>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.
>Here is what I would recommend to people about the whole fine >tuning business: > >1) Just use your camera without worrying about it. If you get >a high percentage of pictures in focus, everything is fine. No >need to shoot targets. Out of focus images will happen, no >system is 100% accurate and the number of bad images will >decrease as you will gauge better how you system behaves.
>2) If you systematically get out of focus images, it is either >you that has poor technique or your camera needs to be >checked.