gardy
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 21
- Location
- Cheyenne Wy
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Thank you tons for all the help and info Derrel. the one thing that concerns me is how the slight back focus can translate at further distances. and the fact that with another camera on the same chart with same lens it was much more like one would expect from doing a test like this, i do realize it it just a simple check and cant be used as hard fact. I do attempt to make sure the entire area of the bracket and sometimes more is covered if possible, which is something I've always done, because well it just makes sense haha. but any how like i had said before i never really noticed a problem with focus inside of about 15 feet ish. i will continue to dig up the internet in search of some answers. in the mean time ill try to get some more hard data in the form of samples. I really do appreciate the help and the time you have given to helping me figure this out. if you have any ideas im all ears!Looking at the charts, I think this is within specification. Why do I say this??? Because the error at close range appears to be very,very slight back focus. At least at first glance. But...(there's always a but, isn't there?) I think we need to keep in mind that the AF brackets in the viewfinder are quite often NOT EXACTLY in accordance with the EXACT location where the AF system's sensor's actually take their information from...most ultra-critical testing will show that the ****exact*** area that an AF sensor's in-viewfinder scribed marks represents a very good approximation of the actual AF area--but not a totally accurate, ultra-precise indication of where the actual AF data is accepted from. In other words, in plain English, the AF marks in the viewfinder are not 100 percent accurate. In simple terms, the AF areas in the viewfinder are often not quite aligned with the bracket marks. And as a result, in really critical situations, there can easily be slight mis-focusing.
In these test...a 3/8 inch AF error toward back-focusing is pretty good...that could EASILY be attributable to a bracket/AF sensor mis-alignment, that results just from the sheer size of the AF bracket when it subtends a close-range target. At longer ranges, the AF brackets will, naturally, and inevitably, cover a wider and wider area of physical real estate. And as such, it makes it even more difficult to ***precisely*** lay the AF sensor's actual area right onto an ***exact*** target of smaller size. In other words, with say a moderate wide-angle, at 30 feet, the AF bracket might appear to be on a human's arm...buuuuuut...if the actual AF data is collected from say the LEFT EDGE of the outside AF bracket, what you think is the left arm might in actuality be...the house behind, some 10-12 feet back...
Anyway...I'm not saying this is what is going on in your situation, but the discrepancy in the AF bracket areas and where an AF system actually gets its data from is an issue that has been covered at length in many articles. Thom Hogan had some articles and posts years back on diagnosing AF problems, and the above points are ones he has made many times. I am only going in to this at this length because your test chart results make me think that the body is what Nikon would call "within specification" for function. And because you've presented some real,empirical evidence, and it deserves real commentary. From the above sample pics, I think with that lens,at close range, the AF system is doing relatively well.
-tim