Nikon autofocus (conspiracy) theory

[piero2019]

+1

As someone who has shot the Nikon FE2, F3, F4, F100, F5, D1, D90, D700 and D800... I can tell you that a Nikon camera is capable of shooting very sharp images. If you have good glass then you can take incredible pictures. As stated earlier in this thread, if you r scanner is not up to task, then no image will be sharp. I would say that your root issue would probably be your lenses. I've owned some extremely sharp glass, and I have owned some not so sharp glass. I also thing in this digital age, most people don't truly understand that we have surpassed the sharpness levels of film. With film, even great slow film, there is always going to be some grain.

 

[piero2019]

Thanks Jim,

But I like the look of 135!

Then get an old 4x5 Speed Graphic or equivalent. and carefully manually focus it.

 

[piero2019]

Thanks benveniste, super answer! And...I am indeed a boomer

I just want to stay with 135 format and get the sharpest possible images, with the compromise, as you say, to be slower when doing it.

This is the type of post which makes me think "OK boomer," and I am a boomer.

Phase-detect autofocus, such as that found in an F100 or N/F80, is an engineering trade-off between speed and accuracy. This shouldn't be shocking news to anyone. There are also certain situations where it can misfocus. Spherical aberration can create issues due to focus shift, and tolerances between the lens and the mount can create back- or front-focus. Again, all of this has been known for decades. I own a Nikon FA and a Nikon F100. With most static subjects where I can use the focus aids, I can get fractionally sharper pictures with the FA than the F100, but the difference wasn't enough to make me hunt down a split-image screen for the F100. On the other hand, I did buy such a screen for my Pentax 645n. Not only did it vastly improve my results with manual focus lenses, I also feel I get better results for macro and posed portraiture "stuff."

But notice those caveats. As with the Leica, with the FA I have to first focus using the center spot, then compose, and then shoot. All that takes time and a more deliberative style, and I think that's a large part of the difference which you see. But one of my mantras is the sharpness of a missed shot is exactly zero. The F100 (and, yes, my digital cameras), allow me to put shots "in the can" I was never able to get with my manual focus Nikons.

If a Leica works best in your hands, cool. By all means use one. It's your gear, your money, and your choice. But if there's an autofocus conspiracy, they've never invited me to one of their meetings.

 

[piero2019]

Thanks!

Could you please point me to the sharpest body/lens combos you found?

As someone who has shot the Nikon FE2, F3, F4, F100, F5, D1, D90, D700 and D800... I can tell you that a Nikon camera is capable of shooting very sharp images. If you have good glass then you can take incredible pictures. As stated earlier in this thread, if you r scanner is not up to task, then no image will be sharp. I would say that your root issue would probably be your lenses. I've owned some extremely sharp glass, and I have owned some not so sharp glass. I also thing in this digital age, most people don't truly understand that we have surpassed the sharpness levels of film. With film, even great slow film, there is always going to be some grain.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm going to hijack this thread a bit here because I am amazed at the difference between the Leica and Nikon photos in this comparison and the Fuji photo. The depth rendering of the Leitz lens and both Nikkors completely blows the Fuji away. The Fuji photo looks totally flat and cartoonish by comparison.

I'm interested in learning more about this comparison. What specific lens, cameras, and films did you use?

A slight hijack here, I suppose, but I also have a P645N and with manual focus there is the green hexagonal light in the view finder that lights up when the focus is sharp. I have no idea how this green signal works but it does seem to work OK. Is this not as good as a split screen and if not why not?

This is a genuine question and not a disguised challenge to your statement

Thanks

pentaxuser

Now you have to photograph with a Hasselblad.

 

[reddesert]

When attempting to test something (like lens resolution, focus errors, or whatever), it is important to keep in mind at least two principles:

- The test must have the power to accurately discriminate whatever it is you are trying to test - so for example, if you want to test resolution of lens A vs lens B, you have to have a way of telling whether the results are actually dependent on lens resolution, or if errors in the focusing system, film flatness, scanning, web display, etc are contributing. On the other hand, if what you care about is the finished product in workflow A vs workflow B, then go ahead and look at the results from the full workflow, but understand that you can't assign the differences to one component such as the lens or the focusing system.

- The tester must let go of built-in assumptions that affect either the design or interpretation of the results (thus, X costs more or has a better reputation than Y, so I expect X to be greater than Y).

As for lens resolution, and focusing errors, there is a simple way of maximizing one's results over both issues: stop down the lens. "f/8 and be there" was a common photojournalists' aphorism. It covers a host of problems.

 

[Colin Corneau]

There may be more and better to come. I feel the thread is a long way from dying

pentaxuser

You were totally right!

 

[piero2019]

Thanks for all the information.

I was able to devise a plan of action:

- get some of my rolls scanned with a high-res scanner to control for scanning sharpness
- I called a Nikon service center and they told me that by buying an F3 or an FM2N, they will be capable of fully checking for focusing accuracy and possibly repairing any faulty pieces
- I also will rent an F6 and rent a 105mm f/1.4E (possibly Nikon's sharpest) to see what happens when you put such a lens on film

Special thanks to chriscrawfordphoto, grain elevator, glbeas, benveniste, 90s photog.

Sorry if I appeared to be arrogant or prejudiced, I was probably confused by the vast amount of information available.

 

[cramej]

Thanks for all the information.

I was able to devise a plan of action:

- get some of my rolls scanned with a high-res scanner to control for scanning sharpness
- I called a Nikon service center and they told me that by buying an F3 or an FM2N, they will be capable of fully checking for focusing accuracy and possibly repairing any faulty pieces
- I also will rent an F6 and rent a 105mm f/1.4E (possibly Nikon's sharpest) to see what happens when you put such a lens on film

Special thanks to chriscrawfordphoto, grain elevator, glbeas, benveniste, 90s photog.

Sorry if I appeared to be arrogant or prejudiced, I was probably confused by the vast amount of information available.

I think you're missing the point.

1. AF does not do anything to a photo. If simply using AF caused such an issue, then Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc. would all be affected by it.
2. If AF caused such an issue, photographers the world over would be up in arms that they can't get sharp photos. As far as I know, that hasn't happened yet.
3. If AF is really faulty on whichever camera you're using, then manually focusing on should improve the focus accuracy. If it doesn't, it could be the lens that's not collimated, the focus screen not adjusted properly and so on. There are several points of failure that can cause improper focus.
4. Digital cameras have a tool with which to fix any focus errors per lens. You can adjust front or back focus as needed so that the camera and lens work together as best they can.
5. If you believe that buying a manual focus camera camera will fix your problems, you will be sorely disappointed. You'll miss focus by a smidge more than you can imagine.
6. There are plenty of exceptionally sharp, in-focus images from the F6 and plenty of less-than-in-focus unsharp photos from the M6. One camera is not sharper than another - it is the lens in front and the lens in the back (your eyes and brain). A cardboard box can produce a sharp image with a good lens.
7. E lenses are not compatible with the F6. They will only operate at maximum aperture.
8. Pixel peeping on Flickr is always a bad idea.

 

[Cholentpot]

I think you're missing the point.

1. AF does not do anything to a photo. If simply using AF caused such an issue, then Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc. would all be affected by it.
2. If AF caused such an issue, photographers the world over would be up in arms that they can't get sharp photos. As far as I know, that hasn't happened yet.
3. If AF is really faulty on whichever camera you're using, then manually focusing on should improve the focus accuracy. If it doesn't, it could be the lens that's not collimated, the focus screen not adjusted properly and so on. There are several points of failure that can cause improper focus.
4. Digital cameras have a tool with which to fix any focus errors per lens. You can adjust front or back focus as needed so that the camera and lens work together as best they can.
5. If you believe that buying a manual focus camera camera will fix your problems, you will be sorely disappointed. You'll miss focus by a smidge more than you can imagine.
6. There are plenty of exceptionally sharp, in-focus images from the F6 and plenty of less-than-in-focus unsharp photos from the M6. One camera is not sharper than another - it is the lens in front and the lens in the back (your eyes and brain). A cardboard box can produce a sharp image with a good lens.
7. E lenses are not compatible with the F6. They will only operate at maximum aperture.
8. Pixel peeping on Flickr is always a bad idea.

#8 is always a bad idea. Never mind flickr.

 

[piero2019]

Thanks Cramej,

I'll answer your points, but what are you suggesting I do then?

1. AF does not do anything to a photo. If simply using AF caused such an issue, then Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc. would all be affected by it.
2. We are talking about 30 year old cameras, where AF could have easily shifted, or in case of manual focus, some elements could go out of alignment.
   
3. 
   
4. If AF caused such an issue, photographers the world over would be up in arms that they can't get sharp photos. As far as I know, that hasn't happened yet.
5. Photographers are doing digital these days, and wars happen over cameras having 100+ cross type AF sensors
   
6. 
   
7. If AF is really faulty on whichever camera you're using, then manually focusing on should improve the focus accuracy. If it doesn't, it could be the lens that's not collimated, the focus screen not adjusted properly and so on. There are several points of failure that can cause improper focus.
8. I totally agree, that's why I'm planning on buying a camera and have it checked right away
9. 
   
10. Digital cameras have a tool with which to fix any focus errors per lens. You can adjust front or back focus as needed so that the camera and lens work together as best they can.
11. I am planning on doing film.
12. 
    
13. If you believe that buying a manual focus camera camera will fix your problems, you will be sorely disappointed. You'll miss focus by a smidge more than you can imagine.
    
14. This ir really interesting. How do I avoid that?
15. 
    
16. There are plenty of exceptionally sharp, in-focus images from the F6 and plenty of less-than-in-focus unsharp photos from the M6. One camera is not sharper than another - it is the lens in front and the lens in the back (your eyes and brain). A cardboard box can produce a sharp image with a good lens.
17. That's why I am planning on using sharp lenses.
    
    
18. 
    
19. E lenses are not compatible with the F6. They will only operate at maximum aperture.
20. It's a Nikon lens
    
21. https://www.nikon.fr/fr_FR/product/...ngle-focal-length/af-s-nikkor-105mm-f-1-4e-ed
22. 
    
23. Pixel peeping on Flickr is always a bad idea.
    I don't agree but you guys insist so I'll stop doing it.

I think you're missing the point.

1. AF does not do anything to a photo. If simply using AF caused such an issue, then Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc. would all be affected by it.
2. If AF caused such an issue, photographers the world over would be up in arms that they can't get sharp photos. As far as I know, that hasn't happened yet.
3. If AF is really faulty on whichever camera you're using, then manually focusing on should improve the focus accuracy. If it doesn't, it could be the lens that's not collimated, the focus screen not adjusted properly and so on. There are several points of failure that can cause improper focus.
4. Digital cameras have a tool with which to fix any focus errors per lens. You can adjust front or back focus as needed so that the camera and lens work together as best they can.
5. If you believe that buying a manual focus camera camera will fix your problems, you will be sorely disappointed. You'll miss focus by a smidge more than you can imagine.
6. There are plenty of exceptionally sharp, in-focus images from the F6 and plenty of less-than-in-focus unsharp photos from the M6. One camera is not sharper than another - it is the lens in front and the lens in the back (your eyes and brain). A cardboard box can produce a sharp image with a good lens.
7. E lenses are not compatible with the F6. They will only operate at maximum aperture.
8. Pixel peeping on Flickr is always a bad idea.

 

[LiamG]

E lenses are not compatible with the F6. They will only operate at maximum aperture.
It's a Nikon lens

https://www.nikon.fr/fr_FR/product/...ngle-focal-length/af-s-nikkor-105mm-f-1-4e-ed

Sometimes you have to learn lessons yourself I guess, so at least you're renting, and not buying. I think the advice being offered is coming with a lot of wisdom and knowledge, so I wish you good luck with your tests.

 

[piero2019]

Sometimes you have to learn lessons yourself I guess, so at least you're renting, and not buying. I think the advice being offered is coming with a lot of wisdom and knowledge, so I wish you good luck with your tests.

Well, thank you very much.

 

[cramej]

Thanks Cramej,

• AF does not do anything to a photo. If simply using AF caused such an issue, then Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc. would all be affected by it.

We are talking about 30 year old cameras, where AF could have easily shifted, or in case of manual focus, some elements could go out of alignment.

• If AF caused such an issue, photographers the world over would be up in arms that they can't get sharp photos. As far as I know, that hasn't happened yet.

Photographers are doing digital these days, and wars happen over cameras having 100+ cross type AF sensors
Right, and AF works just fine. Thus, not a systematic issue.

• If AF is really faulty on whichever camera you're using, then manually focusing on should improve the focus accuracy. If it doesn't, it could be the lens that's not collimated, the focus screen not adjusted properly and so on. There are several points of failure that can cause improper focus.

I totally agree, that's why I'm planning on buying a camera and have it checked right away
See the point below about buying a camera. Manually focus the lens on your current AF cameras to test it first.

• Digital cameras have a tool with which to fix any focus errors per lens. You can adjust front or back focus as needed so that the camera and lens work together as best they can.

I am planning on doing film.
My point here is just that different lenses and bodies can interact together differently. There is now a way on digital cameras to fix what was an issue in the past - even with manual focus cameras. For example, I had a Nikon 18-35 af lens that I used with my N80. I thought it was just an ok lens but a lot of other people seemed to think it was fantastic. I sold it because I didn't like using it and I thought it wasn't a sharp lens but other photos I see from it are better than what I was getting. Unfortunately, there is no way to correct this on the N80 except to use a different lens. Other lenses have worked great with it so it's not a flaw with the camera body. If we're talking rangefinders, it's far easier to bump a prism out of alignment than mess up an AF sensor. With the RF, there is no visual indication that focus is off, unless you're a whiz at judging distance and always check the distance scale on the lens.

• If you believe that buying a manual focus camera camera will fix your problems, you will be sorely disappointed. You'll miss focus by a smidge more than you can imagine.

This is really interesting. How do I avoid that?
Practice, for one. The more you use it, the better you get. Using a focusing screen that works for your eyes also helps. Sometimes, a microprism is good, other times it is a split image. I've yet to use a diagonal split image, but it seems like it would work better than a horizontal split image. If you wear glasses or contacts, or even just have vision other than 20/20, finding the correct value of diopter is important. I changed the diopter on my Mamiya AFD and it made a noticeable different in what I thought was in focus.

• There are plenty of exceptionally sharp, in-focus images from the F6 and plenty of less-than-in-focus unsharp photos from the M6. One camera is not sharper than another - it is the lens in front and the lens in the back (your eyes and brain). A cardboard box can produce a sharp image with a good lens.

That's why I am planning on using sharp lenses.
But to make a blanket statement in your opening post that AF Nikon cameras are somehow taking pictures that are less sharp than a Leica is simply incorrect.

• E lenses are not compatible with the F6. They will only operate at maximum aperture.

It's a Nikon lens
Yes, it is, but that's not all that matters...

• 
  
  
  • Pixel peeping on Flickr is always a bad idea.

I don't agree but you guys insist so I'll stop doing it.
It's really because there are so many variables in the process to get it from film to screen that you cannot rely on Flickr to judge lens sharpness, film color palette, film grain, ad infinitum. I could scan some old Portra 160nc, jack up the saturation and contrast and call it a day. You would think "Hey, that looks cool. I'm going to try some." In reality, you would wonder what you did wrong because it ends up looking the opposite - dull and flat.