Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

AF fine tuning - again

jadiniz

Estoril, PT
350 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
jadiniz Registered since 25th Dec 2010
Thu 31-Mar-11 01:32 AM

After reading so many posts regarding Af tuning, I made my own experiment: an A4 sheet covered with multiple lines of the letter "X", with a solitary center bigger X for aiming. Set it on a table, and took a few shots from my chair.

The repeating patterns of the letters allows a great view of where the focus plane lays, and I found that my lenses benefited from AF adjustment:

35mm f1.8 (-13)
18-105mm VR (-5)(@50mm)

Testing was done wide open to allow for a small DOF, and the angle from the camera to the sheet was quite shallow.

Tomorrow I'll try to repeat the test using a tripod and longer distances, as this was done pretty close to minimum. But the difference before and after was quite noticeable. If the results are consistent with what I got today, I believe my IQ from now on will trult benefir from this.

http://egozarolho.blogspot.com
1. Good content, good aesthetics and good tecnique. On that order.
2. Light is more important than glass and pixels.
3. In the digital photography process, software is as important as gear.

Subject
ID
Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
1
Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
2
Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
3
Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
4
Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
5
Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
7
Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
8
     Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
17
          Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
18
               Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
20
               Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
28
               Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
23
Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
9
     Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
10
          Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
12
          Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
16
          Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
22
               Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
29
                    Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
31
                         Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
34
                              Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
41
Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
14
     Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
37
Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
6
Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
11
     Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
13
     Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
36
     Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
42
          Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
45
     Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
15
     Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
19
          Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
21
          Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
24
               Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
25
                    Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
26
                    Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
39
                         Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
47
                    Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
27
                         Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
30
                              Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
32
                              Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
33
                              Reply message RE: AF fine tuning - again
40
     Reply message RE: Not necessarily so
35
          Reply message RE: Not necessarily so
38
          Reply message RE: Not necessarily so
43
               Reply message RE: Not necessarily so
44
          Reply message RE: Not necessarily so
46

G