Reikan FoCal with Z9 and F mount

[whitecaps]

Do we have any Focal + Z9 users out there using F mount glass? Just wanted to compare notes. I was out doing some playing around and testing the other day (new to the Z9) and happen to come across this coyote. I happened to have the subject detect AF enabled and was looked forward to testing the effectiveness. Eye detect kicked in (he wasn't that far away) so I clicked away. Upon review, only a few had good focus but not as sharp as I would expect from my D850. I decided to run the Focal calibration tests and thought it interesting that it required an adjustment (only +1) but may have explained why it was not as sharp as expected. I have been out to test the results yet

Anyone else calibrating out there? I thought this was not required with mirrorless

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Whiskeyman]

What lens were you using? And what shutter speed? Was the camera hand-held, or supported with some additional means? Did you accomplish any post-processing sharpening before you saved/uploaded the image?

In looking at your photo, I don't really see any area of really sharp focus, either in front of or behind the point of focus. Then again, maybe that's just my tired eyes this evening. If the camera/lens needed some AF fine tuning, I'd expect to see some part of the subject, or the surrounding area, really sharp. I don't see that here, which leads me to think that you have a different issue than a need for AF fine tuning.

I have an old version of FoCal, but haven't used it since I last did with my D500. I'm not sure I'm willing to pay for an upgrade that will allow its use with my Z9.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Do we have any Focal + Z9 users out there using F mount glass? Just wanted to compare notes. I was out doing some playing around and testing the other day (new to the Z9) and happen to come across this coyote. I happened to have the subject detect AF enabled and was looked forward to testing the effectiveness. Eye detect kicked in (he wasn't that far away) so I clicked away. Upon review, only a few had good focus but not as sharp as I would expect from my D850. I decided to run the Focal calibration tests and thought it interesting that it required an adjustment (only +1) but may have explained why it was not as sharp as expected. I have been out to test the results yet

Anyone else calibrating out there? I thought this was not required with mirrorless

Yes - I completed extensive testing of 21 F-mount and z-mount lenses on my Z9 and I am not alone.

See: Thread

 

[bleirer]

Just a question: you said a few were in focus, but wouldn't you have none in focus if the lens was front or back focusing? For +1 wouldn't there be some nearby part in focus?

 

[aolander]

I don't think +1 would make any real world difference.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Attached is a chart from my Focal run using a Z9 and Z 100mm f/2.8 MC (left) AND the same chart when suing the AF-S 105mm f/2.8 micro (right) -- as a rule the distribution for Z-mount S-line glass is much narrower than F-mount glass -- so it is important that Z-glass is accurately calibrated. Should Z-glass not deliver a similar shaped distribution to that shown on the left then I would go to a Nikon repair centre and have the lens checked.

 

[whitecaps]

What lens were you using? And what shutter speed? Was the camera hand-held, or supported with some additional means? Did you accomplish any post-processing sharpening before you saved/uploaded the image?

In looking at your photo, I don't really see any area of really sharp focus, either in front of or behind the point of focus. Then again, maybe that's just my tired eyes this evening. If the camera/lens needed some AF fine tuning, I'd expect to see some part of the subject, or the surrounding area, really sharp. I don't see that here, which leads me to think that you have a different issue than a need for AF fine tuning.

I have an old version of FoCal, but haven't used it since I last did with my D500. I'm not sure I'm willing to pay for an upgrade that will allow its use with my Z9.

Correct no real sharp focus. They are generally soft or the focus fell of target. Using the 600mm F4 (Exif attached). Image uploaded is a screen shot from NX Studio of straight out of camera image with no adjustments or crop. Camera was hand held. I was sitting in my truck with engine turned off. Could it be heat perhaps then from interior (it was mild day, perhaps -1C outside)

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[whitecaps]

Just a question: you said a few were in focus, but wouldn't you have none in focus if the lens was front or back focusing? For +1 wouldn't there be some nearby part in focus?

I have not tested if the +1 adjustment was productive yet. Just calibrated yesterday.

 

[whitecaps]

Attached is a chart from my Focal run using a Z9 and Z 100mm f/2.8 MC (left) AND the same chart when suing the AF-S 105mm f/2.8 micro (right) -- as a rule the distribution for Z-mount S-line glass is much narrower than F-mount glass -- so it is important that Z-glass is accurately calibrated. Should Z-glass not deliver a similar shaped distribution to that shown on the left then I would go to a Nikon repair centre and have the lens checked.

View attachment 49471View attachment 49472

Thats really interesting to see thanks for posting the comparison. Do you have a profile for the 600?

 

[whitecaps]

I don't think +1 would make any real world difference.

Thats what I was wondering. I still plan to try the adjustment anyway and compare with my D850 results.

 

[Rassie]

It's that time of the year when heat shimmer can rob you of sharpness. If the ground happens to be warmer than the air above, heat waves rise from the ground up and result in soft pictures. This is always my first culprit to investigate when I get soft pictures under similar conditions from an otherwise reliable combo. Steve has a video on that in Backcountry Gallery.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Thats really interesting to see thanks for posting the comparison. Do you have a profile for the 600?

Yes -- two versions and as you can see lots of shots were needed in each and slightly difference result were found == AF-S 600mm f/4.0 E-FL

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Thats really interesting to see thanks for posting the comparison. Do you have a profile for the 600?

Please remember these are tests for my gear and similar test for your gear will lead to different results

 

[Wes Peterson]

Ive asked before and not gotten an answer. Does this software look at peak sharpness only or an average across the frame?

 

[Palouse]

Whitecaps, a couple of resources:

Are Lens Hoods Wrecking Your Photos In Cold Weather? - Backcountry Gallery

Are you a cold-weather shooter? Did you know your lens hood can work against you if the conditions are right, absolutely turning your photos to mush? Give me four minutes and I’ll show you when to watch for the problem, what it looks like, and how to avoid it. This is a must-see for anyone […]

backcountrygallery.com

Long Lens Heat Distortion - Backcountry Gallery

Are you a long lens shooter? If so, you’ve gotta check out this video! In the video, I’ll explain everything you need to know about the “hidden” enemy of all long lens shooter – heat distortion. Most people dismiss this out of hand, but the truth is, heat distortion is often the root cause of […]

backcountrygallery.com

My thinking is the focus tune is not to blame. You image shows no sharp focus anywhere, and if it was off just by 1 click, then something ahead or behind your focus point should have been sharp. I don't see camera shake, but I don't see any sharpness.

 

[whitecaps]

Yes -- two versions and as you can see lots of shots were needed in each and slightly difference result were found == AF-S 600mm f/4.0 E-FL
View attachment 49484
View attachment 49485

Interesting! thanks for posting those. I see my quality of focus is less than those. Perhaps my lens is heading south!

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Ive asked before and not gotten an answer. Does this software look at peak sharpness only or an average across the frame?

Wes Peterson, my observation was that FoCal calculates/determines and then recommends the peak AF Fine Tuning setting for a lens and camera combination. Also that it does so through curve fitting of multiple test points with some redundancy of those test points. Whenever I used FoCal to accomplish AF Fine Tuning, I also tested for the lens' optimum aperture for focus/sharpness and repeated all of the testing at least three times.

For how FoCal works, and how mirrorless camera's AF systems work, I perfer to check AF function and accuracy by observing and evaluating focus of test objects on my computer screen. One of the subjects I choose to do so with are small stuffed animal toys with fairly good relief and fine "fur" to enable evaluation of where the camera and lens actually focus.

There are some performance evaluations that I'll still use FoCal for, and I'll likely pay to update my version one of these days. (After I've given my spending to cool down a bit. I recently tallied up what I've spent on photo gear this year, and I shocked myself with the total amount, even when I likely didn't include every last item in my list.)

 

[Warren D]

Not sure what your tuning procedure is, but af isn't really that repeatably accurate. Many years back, Thom Hogan made comments that (dslr) lenses are tough to get to repeat focus lock on the same point every time. One variable is the direction and amount of travel. When I was AFFT lenses, I'd always de-focus in the same direction and by the same amount. This helped with repeatability. When I determined an AFFT amount, I'd switch directions of my de-focus and more often than not, arrive at a different AFFT value. I'd average the two and only apply it if it was more than +/- 5 units. Anything below that is too subject to variation. Temperature is another factor, my calibration for winter was different from that of summer. You can drive yourself nuts. And then there is the distance, my subjects are usually much farther away than is practical for the target.
Your chart doesn't look all that bad to me, especially as I don't know the details of how you arrived there.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Interesting! thanks for posting those. I see my quality of focus is less than those. Perhaps my lens is heading south!

View attachment 49491

Maybe. Or maybe not.

FoCal results can vary due to variations in testing conditions, such as light intensity and color, stability of the camera, and target issues. I often had different results when I tested using FoCal outside starting at about one hour before sunset, or with partly cloudy conditions. I eventually took my testing inside and under artificial lighting to attain consistent test conditions. While non-optimum for longer focal length lenses, I did see more consistent results in my tests. My tests also improved when I obtained and used a "real" test target instead of one that I printed on my own printer.

No matter the Focal QoF numbers, that AF Fine-Tune (AFFT) setting is likely close to what you'll find you need, if it is the same over multiple tests. Were I you, I'd take that AFFT setting and take some test shots with easy test subjects, then look at the final product after fully processing them, including basic sharpening, on your computer. That is the true test of your system's AF performance.

 

[Wes Peterson]

Wes Peterson, my observation was that FoCal calculates/determines and then recommends the peak AF Fine Tuning setting for a lens and camera combination. Also that it does so through curve fitting of multiple test points with some redundancy of those test points. Whenever I used FoCal to accomplish AF Fine Tuning, I also tested for the lens' optimum aperture for focus/sharpness and repeated all of the testing at least three times.

For how FoCal works, and how mirrorless camera's AF systems work, I perfer to check AF function and accuracy by observing and evaluating focus of test objects on my computer screen. One of the subjects I choose to do so with are small stuffed animal toys with fairly good relief and fine "fur" to enable evaluation of where the camera and lens actually focus.

There are some performance evaluations that I'll still use FoCal for, and I'll likely pay to update my version one of these days. (After I've given my spending to cool down a bit. I recently tallied up what I've spent on photo gear this year, and I shocked myself with the total amount, even when I likely didn't include every last item in my list.)

What Im getting at is if a lens has any amount of focus "shift" across the frame and the software is "averaging" to find the best focus calibration then you may be sacrificing peak sharpness in the center of frame for slightly better sharpness near the corners.

 

[whitecaps]

Not sure what your tuning procedure is, but af isn't really that repeatably accurate. Many years back, Thom Hogan made comments that (dslr) lenses are tough to get to repeat focus lock on the same point every time. One variable is the direction and amount of travel. When I was AFFT lenses, I'd always de-focus in the same direction and by the same amount. This helped with repeatability. When I determined an AFFT amount, I'd switch directions of my de-focus and more often than not, arrive at a different AFFT value. I'd average the two and only apply it if it was more than +/- 5 units. Anything below that is too subject to variation. Temperature is another factor, my calibration for winter was different from that of summer. You can drive yourself nuts. And then there is the distance, my subjects are usually much farther away than is practical for the target.
Your chart doesn't look all that bad to me, especially as I don't know the details of how you arrived there.

That is the benefit of using Focal. The process is automated using a target and image quality measurements to narrow down the setting. I have had excellent results with my d850. I only perform a calibration check twice a year. Spring and fall but really only need once. The values rarely change but also seeing the results of the rest of the tests about image quality it identifies issues with the lens as well such as lens alignment. I have used this software when buying second hand lenses with success in avoiding lemons.

 

[whitecaps]

Maybe. Or maybe not.

FoCal results can vary due to variations in testing conditions, such as light intensity and color, stability of the camera, and target issues. I often had different results when I tested using FoCal outside starting at about one hour before sunset, or with partly cloudy conditions. I eventually took my testing inside and under artificial lighting to attain consistent test conditions. While non-optimum for longer focal length lenses, I did see more consistent results in my tests. My tests also improved when I obtained and used a "real" test target instead of one that I printed on my own printer.

No matter the Focal QoF numbers, that AF Fine-Tune (AFFT) setting is likely close to what you'll find you need, if it is the same over multiple tests. Were I you, I'd take that AFFT setting and take some test shots with easy test subjects, then look at the final product after fully processing them, including basic sharpening, on your computer. That is the true test of your system's AF performance.

Agreed. I pick a sunny day, no wind, same heavy tripod, standard hard target (from Focal) mounted on a hard surface in the same spot every time, same distance to target every time. The software also verifies that the settings in the camera are set the same every time and that the lens is not configured for VR. I have made it as objective as I can make it.

 

[whitecaps]

Wes, a couple of resources:

Are Lens Hoods Wrecking Your Photos In Cold Weather? - Backcountry Gallery

Are you a cold-weather shooter? Did you know your lens hood can work against you if the conditions are right, absolutely turning your photos to mush? Give me four minutes and I’ll show you when to watch for the problem, what it looks like, and how to avoid it. This is a must-see for anyone […]

backcountrygallery.com

Long Lens Heat Distortion - Backcountry Gallery

Are you a long lens shooter? If so, you’ve gotta check out this video! In the video, I’ll explain everything you need to know about the “hidden” enemy of all long lens shooter – heat distortion. Most people dismiss this out of hand, but the truth is, heat distortion is often the root cause of […]

backcountrygallery.com

My thinking is the focus tune is not to blame. You image shows no sharp focus anywhere, and if it was off just by 1 click, then something ahead or behind your focus point should have been sharp. I don't see camera shake, but I don't see any sharpness.

You may be correct here and I certainly hope so. Giving it a go again this weekend and hopefully I can find a suitable subject. I just recall thinking, I have done the same shooting and positioning with my 850 with sharp results. Hard to tell in hindsight. Will bring both bodies this time.

 

[Wes Peterson]

Wes, a couple of resources:

Are Lens Hoods Wrecking Your Photos In Cold Weather? - Backcountry Gallery

Are you a cold-weather shooter? Did you know your lens hood can work against you if the conditions are right, absolutely turning your photos to mush? Give me four minutes and I’ll show you when to watch for the problem, what it looks like, and how to avoid it. This is a must-see for anyone […]

backcountrygallery.com

Long Lens Heat Distortion - Backcountry Gallery

Are you a long lens shooter? If so, you’ve gotta check out this video! In the video, I’ll explain everything you need to know about the “hidden” enemy of all long lens shooter – heat distortion. Most people dismiss this out of hand, but the truth is, heat distortion is often the root cause of […]

backcountrygallery.com

My thinking is the focus tune is not to blame. You image shows no sharp focus anywhere, and if it was off just by 1 click, then something ahead or behind your focus point should have been sharp. I don't see camera shake, but I don't see any sharpness.

Was this post meant for me?

 

[Palouse]

Was this post meant for me?

My apologies Wes! No it was meant for Whitecaps, the OP. Old age or declining blood-Caffeine levels are to blame.