>>The methodology is not about testing the efficiency of
>the
>>whole AF system in real life situations. It is about
>testing
>>wether or not, on the simplest possible target, phase
>>detection produces front or back focusing.
>
>I understand your approach. What I'm suggesting is that I
>believe the simplification is largely counterproductive
>because I think it inherently prevents the chosen sensor
>(which is part of a larger system) from functioning most
>effectively (as a fundamental part of the larger system) for
>the application dictated by your methodology. Some AF system
>experts should chime in here I think.
>
>>If the camera is not successful at properly focusing such
>a
>>target, it's a clear sign there is a problem. You cannot
>hope
>>to get good results in real life situations like you
>describe
>>if the camera cannot even handle ideal conditions. It's
>just
>>step zero in the troubleshooting strategy.
>
>My point is that the condition you set up in your methodology
>is not in fact ideal. I believe that isolating a target to
>provide, effectively, a single data registration point for the
>AF system, does not reflect the engineering or software design
>approach of the AF system. The AF system is designed to work
>best, as I understand it, when provided with significantly
>more target and proximal data than is provided when using your
>method.
>

This is indeed a concern I initially had. However, when using one AF point, I have observed in my case that if the lenses are well calibrated with the target, they are also fine in real life. However, without knowing how the algorithm is actually designed, this statement is only based on personal observations with my specific equipment...

----

frame4zoom for Nikonians