Focus issue

[cadams]

I'm considering purchasing an S2 Pro, but concerned about the number of complaints on the forums about focus problems. I need to be reassured that there are people out there whose S2 focusing systems are functioning properly. Please participate in the poll, as well as relating your experiences both pro and con.

Thanks,
Chuck

[Wichita Wayne]

I have used the Nikon F-100 and the S2 and I am very pleased with both for autofocus. They are accurate and fast. The one thing that I have noticed is that I need to pick a point of focus and hold the camera button down to hold that focus point while I frame the shot. I know that the camera has the ability to stay with a subject through its multiple focus points but I had a little trouble using that feature at first. I also only use Nikon autofocus lenses, whether or not that makes any difference. I have a friend that uses Sigma lenses and he does not have any trouble either. There are also times when manual focus needs to be used. I like to use manual focus when I am shooting in really dim light or when shooting action shots. For action I often use manual focus and manual exposure so that I am in complete control, and there is not delay when I press the shutter release.

[bjnicholls]

The S2 is my fourth recent vintage Nikon body and the S2 works as well as my F100 and N80 which both have the 5-point AF system.

I think most of the AF problems reported are due to pilot error. Only the center cross type sensor will detect both vertical and horizontal edges and it's the sensor to use in low light and/or low contrast situations. The sensor postion isn't exactly within the AF rectangles in the viewfinder. It's rare that this is a real issue, but some people run tests without taking this into account.

Could the S2 have a problem with some cameras and AF that isn't being seen on the vastly greater number of N/F80 bodies out there? Perhaps. It's hard to know what the manufacturing of a Frankencamera - Nikon body, Fuji imaging - does to the odds of any particular problem. I can say that you can buy an S2 and have it focus without problems based on my sample of one.

I'd certainly test the AF on a new S2 first thing and return the camera if it didn't check out. Just be sure you understand how to use the AF system if you aren't familiar with it.

[lightwrangler]

I find the auto focus on the S2 exceeds that of the F90 I also use. It also seems to be more accuate than the auto focus in the Oly E10. That being said, I find that there is a difference with different lenses. I recently noticed that the older Nikons seem a bit slower to focus, while the newer ones are faster. But this also changes with the relative focal lengths and the amount of physical travel that the lens has. Lens manufacture makes a difference too. My Tamron 90mm can be a ***** on auto focus when shooting macro, but seems fine a regular operating distances. Because is it hard to see the focus on wide angle shots, the Sigma 17-35mm I use can be difficult without autofocus.

All in all I find the auto focus trust worthy, but one has to look at where the camera is focusing and make up your own mind. Most of the time it works well, but sometimes it makes a mistake. The little green dot in the viewfinder is a useful check, that I think some people should make more use of. I have heard of people complaining about auto focus, when they are in situations where no auto focus system could produce images with 100% accuracy.

Bottom line: as good (and bad) as the competition. For manual focus, a better or brighter focusing screen might help. (Are you listening Fuji? Nikon?)

[teski]

I've had my S2 since August and have had no problems with the focusing. It's a great cam, and you won't be sorry.

Teski

[Roadking8]

I have completed almost 700 shots. I have tried every combination of shooting situation I can think of using AF, Manual, A, P, Dynamic focus, post-processing, you name it. I even pushed the shot to try for increased depth of focus. I have yet to get sharp focus. An upper body shot has the nose in soft focus and the eyes near the point of tossing the shot. I would be nice to say the focus is "soft". I know that my lense is achieving an even "focus" because the center depth (focal point) is the sharpest and the background/foreground go to blur evenly. But the center is just not sharp. I test images at 200% but even at 100% the focus is off. And I have yet to achieve any real improved depth of focus. I am using the Nikon AF-S 35-70mm F/2.8 but will try a 17-35mm today. If the focus for the two lenses at the same focal length are the same poor quality, this body is going back. I'd have to conclude that either the CCD does not produce enough resolution for me, or the CCD is not positioned properly at the focal plane. From my astrophotography days, I realize how the thickness of different films and the addition of a filter can shift the focus. I will post my results as I realize them.

Road

[memobug]

Sure you may have a bad camera, but you also appear to have a lot of variables.

Try tacking a sheet of newsprint to the wall and shooting that. I don't know how an unsharpened raw shot at 100% could ever be sharp, let alone 200%.

Regards,

Matt

[Roadking8]

Introducing conversion software would be one more variable. I chose not to do that. I shot, viewed and analyzed JPEG for a reason. Yes I had many variables. And I isolated and tested them all separately. That's the beauty of controlled experiments. After that, all I had left was to test the lens. I did that today side-by-side for 16 shots and the lens is not the problem. I sent the camera back and it will be compared to another S2. If both are the same focus, I can't use either and will wait for next generations. My Kodak DC260 has less resolution and less control...but overall better focused pictures. Photo editing is an art I have been learning since Photoshop first went on the market. But I would never consider photo editing when trying to evaulate the quality of a camera. I would use it, however, when trying to sell the picture to the customer. Right now, I wouldn't try to sell the images that were captured with that S2 body. Hopefully a replacement will be better.

Road

[tombrayne]

I also have focus issues with the S2. Have been using it primarily for tabletops with a 60 MicroNikkor, RAW mode, manual exposure. The files knocked me flat. Just prior to the expiration of the double rebates, I bought 17-35AFS and 28-70AFS Nikkor zooms. Quick tests showed accurate focus for both at longest length, but substantial front focusing at the wide end of both. A more controlled test - tripod mounted, ISO 100, 250th@ 5.6 confirmed this. Focusing on a TV tower 300 - 400 yards away, both lenses are dead sharp when focused at the long end, locked focus & zoomed back -- AF'd at wide revealed focusing distance of about 10ft. Just for giggles, I ran the same tests with 2 F5's and -- no difference in focusing distance at either end of the zoom range -- both spot on. For the moment I can work around, as I am now of course busy with jobs coming in -- BUT!!!. My initial results with the 60 so floored me that I find it hard to express my disappointment with the wide zooms. Fuji has authorized a return for inspection, with which I'll include a CD of the 12mb jpegs. I'll just hope that there is a problem with this particular body and that a trip to Fuji and repair or replacement will correct this little bete noir.

Tom Brayne

[Roadking8]

Interesting tests, Tom. Let me get a clarification so I can think more about it. I understand in the tower test that you zoomed, locked focus, set to widest, and shot. For this, the focus was accurate. It's the second shot I need to understand. Are you saying in this shot you aimed at the tower using widest zoom, let AF do it's thing and when you analyzed the pic, it was actually only sharp focused at only 10'? If this is the case, what did the tower look like? Was it close to focus? Way off? Were you using dynamic or spot focusing?

I'd also like to throw in the idea about the focus area. If we set the S2 for dynamic focus, it can consider a larger area. If there are several objects in that focus field, the camera may pick any one of them. The shot could be off. But if we choose a single focus area (whether in the little box or outside of it), then you should be able to achieve focus whether zoomed or wide. This is why I think it is pointless to pursue lenses (in my case) any more. I have shot at both ends and thru the middle with two high-end lenses. In your case, if you duplicated the shots with an F5, then it is your camera too. Mine is back at the dealer (overnight) and they are testing. Expect results asap and will post.

Road

[bjnicholls]

http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/Jupiter-bell.jpg

80-400 VR handheld, S2 from raw file


http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/bell-detail.jpg

Actual pixel detail


http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/Jupiter-engineer-2.jpg

18-24 Nikkor, S2, tripod, from raw file


http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/Engineer-detail.jpg

Actual pixel detail


http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/George.jpg

60mm Micro-Nikkor, S2, tripod, raw file


http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/George-eye.jpg

Actual pixel detail




Images were sharpened in Photoshop since sharpening is mandatory for raw file details.

[Roadking8]

bjnicholls...thanks for images. I can't totally evaulate because post-processing sharpening was introduced. But if all were done equally, I see a big difference in the last shot. The focus is soft for the others although not as bad as mine was. The first two look reasonable at full frame but actual pixels show no areas in sharp focus. The last shot is much sharper at actual pixel.

Interesting note about the last image and the lens you used. Isn't this the same lens that tombrayne cited as being a killer lens? If I got that image from the lenses I tried, I would be very satisfied. Otherwise, actual pixels in yours confirms what I saw in mine. So what is it that works for the 60mm but not for the others? Is it a matter of using prime focus lenses? Is it a focal limit issue? Remember. Tom got excellant results from his 60mm but not from his others. Yet the others worked fine on an F5. This is what makes forums like this great.

Road

[teski]

I totally disagree with judging sharpness by looking at a pic on a 72DPI monitor at 100%. Most every pic will look soft at that point. If you really want to judge the pics, print them out and see what you think. I'll bet all of bjnicholls' pics would look great printed out. Actual pixel view on the monitor is not the way to go.

Teski

[Roadking8]

I did print them. I saw it on my monitir and I saw it on the prints. And sharpening is a totally different matter than focus. You can not focus an image by applying sharpening. You can make it look better...but you will never make up for poor focus by sharpening. Regarding file format, I shot all my tests using un-processed JPEG with the camera on STD-STD-STD to COMPARE the images (not sell them). To view a RAW image in PS required me to convert it and I didn't want my converter to change it any more. I think the info. and photos supplied have been very helpful to me. Coupled with my 700 test shots, I have drawn stronger conclusions. Thanks to all.

Road

[Roadking8]

This will probably be my final post on this subject but I just wanted to include...print at what SIZE? Agreed that the print should be the final judgement. Agreed that bjnicholls' images would look great printed. But apples are apples...not grapes. A 50%, 100% 200% monitor view, if carefully color calibrated, can be very helpful in evaluating and adjusting an image. But since the print may be the final destination, you have to consider the SIZE print. A 5x 7 will not look the same in 8 x 10 ...or 59" x 36". And a 59" x 36" doesn't look the same from 1 foot away as it does from 30 feet. So to avoid all of that I used 200% monitor view and 200% equivalent print to based my conclusions. Just food for thought. I end here.

Road

[tombrayne]

Roadking8 -

Tower tests were shot with single area AF, AF-S focus mode (focus priority), closest object focus priority - both off. Both lenses AF at widest, very noticeably soft - i.e. not acceptable to a client or myself. As I mentioned, I can work around for the moment -- focus at max length, switch to manual focus, zoom to recompose. Not a big deal as I use the camera in situations where it is tripod mounted, the scene is lit and I am in control (more or less) of the subject. I think of the S2 as a replacement for Hasselblad/Provia100 in a Corporate/Annual Report environment for clients that demand digital capture. I can make it work, but the camera should AF correctly out of the box -- and for tabletop it sure is easier, quicker and cheaper than breaking out the 4X5 Sinar.

Tom Brayne

[Roadking8]

Tom et al. I returned my S2 to the dealer and they have been the best. They tested mine against a new one. The focus results were the same. My conclusion? The S2 is an excellant, fancy point and shoot. The technology is just not there yet (for me). As it was suggested, I think the camera is quite suitable for less-critical applications and can make money for you. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But some have seen more beauty than others.

Road

[bjnicholls]

What can I say. I print these images at 12x18 with superb sharpness that impresses very discriminating photographers.

Compared to scans from film, these images are much more detailed pixel for pixel. The detail you see in the actual pixel images would be a pointillist rendering of grain and dye clouds.

Good luck finding a camera and lenses that will deliver whatever it is you're expecting at actual pixel resolution. Be sure to show us examples from that magical camera.

[Roadking8]

The magical camera was a fully manual Nikon that ran without batteries. The film was Kodak tech pan 2415 (tightest grain film ever made) hydrogen hypered to boost the asa from 100 asa to approx. 4000 asa without affecting the garin or red sensitivity. The shots were made thru an H-alpha (very deep red filter) and the lense was minimum 300mm F/2.8 or larger aperture. The other lense was a 12.5" f/4.8. The exposures were 60-90 minutes long each. I used one of the first CCD's ever made as an auxillary tracking device for atmospheric scintillation while the exposure going.I was able to nap thru the exposure it worked so well. The focus could not be achieved thru the lens because the filter (a high pressure sodium/mercury vapor light blocker) was so dark, you could not see anything visually. The critical focus was only realized mechanically. The resulting star images were round and the size of the grain of the film at the edges of the negatives. In other words...as Kodak told us..."it CAN'T get any better than that."I have 1000's of these deep space shots. You can see them in back issues of CCD Astronomy and Sky & Telescope Magazine. One is in an ad on the inside front cover. Your shots are OK and I really like the subjects. You have just shown them to one more seasoned photographer. Not a portrait photographer...but one who knows just a bit about resolution and critical focus. I say the S2 is soft at best. But I hope I answered your magical camera question.

Road

[Joe Peoples]

I shot a party last weekend and 1 out of 812 images was out of focus; but I wish THAT one was sharp! While people are dancing, I often get in the middle of the crowd, raise the camera high overhead, point down, quickly get a focus, and shoot. My aperture is usually f6.7, and I'm tack sharp. One thing I notice is that if the juice in the batteries is waning, the camera becomes sluggish; this might affect focus abilities.

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Joe Peoples
I shot a party last weekend and 1 out of 812 images was out of focus; but I wish THAT one was sharp! While people are dancing, I often get in the middle of the crowd, raise the camera high overhead, point down, quickly get a focus, and shoot. My aperture is usually f6.7, and I'm tack sharp. One thing I notice is that if the juice in the batteries is waning, the camera becomes sluggish; this might affect focus abilities.

Battery voltage is fairly important with the auto focus. When the battery voltage drops, the autofocus will slow. This shouldn't be much of a problem if using the CR123's since they are lithium and the voltage is fairly stable throughout the life of the battery, but I have noticed some oddities with the autofocus when the 123's are almost gone. Too bad the S2 has such a lame battery meter. I would monitor your battery usage by how many shots and how much you use the flash as well as other factors and develop a "Feel" for when you should change the batteries out when doing "once in a lifetime" deals. If you're doing studio work, that's different. Shoot until the camera turns off. Live action stuff, I would change them out when I "feel" they should.

[bjnicholls]

Comparing apples to oranges is sometimes entertaining, but not always very informative.

My baseline for comparison isn't fine grain black and white film viewed first generation on the emulsion. If that's your yardstick, the S2 won't deliver.

I shoot color transparencies and print from high res scans. My baseline here is Fuji Velvia scanned at 4000 ppi and printed at up to 13" wide, up to 44" long with panoramas. I have yet to see an print represented with accuracy in a web jpeg file, so none of my examples can be judged as a printed image here.

Here's a comparison of two images that I didn't set up to be equivalents, but which do show something of the effective capability of an S2 raw conversion compared to one of my scans from Velvia:

http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/throneS2.jpg
Great White Throne, Zion National Park, S2 raw conversion

http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/thronexpan.jpg
Vertical panorama shot with Hasselblad Xpan on Velvia, scanned at 4000ppi

http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/scan-S2-compare.jpg


There are many variables that don't make this a great study of comparative image quality, but this is quite demonstrative of what I'm seeing while working with digital captures vs. scans from film.

First, the S2 color is better. This shouldn't be a suprise since the direct capture is made at high bit depth directly from the scene. With film, the color rendition is limited to the film's dye color gamut and that is further compromised by scanning. These two photos were made in the rain with near-sunset light filtering though dense clouds. The S2 image is very close to perception at the time the photos were made. The Velvia image is not. I'd suspect some problem with processing, but there are other images on the roll that look as accurate as Velvia can be, so the difference is the Fuji's white balance vs. Velvia's color sensitivity (and perhaps some reciprocity failure).

Then compare the detail, contrast and apparent sharpness. The Xpan 45mm lens stopped down to f/8 is one of the sharpest I've ever used. The S2 image was shot with the more pedestrian 24-85 2.8 Nikkor at f/8, 1.5 seconds. The S2 image doesn't have quite the magnification/crop that the Xpan image has. With comparable original crops, I would need to scale the S2 image (12 megapixels interpolated from raw) only 133% to get parity with the higher resolution scan of the Velvia photo.

Even with the 177% scaling of this S2 image detail, the image holds up very well to the Xpan scan. In the branches of the trees, you can see that the Xpan scan has a little more detail. However, the S2 image has more color detail and it holds the tonality of the image better than the Velvia film did. You can see a diagonal artifact of "track noise" in the S2 detail, my main complaint with the camera. Printed at 13" wide, S2 images have superior smootness, especially in the sky that has visible grain from the Velvia scan. Although the detail is more on par with Velvia, the smooth tones look like they came from a medium format scan.

I was frankly not expecting performance this good from the S2. I didn't buy it to replace film, just to expand my digital capture capability. I still shoot film, but for other reasons besides image quality. This discussion is about the focusing, sharpness and detail from S2 images. Battery issues and the like are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Wichita Wayne]

This is really a good test when taken in context. I does show the power of the S2 against a top performing film and camera. Since the Xpan is made by Fuji I always wondered why they didn't frankenstein it into a top of the line digital rangefinder. It would be nice to be able to sync my flash at high shutterspeeds.

[bjnicholls]

I'd love an Xpan digital, but I think we'd be talking some serious cash for a 24x65 sensor. Someday...

[memobug]

Great samples BJ,

Isn't that XPAN a rangefinder? I guess that would make both cameras "Point & Shoot"s

;)

Regards,

Matt

[Roadking8]

I do appreciate the case studies. I do appreciate digital. I never compared film with digital. But I do know about high resolution and critical focusing. That was my only point. I am telling you my S2 will not focus properly. And today, the area where you grip the right side...when you hold camera in one just one hand, the battery compartment (i guess) gets flexed and the lithums show momentary half-exhaustion (flickers) and the power shuts off. Batteries are new and tested strong. I really am glad you like your S2 so much and glad you ( and others) are having good luck. I hope this continues.

But the man asked for a focus vote and I voted. Of course sometimes you vote (in Florida), and it doesn't get counted. HA. I think I HAVE to be an ex S2 owner next week. I am not sure of an alternative yet. Again, I regret this for me but very happy for you.

Road

[bjnicholls]

It does sound like your S2 has at least a battery compartment problem. I use a one-hand grip all the time and haven't had the power interruption. I'm not sure what to say about the focus issue with your camera. I'm thinking it's probably not the particular camera since you judged my example details to be unsharp. You shouldn't stick with a tool you don't have confidence using.

Perhaps the 1Ds would meet your favor. Check in on the latest gauntlet thrown down by Michael Reichmann:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

[cadams]

WOW! What a great response. Thank you all for your input. I have decided to forge ahead and the S2 is on its way. Soon enough, I'll have first hand knowledge of whether this camera will meet my needs. At the end of the day, that's the poll that really matters, right?:)

This site truly is a wonderful resource. Again, thanks to all of you for taking time to express an opinion.

[Chris G]

My first S2 has been sent back. In addition to being on the recall list I believe it had focus problems. The following shot was taken with a Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF at 200mm f2.8 1/750, No post processing other than to resize. STD, STD, STD, Fine Jpeg. AF-S focusing, locked on center focus area, No Dynamic, CSP disabled both CSM 7 & 8. Focus box was placed on center of bird feeder, which more than filled the focus box. Bird feeder was approximately 70-90 feet away. The trees surrounding it are 3-6 feet away in any direction (had to trim them away to keep the squirels out!). Nothing "soft" about it. Out of focus for sure. I have tried at least 4 other lenses, all with different, but similar results.

http://www.pbase.com/image/11515545/large

[Wichita Wayne]

I do not mean to insult your intelllegence but sometimes what may be obvious to one is not to the other. But how do you have your focus mode set, single (S) or dynamic (C)? And where do you have the focus point set, center or one of the outside focus points? I have had this trouble with my F-100 set on dynamic (C). So I only use dynamic when I have a large moving subject in the frame. For example a bride and groom dancing. As a result I use single (S) mode for general work and focus on the desired point and hold the shutter button down to hold the focus while I frame and shoot. I never had this problem with the S2 becuase I set the focus mode the same way that I set my F-100.

[Swampy]

I think there's something more serious wrong with the camera. If you take a more detailed look, especially outward from the sides of the birdhouse, you'll notice some horizontal bands that make me think it's a processing problem. I've taken the moire out of the picture and sharpened it a little, but you can see it in the original. See if you can see it in this snippet from the right side of the bird house:

[bjnicholls]

The large version of the image is only 1024 x 712 pixels, so I assume this has been downsampled and resaved with higher jpeg compression.

To me, the focus looks like it's on the fine branches behind the birdhouse. An error in the focusing automation or an AF sensor far out of position, likely due to the camera based on the shot description. I would assume that Chris tried (and presumably succeeded) manually focusing to check the AF performance against the where sharpness can be seen in the viewfinder.

This is a different concern than the contention that the S2 can't deliver sharp focus at any point with any lens.

[Swampy]

Originally posted by bjnicholls
The large version of the image is only 1024 x 712 pixels, so I assume this has been downsampled and resaved with higher jpeg compression.

His website is kinda strange. Click on the original, which shows 1024x712 and when it loads, click on the picture itself and it will take you back to a thumbnail view with that picture a few over from the right. Click on that picture again to get the full size original with exif info intact even. That's where I pulled the crop above from.

[Chris G]

Wayne, by stating AF-S in my post I was refering to single (S). Also, the focus point was the center. To date, I have never had an occasion to use anything else, so it stayes locked there. I am keeping the settings as basic as I can until I can figure out where the problem is here.

Originally posted by Wayne
I do not mean to insult your intelllegence but sometimes what may be obvious to one is not to the other. But how do you have your focus mode set, single (S) or dynamic (C)? And where do you have the focus point set, center or one of the outside focus points? I have had this trouble with my F-100 set on dynamic (C). So I only use dynamic when I have a large moving subject in the frame. For example a bride and groom dancing. As a result I use single (S) mode for general work and focus on the desired point and hold the shutter button down to hold the focus while I frame and shoot. I never had this problem with the S2 becuase I set the focus mode the same way that I set my F-100.

[Chris G]

My apologies. My link did direct you to a resampled version of the photo to save download time. I do have more than one version on pbase swampy101, that's why you are seeing two different thumnails. If you have the time, poke around a bit and you may get a feel for how long I have been trying to sort this out.

I have an entire gallery set up with some photos depicting my focus trouble. A link to page two is here:

http://www.pbase.com/cj_michigan/fuji_s2_focus_issues&page=2

The original unaltered version of this picture is labeled "DSCF1881-200.jpg"

A direct link to the original is here:

http://www.pbase.com/image/11512208

You have the choice of viewing small, medium, large, or original. Selection is made just under the exif data.

bjnicholls: The Autofocus has always been sharp in the viewfinder (from what you can tell given the limited viewfinder size).

I will try to attach a crop similar to swampy101 of the original below:

[Chris G]

My crop didn't show up. Maybe it's because I hit preview before I posted. I am using the "attach file". Is this the right way to embed a photo in the post? I'll try again:

[Chris G]

I'm not sure if this is the same problem swampy101 was talking about, but I know that this CCD does have this "line" problem that is currently being discussed over on dpreview. At high ISO, warm lighting, if you alter the colors in PS (I had to improvise because I only have PS elements) the lines will become more prominent. Below isn't the best example but it shows the problem. It is a crop of the actual pixels - no resizing:

[Edit: I am refering to the blue lines in the shirts. The darker lines are bleachers]

[Wichita Wayne]

Originally posted by Chris G
Wayne, by stating AF-S in my post I was refering to single (S). Also, the focus point was the center. To date, I have never had an occasion to use anything else, so it stayes locked there. I am keeping the settings as basic as I can until I can figure out where the problem is here.

It was just a thought. Sometimes the obvious can be invisable. and looking at Swampy's post makes it sounds as if you may truely have a problem that needs adjustment by Fuji. Bummer. I will be glad when I have as many digital SLRs as I do Hasselblads. Then repairs won't be so limiting.

[Chris G]

And thank you for the suggestion Wayne. I know what you mean about the obvious. I tend to shoot at ISO 1600 most of the time but at a recent swim meet after many shots I moved to another area where I could use a flash. I switched it to ISO100 and then someone asked me about my camera. Me, trying to sound all professional and all, showed him all the neat features. I went to take a shot and it wouldn't fire. I cursed the batteries and replaced them. Still, nothing. Arrgggh! After he left I finally discovered that I still had the dial set to "ISO". I am embarassed to say how many times I have done that. :o

[bjnicholls]

http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/chrisfocus.jpg

It looks to me like the actual focus point is somewhere closer to this tree behind the bird feeder. Also note the double image in the background, this suggests quite a bit of movement if the shutter speed is 1/750 second. You should use a tripod and remove vibration as a variable for this kind of testing.

With this long lens wide open at 200 mm, the depth of field will be very shallow. If the AF sensor location was off you'd never get focus where you intended it. The sensor locations are not precisely aligned with the display rectangles on any of the 5 point focusing Nikons. The sensor points are usually a little lower than the rectangles indicate, and they are smaller than the indicated area.

You could determine where the sensor actually is by setting up a shot along a wooden fence or a brick wall on a bright day. With the lens wide open, next to and looking down the wall. Find a good focus distance and note the actual plane of focus (manually). Have an assitant mark the spot. Then turn on the AF, point the sensor at the spot and see if the focus point is ahead of or behind (behind would be my guess from your examples) of the rectangle indicator. You could figure out the actual position of the AF point by determining what spot in the viewfinder has to be centered at the marked spot to bring that spot into focus.

If the AF point is misaligned, get a repair or replacement.

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Chris G
I'm not sure if this is the same problem swampy101 was talking about, but I know that this CCD does have this "line" problem that is currently being discussed over on dpreview.

Maybe this will help everyone see the lines. This is strange, taking your original full picture and enlarging it to 800%, here's a piece of it. I've see blocks in super enlarged (past actual pixel), but blocks WITHIN blocks?

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Chris G
After he left I finally discovered that I still had the dial set to "ISO". I am embarassed to say how many times I have done that. :o

Sorry Chris, I'll have to chuckle, not at you, but with you. I often use the timer set to 2 seconds on a tripod when I don't have a cable release handy, and sometimes I forget I left it set there. The next time I go to shoot, I'm like click click click...Snap! And I think to myself, what the heck is up?! :)

[Chris G]

Originally posted by bjnicholls


It looks to me like the actual focus point is somewhere closer to this tree behind the bird feeder. Also note the double image in the background, this suggests quite a bit of movement if the shutter speed is 1/750 second. You should use a tripod and remove vibration as a variable for this kind of testing.

........ The sensor points are usually a little lower than the rectangles indicate, and they are smaller than the indicated area.



Now I am getting quite baffled. I definitely used a tripod and a cable release to boot for these.

I have heard that about the A/F sensor points. I purposely put the box towards the upper end of the bird feeder so that the bird feeder was more than filled the box, with at least one box height to spare underneath. In other words, if the actual focus area was completely underneath what was in the viewfinder, it would still be on the birdfeeder and not the background.

[Chris G]

Swampy101, I'm not sure what you mean about "blocks within blocks".

I can picture myself (no pun intended!) doing the very same thing with the self timer. :)

[Chris G]

Also, the birdfeeder was at least 70 feet away which should have given me a DOF of about 2 feet front and back. I know percentage-wise it doesn't seem like much, but I would certainly hope that the AF on the S2 it at least that accurate. It's at Fuji now, so hopefully I'll be posting the same picture, but in focus in a few days (they need a smiley with praying hands!)

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Chris G
Swampy101, I'm not sure what you mean about "blocks within blocks".

Ok, try this one... On the left side, a crop of a picture from my S2 blown up to 800%. On the left, a crop of yours blown up to 800%.

See how yours has larger blocks containing 64 blocks (8 rows of 8 pixels really)? Where the crop from my picture is evenly spread out...

Maybe someone else can explain it better than I, or, maybe I'm just seeing the blocks in blocks on my system :P

Bryan

Oopps, see image below. Can't believe I can't delete my own post or even add an image in the edit! :(

[Swampy]

Here:

[Chris G]

Thanks swampy101. Yes I see exactly what you are talking about now. I didn't realize how unusual my result was until you posted yours as well. I don't tend to look at them that close, so I assumed that mine was typical at that magnification. I'm now going to look at others as well at 800%.

[Chris G]

Swampy101, what method did you use to get a copy of my original? Right click and "save file as"? If so, wsa your only option a .bmp file? That's the only way I could do it from this end.

I examined my original and it doesn't have the blocks as you show. I did the "save as" .bmp from my pbase galley and then examined that one. It looks as you described, with the blocks within blocks. Must be in the translation from .jpg to .bmp. Or, when I uploaded the original to pbase, they somehow manipulated the file.

[Swampy]

I went to your main page and clicked on the full size picture, then right clicked and saved as. It saved it as 11512208.DSCF1881200.jpg not a BMP. Strange. Don't know why the difference.

Anyone else care to take a stab?

[Chris G]

Odd indeed. I've been able to "saveas" .jpg on other sites. Maybe it has to do with our browsers or operating system. I use Windows 2000 and Internet Explorer V6.0.

The .jpg file that you end up saving, how large is the file size? My original is 4,540 KB.

[Swampy]

Strange again. If I go to other sites and save the pictures (right click-save as), I get the full picture. Yours came out to the full resolution with EXIF info, but 740k!

I'm using win2k Sp3 with IE6 Sp1.

Your original is 4 megs, but what if you go to your own site and right click on your picture and save it? Is there some way I can get a copy of the "original" 4 meg pic?

[Chris G]

My IE settings must have gotten screwed up or something. If I use Netscape I can "save picture as" a .jpg, but it is only 740K like yours. I am going to try and upload it one more time to pbase and check the size again. If it stays the same, I could email it to the address listed in your swamp. It just gets under my 5MB limit.

[Chris G]

Ok, I think the "original" original is up there now. You shold get a 4.3MB or so image here:

http://www.pbase.com/image/11760852/original

[Swampy]

Ok, looked at the "full" image again and I don't see the blocks anymore. I just can't get over how much magenta flare there is on a lot of the images. Also that it looks like the picture was hand held at slow shutterspeed, which I know you said you had it on a tripod with a cable release.

I guess we'll have to see what it does when you get it back from the shop.

[robinp]

Odd indeed. I've been able to "saveas" .jpg on other sites. Maybe it has to do with our browsers or operating system. I use Windows 2000 and Internet Explorer V6.0.


For several weeks IE6 would only let me save .jpg's as bitmaps but now its back to normal - something to do with Windows Update patches?

Cheers, Robin

[snapshot]

Has anyone actually had consistant tack sharp focusing with any auto-focus camera / lens set up?

I have only been doing digital photography for only 5 years, using mostly Nikon cameras at work and my own S2. I have not found one tack sharp photo as compared to using manual focused cameras/lenses. Generally they look good, but slightly enlarged you can see that it's a bit soft. Thankfully, there is USM.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong who knows, but I certainly would not switch back to film.

[JPS]

Has anyone actually had consistant tack sharp focusing with any auto-focus camera / lens set up?

I have only been doing digital photography for only 5 years, using mostly Nikon cameras at work and my own S2. I have not found one tack sharp photo as compared to using manual focused cameras/lenses. Generally they look good, but slightly enlarged you can see that it's a bit soft. Thankfully, there is USM.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong who knows, but I certainly would not switch back to film.Well, it's a known fact that, EVERY digital pic (out of a DSLR) must go thru some post-process to reach it's best ! Else, the simplest Point & Shoot are allready "in-camera treated" and don't need as much PP !

My 2 cents,
J-P.

[Steve Wynn]

I have three S2s and they all are dead on when i tcomes to focusing.

Steve

[snapshot]

Steve,

You mean to say that you don't have to do any post-processing at all?

You must be real lucky to have camera / lens combinations that work spot-on with all three cameras. Is there anything you do with the cameras, that most of us don't do, to get the spot-on sharpness?

[JPS]

...........Is there anything you do with the cameras, that most of us don't do, to get the spot-on sharpness?Sorry to interrupt, but Steve didn't write ANYTHING about "sharpness" ! He only stated that his cameras were FOCUSSING dead-on !

The fact that a camera doesn't "front-focus" nor "back-focus" has nothing to do with the "out-of-the-box" sharpness of the image ! See my previous post !

:)
J-P.