Reikan FoCal with Z9 and F mount

[agrumpyoldsod]

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

Hi -- nice to see your results. One must put the camera and target in good light, no wind and held firmly. I learnt my lesson - so all my shorter lenses were tested inside lit with with strobes. The long tele's are more challenging -- keep away from shooting over surfaces that generate lots of heat haze etc.... and as you can see I tested mine a few times. AND will so again.
My point of these is not the actual recommended AF-fine tune values (which are specific to my gear) - it is the evidence that F-mount glass attached via an FTZii onto a Z9 has a flatter and wider distribution.
That said I have attached a summary of my results and as a whole Long F-mount Telephotos all landed at about +2-3 and shorter f-mount primes all landed - -2 to -3, with the notable exception of my 35mm f/1.4 which I believe was a bad copy. Whereas -- all the S-line lenses were spot on -1-0-+1 -- the only Z-mount lenses where results were slightly different were the very cheap 28/2.8Se and 40/2.0 - but still -2 is a tiny shift.

 

[Whiskeyman]

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

I've looked a slight bit on the FoCal web site for this answer since your question causes me to be curious about this. I couldn't find an answer, so I left an inquiry with their customer service team.

Until I get an answer from the folks at FoCal, I'll venture to guess that the software only measures the image over the target, and also that it likely measures only under the very center of the frame, under the camera's focus point. However, this is just a guess, and it is, therefore, worthless.

When I do get an answer from FoCal, I'll post it here.

 

[tickle_my_nikon]

Hi -- nice to see your results. One must put the camera and target in good light, no wind and held firmly. I learnt my lesson - so all my shorter lenses were tested inside lit with with strobes. The long tele's are more challenging -- keep away from shooting over surfaces that generate lots of heat haze etc.... and as you can see I tested mine a few times. AND will so again.
My point of these is not the actual recommended AF-fine tune values (which are specific to my gear) - it is the evidence that F-mount glass attached via an FTZii onto a Z9 has a flatter and wider distribution.
That said I have attached a summary of my results and as a whole Long F-mount Telephotos all landed at about +2-3 and shorter f-mount primes all landed - -2 to -3, with the notable exception of my 35mm f/1.4 which I believe was a bad copy. Whereas -- all the S-line lenses were spot on -1-0-+1 -- the only Z-mount lenses where results were slightly different were the very cheap 28/2.8Se and 40/2.0 - but still -2 is a tiny shift.

View attachment 49514

At the distance you shot the coyote/wolf, you would have needed to be off by +10 or -10 to have such a soft result. At F/4 a +3.0 doesn't mean anything.

It missed the focus. Body issue. Not the lens.

I've fine tuned every single lens I've owned. I use a 12 inch ruler (close) and a yard stick (far) at a 45 degree angle, and actually look at where the focus point is versus the depth of field. Stationary, and then handheld on AF-C to see what the results are when it's tracking in real time. F mount tuning can be a pain.

However.

What you're experiencing is the inconsistent contrast detection focus of the Z9 autofocus system at apertures with thin depth of field.

It doesn't matter what your fine tune autofocus is on a DSLR when you use contrast detection of live view.

 

[whitecaps]

I've looked a slight bit on the FoCal web site for this answer since your question causes me to be curious about this. I couldn't find an answer, so I left an inquiry with their customer service team.

Until I get an answer from the folks at FoCal, I'll venture to guess that the software only measures the image over the target, and also that it likely measures only under the very center of the frame, under the camera's focus point. However, this is just a guess, and it is, therefore, worthless.

When I do get an answer from FoCal, I'll post it here.

Curious why this would be worthless? The software strives to create a baseline configuration of the way the lens and camera combination work together. Yes it uses a defined target I have personally obtained great results for calibration on my dslr.

 

[whitecaps]

At the distance you shot the coyote/wolf, you would have needed to be off by +10 or -10 to have such a soft result. At F/4 a +3.0 doesn't mean anything.

It missed the focus. Body issue. Not the lens.

I've fine tuned every single lens I've owned. I use a 12 inch ruler (close) and a yard stick (far) at a 45 degree angle, and actually look at where the focus point is versus the depth of field. Stationary, and then handheld on AF-C to see what the results are when it's tracking in real time. F mount tuning can be a pain.

However.

What you're experiencing is the inconsistent contrast detection focus of the Z9 autofocus system at apertures with thin depth of field.

It doesn't matter what your fine tune autofocus is on a DSLR when you use contrast detection of live view.

Thanks, I thought so, and admittedly am a single point focus guy and learning how these new features work for me. It seemed to be tracking the eye well, so I thought I was all set. I'll switch back to single point for a while and see how it goes.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

At the distance you shot the coyote/wolf, you would have needed to be off by +10 or -10 to have such a soft result. At F/4 a +3.0 doesn't mean anything.

I did not take the photo -- please do better.

 

[CapIt30]

For hand held at 1/1000 sec and 600mm (or even 400mm), I woud have to use 1/4000 sec or faster ... Perhaps take that same image into Topaz Sharpen AI (there are free trail periods) and use the "motion blur" model. I think you will be surprised. Also I agree FoCal AFFT values of +/- 1 or 2 and even 3 are very small and may be hidden by repeatability. Curious to hear more.

 

[Wes Peterson]

Im going with thermal issue on the soft photo. Bright sun, cold air temps is a surefire way to get thermal mirage. Ive had it happen inside 15 yards.

 

[whitecaps]

Im going with thermal issue on the soft photo. Bright sun, cold air temps is a surefire way to get thermal mirage. Ive had it happen inside 15 yards.

thanks Wes.

 

[whitecaps]

For hand held at 1/1000 sec and 600mm (or even 400mm), I woud have to use 1/4000 sec or faster ... Perhaps take that same image into Topaz Sharpen AI (there are free trail periods) and use the "motion blur" model. I think you will be surprised. Also I agree FoCal AFFT values of +/- 1 or 2 and even 3 are very small and may be hidden by repeatability. Curious to hear more.

Yes I have the software and it wasn't really able to do much with that but I really didn't try that hard to tweak it. I did have another image from that set that was stronger and in better focus and went with that one. The point of the thread was 1) finding out of others were using focal for calibrating/validating image quality with Z9 and F mount and what their observations were 2) trying to understand what may have happened in my case using that focus mode. I am 99% sure that if I was using my 850 it would have been sharp. That said I use single point pretty much all the time. I will switch to that on the z9 and use it like I would my 850 until it feels the same I guess. Attached is the image I selected out of the set.

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

 

[Roy]

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

View attachment 49444

You shouldn't need to calibrate F glass on the Z9.
I would be looking elsewhere for the cause.
BTW phase detect AF is still superior to Contrast detect in mot cases..

 

[whitecaps]

You shouldn't need to calibrate F glass on the Z9.
I would be looking elsewhere for the cause.
BTW phase detect AF is still superior to Contrast detect in mot cases..

Thanks Roy. That was my understanding as well. Reikan offers this explanation (see link below) for why you might. But in a nutshell, Z mount lens is new and likely not required but your F mount lens will be older and maybe required.

Reikan FoCal: Nikon Z9 Review & Analysis

A look at the Nikon Z9 with Reikan FoCal - an overview, playtime at Durdle Door and testing of VR and sharpness.

blog.reikanfocal.com

Just scroll down to the "Fine Tune" section for their rationale and supporting data.

 

[MikePapple]

F/4, 1/1000s, ISO 80.
I might of used 1/1600s, higher ISO. Maybe even stopping down a little.
Focus is on the face, your camera is not front/back focussing.
Moisture in the air may have softened everything, if it was above freezing.

 

[MartyD]

I have used FoCal for some time and it is an excellent piece of software and it has some additional tools to help measure focus and lens performance. I have found that you need to have a very consistent testing environment in order to get consistent results. I have never had much luck with getting repeatable results outside, and testing inside with long lenses is difficult. The mathematician in me trusts the curve fitting algorithms to determine optimum focus fine tune but the practical side of me says I really want to see the result of focus fine tune. I made a combination of a FoCal target and a angular ruler configuration so the FoCal software can measure the value and I can take some test images to verify the focus accuracy. I like to see where my depth of field is in front and behind my focus points.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Curious why this would be worthless? The software strives to create a baseline configuration of the way the lens and camera combination work together. Yes it uses a defined target I have personally obtained great results for calibration on my dslr.

I communicted poorly, Whitecaps. It was my assertion, which is only a guess, that is worthless. My intention was not to insinuate that the software or its features are, in any way, worthless.

FoCal has answered my inquiry. Their response is as follows, copied and pasted from their e-mail response to me:

Hi ******,

Thank you for your interest in FoCal.

Sharpness or focus quality is only assessed from a small area of the image around the focus point.

FoCal's main goal is to assess focus quality so it's just concerned with what's happening to image quality directly around the focus point.

Best Regards,
*******

The underline and bold text applications are my doing. I believe that this answers the OP's question about FoCal, as well as my own brought on by the conversation within this thread.

 

[whitecaps]

I communicted poorly, Whitecaps. It was my assertion, which is only a guess, that is worthless. My intention was not to insinuate that the software or its features are, in any way, worthless.

FoCal has answered my inquiry. Their response is as follows, copied and pasted from their e-mail response to me:

Hi ******,

Thank you for your interest in FoCal.

Sharpness or focus quality is only assessed from a small area of the image around the focus point.

FoCal's main goal is to assess focus quality so it's just concerned with what's happening to image quality directly around the focus point.

Best Regards,
*******

The underline and bold text applications are my doing. I believe that this answers the OP's question about FoCal, as well as my own brought on by the conversation within this thread.

Gotcha. No worries.