Nikon autofocus (conspiracy) theory

[Cholentpot]

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

pentaxuser

I'll keep it going then...

The Emperor is Naked!

My Yashica Mat gives sharper images than any 35mm camera. So there!

35mm is a lo-fi format that was accepted and used because it was compact and easier to use than a press camera. The Leica was the fancy disposable camera of the day. Anything smaller than 120 film is going to be a lowfi format and you should all give me your Leica cameras and shoot 16mm/110 film, the true king of Lo-Fi.

As for autofocus. Why are we comparing Nikon? Canon makes the best auto focus lenses known to man.

 

[Cholentpot]

Did I stir the pot enough?

 

[piero2019]

Thanks for the funniest post thread I've read in over a decade on this forum...truly hilarious!

I am happy I made your life better, albeit for a short while.

 

[piero2019]

The king of low fi is Lomo actually.

I am aware that other formats provide more resolution than 135, but I like the esthetics of it.

Here I'm trying to maximize for resolution, without maximizing for money.

That's why I'm trying to find out whether my assumption is true - AF on Nikon leads to lower sharpness.

As far as yashica goes, it is my understanding that its bodies and its lenses are of general lesser quality than Nikon's. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll keep it going then...

The Emperor is Naked!

My Yashica Mat gives sharper images than any 35mm camera. So there!

35mm is a lo-fi format that was accepted and used because it was compact and easier to use than a press camera. The Leica was the fancy disposable camera of the day. Anything smaller than 120 film is going to be a lowfi format and you should all give me your Leica cameras and shoot 16mm/110 film, the true king of Lo-Fi.

As for autofocus. Why are we comparing Nikon? Canon makes the best auto focus lenses known to man.

I'll keep it going then...

The Emperor is Naked!

My Yashica Mat gives sharper images than any 35mm camera. So there!

35mm is a lo-fi format that was accepted and used because it was compact and easier to use than a press camera. The Leica was the fancy disposable camera of the day. Anything smaller than 120 film is going to be a lowfi format and you should all give me your Leica cameras and shoot 16mm/110 film, the true king of Lo-Fi.

As for autofocus. Why are we comparing Nikon? Canon makes the best auto focus lenses known to man.

 

[jeroenp]

Did you ask that Czech photographer? Is he using autofocus Nikons nowadays? Is his name Koudelka, by any chance?

 

[piero2019]

Did you ask that Czech photographer? Is he using autofocus Nikons nowadays? Is his name Koudelka, by any chance?

Yes that's totally him!

 

[pentaxuser]

Here I'm trying to maximize for resolution, without maximizing for money.

That's why I'm trying to find out whether my assumption is true - AF on Nikon leads to lower sharpness.

As far as yashica goes, it is my understanding that its bodies and its lenses are of general lesser quality than Nikon's. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If your aim is contained in the first two sentences above then you need to seek out as much factual, scientific evidence as you can. You need to facilitate a Socratic debate where your questions are more important than your assertions. Currently your quest for answers comes across to me as a series of challenges. The problem with challenges is that by their very nature they invite unproductive conflict which may be both bloody as well as exciting .

If you don't think you are doing this have a look at your bottom sentence above and ask yourself if this is seeking information or issuing a challenge

It really all depends on what you are trying to do. Personally I find there are attractions in a "cut and thrust" debate. It can be entertaining to the combatants and the audience but it probably isn't the best way to reach a reasoned conclusion

Lest we get too intense I leave you with the third verse of the song "I Wish You Love"
My breaking heart and I agree
That you and I could never be
So, with my best, my very best
I set you free

The one I like is the one sung by Rachael Yamagata. It has that resigned and sorrowful ambience of "it's a quarter to three and there no-one in the bar except you and me" embodied by Frank Sinatra

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Wow the original post is so dpreview circa 1998.

So Leica is better, eh? Like magical better or excellent better?

 

[Sirius Glass]

One cannot base any conclusions on photographs that were not taken in a scientific standardize method.

In all these decades, how come no articles are published in any photographic magazines, photographic journals, or photographic internet websites?

Since you have dug in your heels and have made up your mind, believe what you want.

So why am I bothering to respond? You will be so glad that you asked. Please send to me large Kilogram size samples of each of the drugs which you are on.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It is hard for me to address the implied nonsense of this thread, so I won't. But I needed to state this. Thank you.

 

[M-88]

One cannot base any conclusions on photographs that were not taken in a scientific standardize method.

I was kinda addressing this very issue in post #3 of this thread and I agree with everything you said in your post.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . Here I'm trying to maximize for resolution, without maximizing for money. . . .

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

 

[RalphLambrecht]

A few year ago I was talking to a fantastic Czech photographer who documented the Czech insurrection against the communist. He told me that at the time (1968) he had to work almost a year to afford a camera, which cost the equivalent of a few salaries.
I immediately assumed he had bought himself a Leica, but he told me he had a Nikon. I was very surprised, so I asked him "Why not a Leica". His answer was "at the time, they cost almost the same".
I found that bizarre to say the least. Being a Nikon user myself, and being very conscious of the evident lesser sharpness of Nikon cameras, I started inquiring into the thing.

My current setup is a Nikon F100 and a Nikon F80.

At first I thought it was the fact that I was using a cheap camera, the F80, so I switched to the F100 - same results.
Then I thought it was the lens, a 50mm f/1.4g. I rented a noticeably sharper lens, the 85mm f/1.4g - same results. At this point I was really not amazed - an F100 started selling at $2,160 (in today's dollars), an N/F80 sold for $700 (in todays dollars), so a $1,100 setup (F80 + 50mm) gave me the same result as a $3600 setup (F100 + 85mm)? How absurd is that?

Then people on this forum started telling me it's the technique, so I actually photographed a girl in summertime, full sunshine, with my F100, and the rented sharper lens, at 400 iso - same results. Not bad, but never Leica level.

All things being equal (in that analog cameras obviously cannot focus on-film, so slrs and rangefinders focus both indirectly on something which is on the film plane), what changes today (very important) between a nikon and a leica is the autofocus, and more specifically, the fact that a leica's rf system can be recalibrated, while a Nikon's can't (provided that is was not slightly off to start with, which i don't think it was - by design).

I am more and more convinced that, after introducing autofocus, Nikon cameras lost sharpness, and Nikon accepted that fact knowing that lowering the price of the cameras would make them sell more cameras. Even on top cameras like the F6, they accepted the loss, knowing that other features would make the camera sell anyway.

There is also some Occam's razor here: how could Leica be still in business with their manual cameras if Nikon had found the holy Graal, the autofocus? Leica knew that excellent autofocus was very difficult to obtain and wisely staid manual.

How much sharpness did they lose? Not much, but photography is about exactly that little amount that got lost, which makes a Leica setup go for 10k$+ and a Nikon setup go for 100$+.

Let's look at some images.

Leica here: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=leica m6&view_all=1&sort=interestingness-desc

With a Leica, a sharp photo like this is not an exception:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99399141@N03/49453293573/in/pool-50823336@N00/
Most Leica photos have a biting sharpness to them.

Nikon F6:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikonf6/pool/with/49002487511/

Close, but no cigar...the biting sharpness is just not there.

Now, something crazy: let's look at a pre-autofocus Nikon, the FM2:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikonfm2/pool/with/49550257902/
They are sharper than F6's.

Let's look at another pre-autofocus, the F3:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikonf3/pool/
Same story...

So, yes, Nikon AF cameras make perfectly acceptable photos - just visibly less sharp than Leica.

besides the point the sharpness is overrated, I never found my leg the images to be any sharper than my Nikon images.

 

[benveniste]

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.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I am a Nikon SLR user and a Leica rangefinder user.

I have owned and used Nikon F, F2, F3, F4, EM, N70, and N2000.

I have owned and used Leica M1 (not a rangefinder) and Leica M6.

I have never noticed an "evident lesser sharpness of Nikon cameras." Also, when the Nikon mirror lock-up feature is used, I have never noticed a significant difference in image quality between Nikon lenses and Leitz lenses.


Slightly telephoto lens test by Narsuitus, on Flickr

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?

 

[pentaxuser]

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."

.

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

 

[Arvee]

You might want to read pp. 38/39 of the F100 manual where it discusses Dynamic AF focus and the Closest Subject Priority feature which may not focus on the intended subject which would render the actual subject slightly off the focus point.

 

[90s Photog]

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.

 

[abruzzi]

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 essentially using autofocus on a non-autofocus lens. Since the AF system can’t drive the helicoid, you have to manually focus, but the phase-detect sensor can still sense when the object is in focus. This means a couple things—first, if your AF isn’t perfectly calibrated, it will be off to the same degree that an AF lens might be off. Related, but more important I think to a lot of people is that AF sensor is one step removed from the process. When I see a split image align it gives me a little more confidence because it is a physical property of the light, not a “black box” that I have to trust.*

* to be fair the focusing screen isn’t guaranteed to be accurate either due to mirror alignment or the position of the screen.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the explanation, abruzzi. It sounds like you are saying that if P645N's AF system is accurate then the manual focus green light will be as well i.e. provided that what I have said applies to the AF system then there is no reason why the split screen per se will be any better. Have I got this right?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[abruzzi]

I’ve never used a Pentax 645, but I have used Pentax 35mm AF cameras, and Pentax DSLRs, and they all have that hexagon, which is the in focus indicator, and yeah, it’s generally pretty accurate, so with a manual focus lens, it is as accurate as the AF system is.

 

[benveniste]

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

The "Green Signal" uses the same type of phase-detect sensors as on a camera like the F100 or N/F80, but it's a bit less sophisticated than the F100's AF system. The F100 gives me both an "in focus" dot and, if out of focus, a "hint" on which direction to focus. When I use manual focus lenses (45mm f/2.8, 135mm f/4 LS, 200mm f/4, 300mm f/4) on the 645n, I'm likely taking my time to focus, and I feel I can be a little more precise. The "Green Hex" works, and is more than OK for most subjects, but when trying to focus on a subject's eye I feel I get better results with the split-image.

 

[MattKing]

Here I'm trying to maximize for resolution, without maximizing for money.

That's why I'm trying to find out whether my assumption is true - AF on Nikon leads to lower sharpness.

Sharpness and resolution are two different things. There are many situations where a high resolution image has low apparent sharpness. There are also many situations where low resolution images have high apparent sharpness.
Two different lenses will often be designed to two different target characteristics. If those characteristics emphasize contrast the results will appear quite different than from a lens where the design characteristics emphasize resolution or tonality or little or no distortion.
What you are probably observing is a combination of different design philosophies and the almost overwhelming internet tendency for people to post results that mirror the results of others. And to a great extent, those internet posts are almost entirely the results of choices made in the scanning and post processing parts of the workflow.

 

[piero2019]

Thanks pentaxuser.

True, my tone can be challenging. I'll try to keep it down. I do want to be helped.

On the other hand, I do need to challenge answers that, to me, do not have merit. But I'll keep it down.

If your aim is contained in the first two sentences above then you need to seek out as much factual, scientific evidence as you can. You need to facilitate a Socratic debate where your questions are more important than your assertions. Currently your quest for answers comes across to me as a series of challenges. The problem with challenges is that by their very nature they invite unproductive conflict which may be both bloody as well as exciting .

If you don't think you are doing this have a look at your bottom sentence above and ask yourself if this is seeking information or issuing a challenge

It really all depends on what you are trying to do. Personally I find there are attractions in a "cut and thrust" debate. It can be entertaining to the combatants and the audience but it probably isn't the best way to reach a reasoned conclusion

Lest we get too intense I leave you with the third verse of the song "I Wish You Love"
My breaking heart and I agree
That you and I could never be
So, with my best, my very best
I set you free

The one I like is the one sung by Rachael Yamagata. It has that resigned and sorrowful ambience of "it's a quarter to three and there no-one in the bar except you and me" embodied by Frank Sinatra

pentaxuser

 

[piero2019]

True. I'll bring my film to a pro scanning service and check.
Thanks for the advice.

Sharpness and resolution are two different things. There are many situations where a high resolution image has low apparent sharpness. There are also many situations where low resolution images have high apparent sharpness.
Two different lenses will often be designed to two different target characteristics. If those characteristics emphasize contrast the results will appear quite different than from a lens where the design characteristics emphasize resolution or tonality or little or no distortion.
What you are probably observing is a combination of different design philosophies and the almost overwhelming internet tendency for people to post results that mirror the results of others. And to a great extent, those internet posts are almost entirely the results of choices made in the scanning and post processing parts of the workflow.