turing on VR brought the QoF values back up, but they were still 25% lower than shooting at 400mm with no TC.

Conclusions are the same as with the D800 and 200-400mm f/4:
- Use the TC only when desperate
- Always turn VR on when the TC is installed

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Hi Guys,
Due to my attention having to be focussed elsewhere for a while, I've done very little FoCal testing for the last few days. However, I did some yesterday - for a Pro photographer buddy who brought his D800 and several lenses to me for fine-tuning with his D800. In the hour before he arrived, I ran some Q&D tests to check that everything was working satisfactorily. A couple of those quick tests confirmed some suspicions that I had.

I believe I'm coming to the conclusion that the absolute numbers which FoCal calculates for each test may NOT be able to be used in an absolute sense. The numbers are affected by just too many factors. Actual illumination level of the target and how well the camera's WB matches the target illumination are just two of many.

Nevertheless, the QoF values CAN DEFINITELY be used to compare two lenses at identical settings and evaluated in reasonably quick succession using the same body. Likewise for the same lens on different bodies (as Larry has been doing). Also, I think I can say that FoCal produces very consistent optimal AFFT values for the same lens when the target is illuminated differently - even tho' the QoF values can be at substantially different levels.

When I get back to "serious" FoCal testing next week, I plan to focus on the effects of different target illumination on the absolute QoF numbers. Yesterday, I had the target in bright sunshine, and made comparative runs with/without an umbrella shading the direct sun from the target.

Please note, I am not criticising FoCal in any way by doubting its use for absolute sharpness evaluation. That's not a claim the developer makes. It's merely a hope that I had/have, and will continue to evaluate a little more. Nevertheless, it is looking as if it may be impractical to control all the test variables well enough for FoCal to be used in that role.

Pete

*** EDITED to provide a clarification ***
In para 3 above, when I talked about comparing two lenses, I should have made it clear that my experience relates to two different versions of the same lens. i.e., two different "vintages". Specifically, My own 70-200 is the earliest model that had VR. My buddy's version is absolutely up-to-date. I believe there was at least one other version released in-between these two. Comparative measurements reveal what appears to be a major optical improvement. VR was NOT enabled in either case. I hope I'm not shooting myself in the foot by sharing this extra comment, 'cos I shall be viciously attacking my piggy bank to fund an upgrade "soon". Therefore, my existing 70-200 will find itself on the IWTS forum in the not too distant future!

I just shot real images with the 200-400mm f/4 set at 400mm and at f/5.6. Frankly, I cannot see a difference in the images at 100% zoom. I plan to do some test at different apertures to see if I can find differences that way.

This leads me to believe you are right about how FoCal is measuring the sharpness of contrast of a black and white image with hard edges. This also supports Pete's contention that the numbers probably cannot be used to measure the absolute difference between two cameras. Even though the calibration numbers look like one is sharper than the other with the same target, in the field the lighting and subject contrast make all the difference. It would be hard to do an absolute test in the field.

The FoCal numbers simply tell you that under some conditions the D800E will produce sharper results than the D800 if you use the same lens on both...and you have done the AF fine tuning for each.

I hope to shoot some horses and birds later today with both cameras. If I find a difference with those results, I will let you know.

Update:
When I moved the real shot images from ACR to PS6, and zoomed to 100%, I could see a slight difference in contrast and detail. The E has better contrast in detail areas. However, I would bet I can produce the same end results between the two using Nik Color Effects Pro. I may try that.

Update 2:
OK, I could not pass up the opportunity to try Nik on both images. I truly cannot tell the difference in 100% zoom crops of the two after doing my Nik thing on them...exact same Nik filters/settings.

Keep in mind these were taken with the 200-400mm at 400mm. Although I used f/5.6 on both of the final real images, it is still not my sharpest lens. The 24-70mm might show a difference.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

The following table shows some consistency between camera bodies for the same lens using FoCal 1.5.1.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

An interesting result of the FoCal testing of the D800 and D800E is that AF consistency for my D800 is higher than the D800E for most Nikon lens. Go figure!

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Based on the Aperture Sharpness test results I am getting with both the D800 and D800E, I have selected the following as the best aperture ranges for each of my Nikon lens:

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

I finally tried out the latest official release version 1.5.0.121 (Pro), and my conclusion is that it shouldn't have been released. Long story short, I rolled back to the version I had been using, 1.4.3.105 (Pro), and the results were much more sensible.

My problems with 1.5.0.121 include:
- The software crashed twice (i.e. went into an endless loop and had to be shut down using Task Manager) when trying to calibrate my 85 f/1.8G (I noticed that the software had this mislabeled as a D lens).
- For the three 1.4 lenses it did at least complete the calibration process (24, 35, and 50), it had a tendency to over-correct, based on my interpretation of the graph results and my results using version 1.4.3.105.
- In my admittedly preliminary follow-up usage, calibrations based on version 1.4.3.105 are giving me better (i.e. sharper) real-world images than calibrations based on 1.5.0.121.

Has anyone else gone from 1.4.3.105 to 1.5.0.121 and had similar issues?

Mike

>- The software crashed twice (i.e. went into an endless loop
>and had to be shut down using Task Manager) when trying to
>calibrate my 85 f/1.8G (I noticed that the software had this
>mislabeled as a D lens).

Yes, me also, I was completely unable to get certain situations to work. In others if I moved things around slightly (light, distance) it would run. I've reported as well; they are closed for a week.

>- For the three 1.4 lenses it did at least complete the
>calibration process (24, 35, and 50), it had a tendency to
>over-correct, based on my interpretation of the graph results
>and my results using version 1.4.3.105.

I actually did not see it as giving worse results, it seemed consistent for me.

The other and rather large problem for me is that it will not work on a D300 (at lest my D300), as it can't read the AF fine tune and so keeps complaining it is set wrong in the MSC setting process. They did respond to this and "will look at it when we reopen".

I used it for many hours this weekend, and generally got good results, other than the repeated hangs. And it always seemed to hang at the end of the calibration.

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

Mike and Linwood,
Build 126 is the most stable of all recent "releases" - but it's still far from being a "production releasable" product. In several days of testing using 126, it has crashed much less frequently than previous builds.

Reikan's Licence Manager supports upgrading.

Pete

I ran 12 AF calibrations with FoCal build 126 over the weekend. I had it fail twice during those calibrations. It never failed while doing 28 other tests.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

>I finally tried out the latest official release version
>1.5.0.121 (Pro), and my conclusion is that it shouldn't have
>been released. Long story short, I rolled back to the version
>I had been using, 1.4.3.105 (Pro), and the results were much
>more sensible.

I just realized you said .121, I am on .126.

I did not even see a .121. Not sure what is different between, but FWIW.

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

Pete and Ferguson,

Aha! Now I see! I had downloaded 1.5(.121) a week or two ago when I got the alert that it was out of beta but didn't get around to using it until this past weekend. Lo and behold, in the meantime a new version with "bug fixes" became available--.126.

Thanks for the head's up! Now I'll know to check reikan.co.uk every now and again just to make sure I have the latest version. (Looks version 1.4.3 was pulled in favor of 1.4.4, too.)

Mike

>Thanks for the head's up! Now I'll know to check reikan.co.uk
>every now and again just to make sure I have the latest
>version. (Looks version 1.4.3 was pulled in favor of 1.4.4,
>too.)
>

If you haven't installed the new one yet, hit the "check for updates" and see if it tells you. Just curious. And that's a lot easier.

Linwood

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

Linwood,

Using "Check for Updates" as you suggest also shows 1.5.1.126 as the latest version available. Good to know it's consistent!

Mike

So is my method of camera on a tripod and a yardstick on a lightstand at a 45degree angle down range, both camera and stick at the same height and distance between focal plane and bullseye on stick roughly 100x focal length totally in-accurate and a waste of my time?...Cuz so far I'm pretty pleased with the results....Or can I get better results with alignment tools or software??
.

"Technical aspects MUST be innate"



Visit my website: phxsports.net

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I just sent Rich a note at FoCal asking him if the QoF results can be used as an indication of the "real world" image quality differences between two D800 camera bodies if you test both with all the same settings and shoot the same target with identical lighting and distance to target (side-by-side testing).

So far, my testing of my D800 and D800E show significant differences at all apertures and all lens...the D800E produces higher QoF results. However, I have to zoom images of the targets to above 100% to see any difference in them except contrast. If I do an extreme zoom to say 800%, I can see definite differences in edge transitions from black to white. It takes the D800 about 15-20% more pixel widths to transition from black to white.

If I zoom to 67% which is typical of what you would see in a 24" x 16" print hanging on a wall, I can see no difference in details after I process for contrast differences.

I don't know what zoom level FoCal is actually using for its testing, but it must be well above 100% for it to see the differences in the D800 and D800E test shots.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Hi Don,
That's a perfectly OK way to do it - but one can learn rather more from the type of testing that FoCal (and maybe other applications soon) offers.

Pete

>Linwood,
>
>Using "Check for Updates" as you suggest also shows
>1.5.1.126 as the latest version available. Good to know it's
>consistent!

Good. I was worried as a lot of places he only shows the 1.5.1, and wondered if it showed the minor releases.


Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

Is any of you able to confirm (or otherwise) that the in-camera sharpening function affects ONLY JPG files stored by the camera, and has NO effect on images stored as RAW?

I believe the above to be true, but am disconcerted by being unable to locate an authoritative source.

With thanks and regards,

Pete

Thom Hogan discusses Picture Controls starting on page 363. He says they only apply to JPEG and TIFF image quality (storage format) and to NEF if you use Capture NX2 to convert them.

I know from posts in one of our forums that Picture Controls also effect the way histograms are displayed because they control the JPEG image that is displayed/analyzed there.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Thanks Larry,
To what publication does the "page 363" reference relate? It's obviously not the D800/E manual.

Tx,

Pete

Thom's D800 book:

http://bythom.com/nikond800guide.htm

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Guess I should get a copy for the iPad!

Thanks Larry.

P

I just finished several FoCal Aperture Sharpness tests with the D800E to try and find what camera settings impact QoF results. I used a 24-70mm lens set at 50mm and f/2.8.

The tests were as follows with Picture Control (PC) and White Balance (WB) as shown:
- PC Neutral, WB 5200
- PC Standard, WB 5200
- PC Standard, WB 2800
- PC Neutral, WB 2800
- PC Neutral, WB 2800 with Circular Polarizer on

The only one that made a difference is with CP on. The Quality of Focus (QoF) went up by 6-7% with the CP installed.

This should make folks (like me) who almost never take their Nikon thin CP off feel better. It actually improved the quality of the image...well, it did here in my garage using a black and white target.

BTW, the actual target WB was about 2400 but FoCal only goes down to 2800.

Larry

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Larry and I have agreed on the following joint statement:

So far our test results indicate FoCal’s absolute Quality of Focus (QoF) metric is affected by so many variables, many of which we don’t fully understand, that FoCal cannot be used for any comparisons other than LOCAL (i.e., for a fixed test environment and the same operator). Automatic Focus Fine Tuning (AFFT) determination, Sharpness vs aperture and multipoint AF sensor testing appear to yield valid, repeatable results. Also lens csharpness omparisons and body comparisons appear reliable and valid in a LOCAL testing environment. HOWEVER, comparing absolute QoF values obtained by, for example, Pete in CA and Larry in FL, CANNOT be regarded as valid – even ‘tho many attempts have been made to duplicate test conditions and settings.

Larry & Pete

I have spent a lot of time now rerunning all of my D800 tests on a D4 to compare.

All of the lenses except my 85/1.4 are much better behaved -- less correction needed, but more importantly at different distances and focal lengths they are much more similar.

As a couple of examples, my 24-70 averages a -5 on the D4 but had values of (-1, -2, 3, 0, -5, and -15). That -15 (which I did 3 times!) was very different, but the QOF between -15 and -5 was only about 10% - very flat falloff.

Compared to the D800 they were -1-, +7, -8, and -19. IN that case the -19 compared to say zero was down about 35% in QOF, so it's a much steeper difference.

I don't want to clutter the topic with charts, but if you line them up and draw a line down them, the D4 charts are much more nicely centered around that line and much flatter (fall off less sharply) so it is easy to pick a good average value. IN fact on most lenses zero is not a bad choice -- not ideal, but not bad, and I understand why people might say "I never fine tune my lenses".

The D800 not so much, they vary more, and the fall-off is stronger so that any compromise value has (at some distance or focus) a fairly soft value. Will it be better if adjusted? Is the sharper falloff a natural side effect of more pixels? I have no idea.

The D4 also has a much more consistent set of focus points (though hardly perfect, and the worst point is bottom left (.61 on a 24-70, left/center is .76). But MUCH more green on it.

Overall I will say that doing the same calculation on a D4 has left me feeing both that my D800 does need adjustment, but also that Focal is perhaps not accurate enough in some cases, and it may be showing more problems than are real. See my other post on the 85/1.4 and how it seemed to misread heavy CA for better focus, and IMO just gave the wrong answer (on the D4 -- similar if not more erratic results on the D800).

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

My D800E AF consistency tests showed more erratic behavior than the D800 which lead me to believe the greater detail/contrast/sharpness the D800E captures, as shown by the tests results, caused the difference. Perhaps FoCal is more sensitive to sharpness/contrast/details than it should be...resulting in inconsistent results.

However, when I ran AF Fine Tuning with the same lens on the D800E on different days, I ended up with the FT adjustment either the same or within one point. FoCal must have factored in the inconsistency in its curve fitting to come up with basically the same adjustment.

Keep in mind that the software was originally developed with Canon camera bodies and before the 5DMIII and D4/D800 came out. I think the developer is still playing catch up with the newer cameras with larger pixel counts. Just a guess.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Linwood, love your action volley ball shots!

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

>Linwood, love your action volley ball shots!

Thank you. Perrone Ford (who also posts here a lot) got me interested in it, and it's a lot of fun, just not enough opportunities.

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

Hi Linwood,
I, too, really enjoyed your gallery!

Hey, could you please spare a few minutes in order to check out something with your D4? If so, please take a look at my today's post in http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=147&topic_id=78337&mesg_id=78337&page=

I'm dying to know if the JPEG-only in LV is reproducible with D4s having current firmware. You'd not even have to fire the shutter! Nobody else has responded yet, but I guess most people have been at work for the day! Frankly, I'd prefer the answer to be "no", but with a suggestion-or-two about what might be wrong with my settings. One thing is for certain: The D800 "behaves"...

With grateful thanks,

Pete

I think that Focal has some issues with CA.

These are screen shots from the PDF produced in a fully automated (MSC) run with an 85/1.4G and D800. The top shot is the one chosen by Focal as th ebest quality (1880), the bottom is the one I might choose from those images saved (1504).

Notice the top has a lot of CA fringe, the bottom less so. That lens seems to show CA badly when out of focus in the negative direction (as this measures it).

I looked back through numerous runs, and while this is one of the worst, that seems to be true in a lot of places, as though it is mistaking a CA fring for a sharp edge.

Do your eyes see it the same way?

Have you had this? (or is my lens just bad and the real problem is I have too much CA?).



Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

Linwood,
Frankly, I think FoCal came to the right conclusion - but it's not an easy call.

To my eyes, there seems to be more CA in the first image than the second, and I see that you have a CB setting that isn't a good match to the actual illumination (which is at a fairly low level of EV 6.2). The images I get with FoCal are black-on-white, sometimes with a blue fringe (almost certainly due to CA, and worse at some AFMA settings than others). However, Larry seems to have proven that CB mismatch has little or no affect on FoCal's determination of optimal AFMA.

Pete

There are two forms of chromatic aberration – lateral and longitudinal. Lateral CA is caused by a difference in how colors are refracted (and thus appears at edges of images) and is easily corrected in post. Longitudinal CA is caused by colors focusing on different planes and appears equally over the entire image. It is also more difficult to correct.

The fringing you are seeing is the result of longitudinal CA. Ideally you want the AF system to focus perfectly at the center of the visible spectrum (i.e. green). At wide apertures this will result in red and blue channels being slightly out of focus in approximately equal amounts – thus you get the magenta, or purple fringing. Stopping down will largely eliminate this.

I think FoCal is handling this exactly right. When focus is “perfect” you will see the most apparent fringing. Even going slightly out of focus will make the appearance of fringing go away because the difference in focusing for the three colors (RGB) will no longer be apparent because all three colors are slightly out of focus.

In other words - when focus is nailed your camera will record, with maximum fidelity, exactly what your lens can produce - warts and all. With fast lenses wide open, that means reproducing longitudinal CA.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I think FoCal is handling this exactly right. When focus is
>“perfect” you will see the most apparent fringing. Even going
>slightly out of focus will make the appearance of fringing go
>away because the difference in focusing for the three colors
>(RGB) will no longer be apparent because all three colors are
>slightly out of focus.

That's something I had never heard. Thank you.


Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

Chris,
Thank you for such a helpful and intelligible post.

What would you expect if a primary colour filter were placed over the lens while a FoCal test was run? Preferably a green, as that is close to the centre wavelength of visible light? Might we see higher values for FoCal's QoF metric?

Would we expect different optimal AFMA results if a Red or Blue filter were used?

Pete

One thing occurs to me about how FoCal is capturing images. I think they are using JPEGs rendered with the "Standard" picture control. That picture control uses a fair amount of sharpening which will produce some "fake" detail. You might get more consistent results if you modify the Standard picture control to use the minimum amount of sharpening possible. True, it will probably make the absolute sharpness metrics look worse, but I think the relative sharpness numbers will be more accurate, which would improve the AF analysis. After all, we don't want an analysis based in part on the fake detail produced by in-camera sharpening.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I think the current version of FoCal already favors the green channel - which means putting a filter on wouldn't help anything; in fact, I think it would be detrimental. If you put on a blue filter, for example, I suspect it would probably kill FoCal's ability to work correctly. Older versions of FoCal were different, so it may have made a difference in the past - but I don't think it's an issue any more.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Good thought. Carried to the extreme in a common example, the IR spectrum viewed by itself is significantly off the focus of the visible spectrum.

There are lens designs with variations in the extent of spectrum related focus shift. Normally IR is about 10% off the visible spectrum and UV varies in the opposite direction, but with the Coastal Optics 60 f/4, UV, visible, and IR spectrum converge. That is a function of lens design. The Coastal Optics 60 f/4 is a manual focus lens, but it is optically superb. And should be at the bargain price of $4650.

http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-nir-60mm-slr-lens-mainmenu-155.html

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Chris,
Thanks. In fact, it is a bit difficult to know exactly which camera variables are affected by FoCal. It seems to me that FoCal sets up the camera, takes a shot and then restores the settings quickly afterwards.

One of the several things which Larry and I found we were "doing" differently was that he had his D800's picture control set to Neutral, whereas I had mine set to Standard - which causes a little more in-camera sharpening. Doing a direct NL vs SD test with a given setup is on my "to do" list, as well as running a test with sharpening set to zero...

Yes, FoCal uses only JPEG files and MAY even set the camera to generate only JPEG-fine.

If I can obtain a good, 77mm (or maybe a gelatin) primary green filter, I'll run a test to illustrate what you said.

Pete

Actually, that is rather a bargain price. Achromatic lenses are corrected to two colors, apochromatic lenses are corrected to three colors and are much more expensive. Throw in IR and you'll need something like a "super-apochromatic" design corrected to even more points on the spectrum. That means more elements, stranger types of glass, etc... - and a ton more money! Throw in UV and your only customer might be Bill Gates.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I believe FoCal sets the camera to use the "Standard" picture control, but does not make any adjustments to it. At least that's the way it worked the last time I asked a couple of weeks ago. Therefore, it shouldn't make any difference which picture control you select. FoCal will use whatever sharpness setting you have set in the Standard picture control - so changing that probably will make a difference.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Chris,
Thank you again! That will be simple to explore...

Pete

Here's a good review of the Coastal Optics 60. It's widely considered a reference lens.
http://diglloyd.com/articles/CoastalOptics60f4/index.html

As suggested - the Coastal Optics 60 is just as much (or more) of an exotic and more complex a design than the 400 f/2.8 or 600 f/4. Put in that context, $4650 really is not that expensive if you need the quality and performance the lens delivers.


Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Come to think of it... I think correcting white balance (i.e changing FoCal's color temperature parameter) is probably also not a good idea. White balance correction shifts colors. We want to focus on actual green, rather than "corrected" green. Thus it would seem to be optimal to leave FoCal's color temperature setting at the default - irrespective of how the target is illuminated.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

That certainly answer my question about why the aperture sharpness results were basically identical when I switched my D800E from Standard to Neutral. If FoCal is switching the camera to Standard every time, the results would be the same. I have been using Neutral for several weeks now because of its effect on the histograms. When I checked my camera a few days ago, it was set to Standard. FoCal must have set it to Standard and left it set that way...probably when one of the AF fine tuning procedures failed.

I feel better. I thought I was losing it...and had set it back to Standard by mistake.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

When I changed WB between 5200 and 2800 in the FoCal settings, FoCal produced the same aperture sharpness results using a target that was about 2400K.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

I guess the color temperature shift isn't enough to make a difference. Thanks, that's good to know.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I too am looking forward to the Mac version!





Art is the only way to run away without leaving home.



www.TinkersRealm.com

Just started testing with FoCal and my d800E
Using the newer version of the 200-400mm I was surprised that there was only a very slight drop in sharpness values using the teleconvertors. VR was off. I did test at an iso of 400, as I never have enough light to shoot with TC's at 100iso.
Using the aperture sharpening test I got the following values:
200mm- 2800 @4.
400mm- 2900 @f5
550mm- 2500 @f8 using the 1.4x
650mm- 2800 @7.1 using the 1.7x
800mm0 2100 @ f8 using the 2.0
I could not get it to complete the focus testing on the 2.0- kept locking up. At least in testing the 1.4 and 1.7 look like winners here- need to go shoot more and find out. I was always reluctant to use these on the 200-400.
Dang, it is going to take a lot of time to adjust lenses and Tc's for 3 cameras.
Gary

>I just finished all of my 200-400mm f/4 testing with the
>D800E.
>
>I got the same results that I got with the D800 except higher
>QoF values across the board. VR made little difference at
>400mm. When I put the 1.4x TC on (bringing the focal length up
>to 550mm), the QoF values dropped dramatically. Turing on VR
>brought the QoF values back up, but they were still 25% lower
>than shooting at 400mm with no TC.
>
>Conclusions are the same as with the D800 and 200-400mm f/4:
>- Use the TC only when desperate
>- Always turn VR on when the TC is installed

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I may have damaged my 1.4x TC somehow. I have never dropped it nor even bumped it hard on or off camera. It may have just been a bad copy from the getgo.

I don't know anyone near me who has a 1.4x that I could try on my 200-400mm, but I do know a guy who has a 1.7x. Maybe I will borrow his and try it.

FoCal does open your eyes to things you never really considered before...good and bad.

All of you guys seem to get higher QoF than I get regardless of body/lens. Maybe I need to try printing my target again. It could be the target and not the camera bodies. However, I don't think the quality of the target results in QoF reduction when I put the TC on...but I have been surprised by other findings.

Regarding the amount of work to calibrate lens and TC combos, I was not paying attention to the number of clicks FoCal was making when I first started. If you do a full set of calibration/tests for every lens, you can end up with a pretty high number of clicks just in the calibration and testing. I was averaging well over 1,000 per body...partly because of the FoCal failures while calibrating...resulting in restarts.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

I just ran a new series of tests today on another D800E. I printed a new target using an inkjet printer for the AF fine tuning and aperture sharpness tests. I found that the new target made no difference in test results (my old target was printed with a laser printer).

However, I did find that proximity to target made a big difference when running the 51-point multi point sensor test. If I use a single sheet of the multi point target and move the camera close enough to fill the screen with my 24-70 set on 70mm, I get much lower QoF numbers than I get if I move back to 3.4m and move the zoom to 50mm and use nine of the multi point targets tacked edge to edge on the wall (3x3 grid). The ratio test showed higher quality focus across the board...and more even results for the sensors. The sensors with the lowest quality focus were still the lowest...just not as much lower as they were close up.

Are all of you folks using a single sheet target for the multi point sensor test?

By the way, the 200-400mm with the TC on still showed much lower QoF values than when it was off (35% lower). I also ran that test at 400 ISO to get the shutter speed up; I also turned on VR. With VR turned off, the shutter speeds were too low to do the AF fine tuning (vibration from my hands touching the camera to change the AF settings...or Brownian motion maybe...who knows...cause I pausded after every AF change before hitting OK for the test to run).

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

I decided to crank up the light on my target and increase ISO to 800 for my 200-400mm tests. I can now get good results with and without the TC on and with VR both on and off. I guess the D800E just captures so much detail that even a solid tripod/head cannot dampen the mirror vibration enough at low shutter speeds. If I keep my shutter speed above 1/320 with the TC and VR on, the results are about 70% of the QoF values with both off (about a 500 point drop).

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

>I think FoCal is handling this exactly right. When focus is
>“perfect” you will see the most apparent fringing. Even going
>slightly out of focus will make the appearance of fringing go
>away because the difference in focusing for the three colors
>(RGB) will no longer be apparent because all three colors are
>slightly out of focus.

Before posting it here, I had sent the sample to Reikan suggesting it was a problem. They seemed to concur (I don't think they would mind my posting it). Here FWIW:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Thank you very much for your comprehensive information. It certainly looks like there could be an issue there. We specifically modified the analysis algorithm to try to avoid the effects of CA in FoCal 1.5, but there is one further step that we're look at for FoCal 1.6 which should allow us to identify the amount of CA present and adjust results appropriately.

It's good to see specific examples from you, and we'll be looking for this effect during testing (the Canon 85/1.2 shows this quite a lot).

At present, if you have FoCal Pro you can choose to stop FoCal changing the Exposure Compensation (which it sets to +1EV for the Fully Auto test), and ensure the camera is set to no exposure compensation. This can limit the effect of the CA to some extent and may change your results for the better.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

You need to install the guest operating system helper files in your windows os in Parallels, then it doesn't hold your mouse captive until you press ctl-alt (or whatever the keys are).

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Rich at Reikan Technology provided the following reply to me when I asked about comparing the quality of camera bodies using FoCal:

"Unfortunately, there's not really much use in comparing QoF across anything other than a tightly controlled single test. For more or less the same light level and same image content, you can compare and determine the best image quality (which is fine for what FoCal is intended for). However, if you change the image content (for example change lens, zoom or camera position) you can drastically affect the QoF so it's not really useful to compare across different cameras."

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Hey Mac users here is the update on the Mac Version of FoCal

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/blog/

Looks Promising

The Mac version apparently will lack Nikon support in the first release. However, I like what they are describing as the 1.7 version for Windows. The overlaying panels are way to confusing in the current PC version.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Is this software (Windows Version) now in good enough shape to buy for D800e lens AF fine tune ? Can I set it up, run it and adjust AF Fine Tune without an engineering degree in optics? Curious to know how a report on FoCal results from one camera/Lens can apply to a similar camera/lens. I thought we were fine tuning for the "out the spec tolerance build-up between a specific camera and lens combo".

I shoot primarily LV - manual mode - AF. I would like to set AF then switch to MF to get it "perfect" but I can't see the image on the LCD good enough. Just checking again before I buy ... Thanks ..

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

With each new release, FoCal gets easier to use and adds new and improved features. Version 1.6 still has some bugs in it, and sometimes fails to finish the AF fine tuning process. It does no damage and changes nothing in your camera when it fails; you just have to start the software again and finish the AFMA process to get a correct AF fine tuning adjustment

I understand that version 1.7 will be coming out soon. It will provide a better user interface for Windows users.

Until version 2.0 comes out, Rick of Reikan Technology says you cannot compare results between camera bodies. The software currently provides relative Quality of Focus results that allow you to do the AF fine tuning and determine relative focus quality between focus sensors and between apertures for a given lens. You can see how your 51 focus sensors compare with each other.

The Mac version has not been released...the last time I checked.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Mac version is released and I used it with my D300 (D800 out of commission currently). After rebooting, the camera connected every time and tested well. I need to read the extensive FoCal manual, but I'm not sure why my AFMA changed when I changed the target distance. That doesn't reassure me when using any AFMA adjustments.


-Alex Rosen
www.flickr.com/photos/klrbee25/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

What was the target EV when you were testing?

I found that the lighting on the target made a big difference in consistent AF fine tuning. If my target illumination was too low, then moving away from the target would result in less consistent AF results.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Target EV was 7.2. I read some of the manual now where Rich notes a few important things. First the AFMA will change with your target distance and it's best to be far from you lens' minimum focusing distance. Second, he recommends you test at your general shooting distance as the ideal AFMA value may vary with target distance even far from the minimum focus distance. So I need to set up my target a lot further away than 1.4m. Finally, zoom lenses are best tested at their longest focal length since this is where DOF is smallest and focusing variations most notable. We just need Nikon to follow suit with Canon and make AFMA values for both ends of a zoom lens and maybe even tie in subject distance to have a range of values for varying target distances. Now that would be sweet.


-Alex Rosen
www.flickr.com/photos/klrbee25/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Alex- I just downloaded and tried the Mac version. All seemed to go well testing my d800 with 50 mm 1.4g. Closed the program, changed to a 70-200 2.8, vr1 (vr off) and I can't get focal to find the camera again. Did you have any issues like that when you started? Just hoping to find someone who says- yes that happened to me and here's what I did.
Thanks
David S

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Alex- I just downloaded and tried the Mac version. All seemed
>to go well testing my d800 with 50 mm 1.4g. Closed the
>program, changed to a 70-200 2.8, vr1 (vr off) and I can't get
>focal to find the camera again.

Did you close all the way down and rerun? The PC version makes you go back to the camera selection screen if you turn the camera off, it can't pick up on one of the other dialogs.

I think the PC/Mac also plays a role if you turned it off, it has to "see" it again, at least on the PC. Does it? (At least on the PC it shows that it is attached).

Linwood

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

>Is this software (Windows Version) now in good enough shape
>to buy for D800e lens AF fine tune ? Can I set it up, run it
>and adjust AF Fine Tune without an engineering degree in
>optics? Curious to know how a report on FoCal results from one
>camera/Lens can apply to a similar camera/lens. I thought we
>were fine tuning for the "out the spec tolerance build-up
>between a specific camera and lens combo".
>
>I shoot primarily LV - manual mode - AF. I would like to set
>AF then switch to MF to get it "perfect" but I can't
>see the image on the LCD good enough. Just checking again
>before I buy ... Thanks ..

According to Darrell's book (page 334), AF Fine Tune settings aren't applied in Liveview - so this may not be worth it for you if that's the mode you usually use.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Well that's interesting ... Thanks. I will have to Manual focus when using live view.

By the way, I used an old fashioned black cloth to cover my head and the camera when using live view (worked great and looked pretty cool). Ran into a guy on a trail last week who had one of the Hoodman Loop things. Now that looks pretty dorky hanging around ones neck and I thought it gave the photographer a tourist look .. like the guy who wears black socks with sandals. Well I tried his and immediately bought one when I got home, got some black socks too. Should have got one a long time ago.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I've had sporadic issues but rebooting always fixed them. They have a newer beta now that apparently addresses the intermittent connection problems.


-Alex Rosen
www.flickr.com/photos/klrbee25/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

> Well that's interesting ... Thanks. I will have to Manual
>focus when using live view.

Are you referring to the AF fine tune not being used?

AF Fine Tune is to adjust between the difference in the imaging sensor and the focus sensor position. Since they are two different sensors, and a different light path, it's a very precise calibration to get them in sync.

IN live view there's nothing to synchronize, since the focus on live view (whether automatic or manual) is against the imaging sensor all the time, the focus sensor is not used, so there's nothing to fine tune.

It's not so much that it doesn't work, as it is not relevant.

Apologies if that's not what you were referring to.

Linwood

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

OK, Got it .... I have had good results with live view focus.

Gary

www.GaryPackPhotography.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I just bought a D800 I switched from Canon and I am trying to use FoCal Pro that I just bought and when I try to use the Target setup and enters Live view shows one image and then locks up unless I unplug my camera or force quit.


Windows 7 64BIT
FoCal 1.6 also Trying the beat but no luck.


Any ideas...

Well I tried using it on my Mac instead and it worked with out any problems.

Here are some of my results with the D800 and 35MM 1.4

I get -7 for my fine tune

Best Aperture is F4
Aperture
f/4.5
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 8.6
Quality Measure: 1594


Consistency of Focus
95.1%


The test was done at 2.0M
I only own one lens as of now.

http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h402/Kristian080/ScreenShot2012-10-21at25240PM_zpsd1d30ecd.png

What do you guys think of the multi point test. The right seems to be the problem here. Or am I reading this backwards and its the Left AF problem.

Let me know what yall think.

Thanks

>What do you guys think of the multi point test. The right
>seems to be the problem here. Or am I reading this backwards
>and its the Left AF problem.

You are reading it correctly, but it is worth noting that the center point is down at 0.82. Did you fine tune first? On the center point? Normally (if you are at the same distance and lens) I would expect a higher reading there, which might make the right either better or worse (unfortunately the MPFT doesn't tell you whether the focus is in front of or behind, just off).

Linwood

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

Yes I did the other tests first and that was at 2.0 Meters and Af Fine Tune was calling for -7. However I had to move in pretty close to fill all the focus points in for the multipoint test. I printed out two of the charts and taped them together. Maybe I need to print out a total of 5 or more to get back to my 2 Meter mark.

How close are you when you test a 35MM lens on the mulitpoint test?



I also did the test at .8 Meters and the AF fine tune called for -1.

>How close are you when you test a 35MM lens on the mulitpoint
>test?

I didn't have one.

>I also did the test at .8 Meters and the AF fine tune called
>for -1.

And therein is the big problem I have. I did a shoot today, and my left/right vs. center are still quite different. Sure enough, shooting some full length portraits I focused on the face on the far right or left, and ended up back focusing about a foot, soft face. Sigh. I thought they had "fixed" it close enough, but not quite. Focus on the center was dead on.

I now have a whole series of them like this. Notice the belt (this was in an old factory), it is maybe a foot behind her. It's crisp and sharp in all these shots, and her face art is soft. Other head shots with the same lens but center focus were perfect.



Keep at it until you get it how you want it. It really does make a difference, despite the nay sayer's.


Linwood

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Thanks for the thoughts I will keep playing around with it. However I honestly did notice a big difference with that -7 dialed. Even my Significant other said the photos look so much sharper and I did not even ask her opinion about that.

I will combine 6 photos together and check the 2.0M mark with my -7 and -1 to see what happens.

Thanks for your help.

Still not sure why it wont work on my PC but it will on my mac. I put a ticket in for help and will report back if I find out what went wrong.

I had the same experience with the same lens! Of course the 1.4 primes especially the 85 experience a red/green shift either side of the focus point. In fact, you can use this to your advantage in calibrating the lens in that the correct AFMA (IMHO) is the one equally far from each shift. I found that FoCal "likes" the red shift of a positive AFMA number and tended to choose a result that was therefore in error when comparing actual photos.

If you apply the human brain to the results, I am finding FoCal to be a great tool for homing in on the best possible AFMA.

(Also glad to find my D800 did not suffer issues with the left side!)

FYI, I also found the original pdf printed on letter size paper to be too small and did targets on 13x19 that worked better allowing more distance between target and camera. Also, setting up at LESS than the recommended distances in my experience definitely resulted in bad outcomes.

"Content is King"
www.2750k.com
www.teampiranha.us

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have been finding that CA problems with the 35 1.4 as well and I did a few more tests with focal and I have come to find that my lens now sits perfectly at -1. The most important test to dun is in real world as well but with FOCAL it sets your out on the right track. All of my photos see to be sharper and more in focus. however that also has to do with my learning curve coming from Canon my whole life.

PS I am in love with this camera! It is helping me get back to the basics of photography and really work on my technical skill.

Is FoCal now acceptable for use with the MacBook Pro Retina? I have a D7000 and D800 with various lenses I would like to calibrate.

Thanks in advance,

After experiencing some autofocus issues with a new lens I decided to purchase this application. At first I was very excited, ran through the tests, it indicated that I was -3 and good to go. I ran through the tests 2 more times expecting to get 2 of 3 either the same or close, but really it was all over the place. One test says -3 the next was -16 the next was +4. I then modified the setup to force more sample points and higher autofocus accuracy required as well as doing the test at both f/2.8 and f/4. Again, the results were all over the place.

I then went out and got high quality paper, ensured I was printing at 600 DPI, ran the tests again.... yup all over the place.

Basically, after running through this program on my 24-70 @ 70mm @ 3.5M approx 10 times I have no level of confidence in the results as they are completely not repeatable. Sure it could be my camera, setup, whatever, but basically, it's more like I donated $110.

Nikon D800 | 24-70mm f/2.8G | 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Basically, after running through this program on my 24-70 @
>70mm @ 3.5M approx 10 times I have no level of confidence in
>the results as they are completely not repeatable.

Did you look at the results? I had that experience with one lens (200-400) that resulted in a very flat curve, i.e. going from -10 to +10 made very little difference. And indeed on the images it was very little difference. This flat curve means that, statistically, the results are a bit chaotic as small variations in each test run cause the peak (of a near flat line) to vary widely.

Other lenses had a very sharp peak, a clear maximum where +/- 5 made huge differences in focus.

I found I learned a lot by these curves, more so than the actual adjustment it called out.

Your experience may be quite different however, just offering one result.



Linwood

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

If it was flat(ish) I probably wouldn't have worried about it, but same setup, same light, etc it was all over the place. Also another weird observation, this app messed with my shutter count. It increased it 600 actuations on one test. checked one report and it stated I had 927 and the next test I had over 1500, but only took like 60 shots for the test. It's not that I care, it was just something strange that I noticed.

Nikon D800 | 24-70mm f/2.8G | 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)

Those are the same lens at about the same distance and same target type? That's... useless.

Switching in and out of live view it does rack up the shutter counts, I did not check closely, that seems high. But I intend to get a few hundred thousand more, the few hundred I put on it fine tuning wasn't a big deal. Probably a few thousand with different lenses.

Linwood

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

>
>Those are the same lens at about the same distance and same
>target type? That's... useless.
>

That was same target, same light, same distance, same.., same... same... they were basically 1 right after the other, each time setting it back to 0 before testing. I'm just not going to worry about it. Pictures look fine, I figured -2 when I first got the lens shooting at one of my daughters dolls and -2 gives me the best results all around. at least 1 of the 10 shots said -2 so I'm good, lol.

Nikon D800 | 24-70mm f/2.8G | 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I am having the same problems! Tried with three different lenses, letter sized chart, 13x19 chart, etc. Nothig is giving me repeatable results.

I am wondering about the checkbox in setup for the prior testing method. I have been using the latest beta which it says uses a newer process. Are you also using the latest beta???

Should we roll back?

Right now it is basically useless gibberish and I cannot trust the results.

>After experiencing some autofocus issues with a new lens I
>decided to purchase this application. At first I was very
>excited, ran through the tests, it indicated that I was -3 and
>good to go. I ran through the tests 2 more times expecting to
>get 2 of 3 either the same or close, but really it was all
>over the place. One test says -3 the next was -16 the next
>was +4. I then modified the setup to force more sample points
>and higher autofocus accuracy required as well as doing the
>test at both f/2.8 and f/4. Again, the results were all over
>the place.
>
>I then went out and got high quality paper, ensured I was
>printing at 600 DPI, ran the tests again.... yup all over the
>place.
>
>Basically, after running through this program on my 24-70 @
>70mm @ 3.5M approx 10 times I have no level of confidence in
>the results as they are completely not repeatable. Sure it
>could be my camera, setup, whatever, but basically, it's more
>like I donated $110.

"Content is King"
www.2750k.com
www.teampiranha.us

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Yes, I am on the latest Beta, using a Mac I basically have no choice. I got the closest results to actual good using the following settings:

Nikon D800 | 24-70mm f/2.8G | 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

>..... Probably a few thousand with different lenses.


A few thousand shutter counts? Wow, that seems a lot. Have you worked out the average number per lens?

>>..... Probably a few thousand with different lenses.
>
>
>A few thousand shutter counts? Wow, that seems a lot. Have you
>worked out the average number per lens?

No, not at all. I just remember once noticing the count was high. I also did each lens (5 lenses, one with TC = 6) on the D800 both before and after its repair, and did it before in numerous configurations such as different focus points.

It does add up. I just figure it doesn't matter much.


Linwood

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

I am late pitching in here, but I have been reading some posts here with interest and have a question please.

I have just purchased and had delivered from the US LensAlign and I also bought the new Michael Tapes' FocusTune. It arrived this week and I am strictly following the instructions to the absolute letter. I will report back on that journey when I get satisfactory final results. At this early time I seem to be trusting the manually viewed LenAlign images more than the FineTune results. It's early days and I have a lot to learn. It still leaves me in a quandary about what to do with zoom lenses unless, I just test at the most used focal length as results are showing major changes of AF-fine tune settings between a focal length of 24mm and a focal length of 70mm on my 24-70mm f2.8 lens! My prime 300mm f4 and 50mm f1.8 both showed no adjustment was necessary on both LensAlign and FocusTune.

Reikan's FoCal Standard application seems a reasonable price and a lot quicker than any other method. Allowing that it's brand new technology, has anyone here experience of both LensAlign and FocusTune and if so which would you recommend?

Now, I have always been shy of AF fine tuning, but I do freely admit that my insatiable appetite for knowledge finds the various methodolgy interesting. I have dismissed LensCalc because of adverse reports. I haven't any issues with my lenses to my knowledge, but I am sad enough to while away the long winter evenings as part of yet another learning photographic exercise

Finally, I agree with Eric Bowles that the whole issue of fine tune could perhaps bear its own forum. I've gone from little interest to being totally fascinated by the whole issue. It must be the Instrument Engineer still in me and the quest for total accuracy coming out again after a few years break!

Your comments would be most welcome.

Thanks

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

I have also just purchased FocusTune, and used it with my LensAlign Mk II. I found the process to be straight forward and easy - if a little time consuming because of the number of images I took. I've only used it for Autofocus Adjustment so far - but I plan to try all of the tests in due course. This was the result I had with my 24-120 f4 VR attached.



I set it to +3, and also checked it against the LensAlign rule in the images. I think it did a good job.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

When I started doing FoCal for one of my D800 bodies, I had about 9,000 clicks on in. After two full series of FoCal tests with it for all of my lenses (not just AF fine tuning), I had about 14,000 clicks. I was surprised at the high number of clicks.

Does FocusTune produce the same number of clicks? I have the software, but I have not compared the click count required to run it.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

I compared my Lens Align Results with my FoCal results and they were close but not identical but reasonably in the ballpark. There has been what seems like a lot of repeatability failures with FoCal discussed here recently. Is the consensus now that this software is unreliable ... fun to do but don't put much stock in the results? I am confused again ... Thanks

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I compared my Lens Align Results with my FoCal results and
>they were close but not identical but reasonably in the
>ballpark. There has been what seems like a lot of
>repeatability failures with FoCal discussed here recently. Is
>the consensus now that this software is unreliable ... fun to
>do but don't put much stock in the results? I am confused
>again ... Thanks
>

There is also talk in certain circles (DigLloyd plus some posters here too) about issues with non-repeatability of camera AF with f/1.4 lenses at middle/longer distances (and not limited to D800, I've seen mention of D3S, D3X for example). I am loathe to promulgate something I can't back up, as I haven't personally noticed this problem, but I raise it merely to mention it is possible there are two variables here, camera AF repeatability vs. software repeatability and just imagine if they interact Anyhow, I'm not trying to start a discussion on that topic, I just have an inquiring mind about it. I still want the self auto-tuning camera.

I don't own either software, have been a manual AF tuner to date. Two weeks in BTW and my D800 AF seems very good so far, haven't had a chance to tune it so far, but with my 24-70 it doesn't seem off at all.

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

So far my clicks go like this,

First test at 0, -5,-10,-15,-20, 0, +5, 10, 15, 20 4 clicks on each = 40 tests done twice = 80. Then 10 clicks either side of the sharpest value = 20 clicks. Grand total = 100 clicks per lens. I've tried my 24-70, 300mm f4, 70-200mm, 50mm f1.8 G, 50-500mm Sigma OS. So that equals 500 clicks minimum. Quite a lot plus target setup shots.

I have dismissed the Sigma results which I did at 400 mm, because of distance conditions. The 300mm and 50mm were fine (0 and + 1). The 24-70 and 70-200 are a nightmare as the results between minimum and maximum focal lengths vary so much that the results are inconclusive in my view. Yet, I have total trust in the sharpness and focus DOF images I take with those lenses in the real world.

I'm going to have to repeat the 24-70/70-200 tests again so I guess it will be 700-800 clicks total testing minimum.

Richard.

Visit my Nikonians gallery