[Closed] Lens and sharpness question (camera content)

Are you shooting at different apertures? Most lenses tend to be a bit sharper in the middle of the f range, I find - my f1.8 Nikon is sharper at f8 than it is at f1.8...

Lenses generally perform at their best around f8-f11 - that's presuming you're using an SLR.
[i]If[/i] you're also using the SLR on 'auto' the the camera will likely be working at those sorts of apertures as you say you're shooing in bright sunlight.
Also - bright sunlight = high contrast which also 'lens' an air of sharpness to a picture.
Indoors / low light typically means less contrast = shots can look 'softer' but that is not to say they are not as sharp as photo's taken in bright sun...

Not a lot of difference between wide open and middle by all accounts on this particular lens. The difference though is dramatic.

Have you looked at [url= http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lens-with-Camera/Lens-rankings ]your lens on DxOMark[/url] - that should give you an idea of where it is sharpest.

Also high contrast can often make images look sharp, as can having "true" black.

DxO just told me all my kit is rubbish...

What sort of shutter speeds are we talking about indoors??

I would have thought that for the same settings apart from shutter speed, the image would be just as sharp indoors as it is outdoors - assuming you're not wobbling the camera about.

Have you tried sticking it on a tripod indoors, if you really want to investigate it?

Contrast and sharpness look pretty much the same. I suspect you're just seeing contrast.

Not a lot of difference between wide open and middle by all accounts on this particular lens

DxO just told me all my kit is rubbish...

That'll be the problem then 🙂

1/30 indoors, IS body.

I'd be trying this with a tripod, but I am in two minds about buying one 🙂

As a couple of us have mentioned above - it sounds like it's the quality of light that giving you that look of 'extra' (for want of a better word) sharpness...

Nods.. that's kind of what I had been thinking actually. Some other sort of effect rather than actual optics. Just zoomed in on a sunny image (admittedly a high contrast subject) and was blown away by the sharpness.

Also, come to think of it - I have previously checked out the reviews of my camera on DP review and cannot approach the quality of their studio test image when mucking about with mine. However they are using a tripod and presumably a well lit studio...

DXO scales are logarithmic. So I wouldn't worry too much about your kit not being the best.

So I wouldn't worry too much about your kit not being the best.

Nah, that was tongue in cheek really 😉 My strategy is to buy the cheapest stuff that is good enough then get out and use it. I'd rather have four or five different low end lenses than one really expensive standard zoom.

+1 most of what you're seeing is contrast

A shorter exposure reduces blur, a smaller aperture increases depth of field so more of the picture is in focus.

And sunshine makes us happy.

At a guess the camera is able to use smaller apertures in daylight, thus the depth of field is being increased as a result.
Lower light will mean the camera will select larger apertures, thus reducing the depth of field.

Smaller aperture = sharper image, unless you have some sort of amazing lens.

This is because it's difficult/impossible to avoid spatial and chromatic abberations towards the edge of a lens (they are still present in the centre of the lens but to a smaller extent).

The same effect can be seen with your own eyesight - brighter light = smaller pupil = better focus, because your cornea and lens are only spherical near the centre (this effect is most noticeable if you have a small -ive prescription: stuff is much clearer without correction in bright conditions).

I cant believe it took 15 replies before the answer was given. I thought you would have known about DOF in photography Mr Grips!

Smaller aperture = sharper image, unless you have some sort of amazing lens.

dpreview has a nice interactive MTF graph showing this - [url= http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP1/page22.asp ]Olympus 14-42mm here...[/url]

At 14mm centre sharpness drops as you stop down, although edge sharpness increases. But... by f5.6 it's all over and it gets softer throughout as you stop down.

Generally stopping down on 4/3 lenses doesn't make the image sharper. Quite the opposite. 😯

I cant believe it took 15 replies before the answer was given. I thought you would have known about DOF in photography Mr Grips!

There was no mention of 4/3 until your post 5thElefant.
We're not mind readers!

I blame molgrips 😆

I blame binners.

and DOF isn't the same as sharpness... (or perceived sharpness)

perfectly possible to have incredible sharpness with mm DOFs (i.e. macro)

and DOF isn't the same as sharpness... (or perceived sharpness)

Talking of misfocus, it could easily be this. You'll get better focus lock on well lit scenes.

For once this thread really is useless without pics... 😀

Molgrips, it'd be a lot more helpful if you could post the images. Without pics, and the exif, it's shooting in the dark to a degree.

I generally blame the perception of lack of sharpness on reduced contrast. ymmv.

5thElefant - Member
Smaller aperture = sharper image, unless you have some sort of amazing lens.

Not true on 4/3 cameras. Difraction softness sets in early and the lenses are optimised for sharpness wide open.

Do you know why they do this? Is it because 4/3 sensors aren't as fast as aps-c/ff?
Seems like a bit of a compromise to me, since manufacturing/optics practicalities means a lens that is optimised for a wider aperture will surely never be as sharp as lens that's optimised for the centre?

I cant believe it took 15 replies before the answer was given. I thought you would have known about DOF in photography Mr Grips!

DoF not an issue here. Zooming in at the focus point. However it's possible that the lens does not focus as accurately in low light...?

EDIT just noticed 5e's last sentence.

Sorry..! I will post pics later 🙂

Do you know why they do this? Is it because 4/3 sensors aren't as fast as aps-c/ff?

4/3 are as fast, it's just the noise that increases.

There are technical reasons for this afaik, 4/3 is more than just a smaller sensor. Well, it has wider implications beyond the most talked about. The lenses have particular characteristics that follow on from the fact that the sensor is smaller and the flange distance is less. That's what they mean when they talk about 'designed specifically for digital'. However I can't bring the details to mind to repost here :

4/3 are as fast, it's just the noise that increases.

Surely that means the pixels are not as inherently 'fast'. They require more gain to get the same response, hence the extra noise.

No.. they are the same as on other cameras, but they are smaller and closer together which means they interfere with each other more.

At least, that's what I'd read.

Smaller pixels = fewer photons captured = less signal = more noise.

If the same pixel density in my 5DII was in your 4/3, it would be about 3 MP!

Don't diss the 4/3! 😉

Do you know why they do this? Is it because 4/3 sensors aren't as fast as aps-c/ff?
Seems like a bit of a compromise to me, since manufacturing/optics practicalities means a lens that is optimised for a wider aperture will surely never be as sharp as lens that's optimised for the centre?

Don't diss the 4/3!

I'm not:

Bigger pixels = bigger sensor = bigger camera = never have a camera with you when you want one

Hence why I quite fancy an EP 1/2/whatever it is now. The main reason I've not got one yet is my fear that I'll never take the 5D anywhere again once I've got one.

Yar.. you probably read me waffling on here about a pancake for my camera vs an e-pl1. Simpler to have one camera I think...

Bodies cost the same as lenses. Having more than one body to do different jobs makes just as much sense as having more than one lens. 🙂

Except not in this case, when size is the issue. Having a body to be very small is pointless if you are going to fit large lenses 🙂

I could flog all my 4/3 kit and get PEN kit instead.. hmm..

if you're going to flog it all, get Nikon or Canon instead, then (deep down) you'll know you're not compromising on image quality in the name of size...

Small size is one of my main criteria though. And low cost 🙂

If I were to buy again I'd very seriously consider PEN or Pentax. Bear in mind my camera was £329.

Having a body to be very small is pointless if you are going to fit large lenses

Mol - then maybe you should have held out for a deal on a (e.g.) Nikon D5000...

Bigger, heavier, no IS and more expensive. Where do I sign? 🙂

bigger/heavier - easier to hold steadily, true optical viewfinder included!

IS in lenses if it's even necessary (moving subjects/use a tripod)

Paying for image quality

I'm already signed up!

p.s. I know this is your pet debate so am only playing devils advocate (without smilies). my point really is that you know you're compromising on IQ for size and cost, and i see in your posts over time, perhaps as you've learnt more and tried more with your camera, more points where you realise you can't do quite and much and have to go "oh well". I choose chunky cam with fewer "oh well" moments (except regarding a 600 f4).

IS in lenses if it's even necessary (moving subjects/use a tripod)

OK, so he should get rid of his tiny m43 system and lug around a huge body, huge lens and a tripod! 😯

Why stop with a poxy aps-c camera? Get a FF.

Or even better a nice new Pentax 645NII. That'll blow away the puny dslr offerings.

Don't see a problem with slightly bigger cameras, are you very ,very petite?

I see lots of petite, Japanese ladies handling all kinds of popular brand cameras around here, quite effortlessly 😆

I'm another 4/3rds user here and I don't have many issues with camera at all. Admittedly I'm using an E3 most of the time, but I also have an E500, and a Panasonic L1 which I use too.

The E3 is fine for low light conditions, although it isn't the most perfect camera in the world! However get it out in the sunlight, take advantage of the 2x crop factor and don't shut the aperture down too much on 4/3 system as it degrades past f11 if I remember correctly and things should be perfectly acceptable.

5th - he did say 'no IS' regarding full DSLR bodies... doesn't matter where your IS is if your darling daughter won't hold still for that 1/30th shutter speed.

landscapes/indoor still-life maybe, but why not try and find out how many (serious) landscape photogs use IS instead of a tripod?

my feelings for the micro cameras, NEX etc. are borne from handling a NEX with (I believe) 18-200 zoom - won't fit in pocket anyway, lens bigger than body = 'nice' ergonomics, costs as much as many DSLRs anyway...

If the micros were so good the Pentax 645 wouldn't have a market - just saying that everyone needs to watch out for becoming fanbois and be realistic about their compromises.

It's a bit disingenuous saying there's an image quality compromise. At lower ISO there isn't, so all I am really losing is a couple of stops of light I reckon. I don't tend to have any 'oh well moments'. What I do have is 'oh that's a bit grainy' moments, but that's only cos I am pixel peeping to an extent.

It's just one of the things I am learning to work with. I've never used a Nikon, so I don't know if I'd still have 'oh that's grainy' moments. After all there are always darker rooms in which to shoot.

Anyway - I'm chuffed to bits with it, and that's what matters. I love my 70-300mm f4.0-f56 that cost me £330, and my 40-150mm f3.5-46 that weighs 220g! On the other hand, with Nikon I'd have had more alternatives to the Sigma 30mm f1.4 that also costs £400. I'm really pleased with the Standard range of Oly lenses.

I watch people carrying big Canons and Nikons around the tourist spots and I am thankful my camera and its lenses are so much smaller.

PS:

I know this is your pet debate so am only playing devils advocate

My pet thing isn't really Olympus though, it's non Canon/Nikon. Pentax, Oly and Sony are all worth a look but so few people do. And that's a shame for the camera industry imo.

Don't see a problem with slightly bigger cameras, are you very ,very petite?

No, but it's not about handling it's about lugging it about. I can pop my camera and even the spare zoom in a camelbak (non rucksack variety) and it doesn't weigh me down. This I like 🙂

Let's not forget we are all different as photographers. I hardly ever go out specifically to take photos - it's usually done (as many as I actually get) whilst doing something else, usually with the family. So fannying about with tripods and perfect landscapes isn't something I do.

I'm by no means an expert on the m4/3rds stuff, but gleaned from this thread etc.:

at lower iso the compromises could still be - less ability to use small apertures due to earlier diffraction, 'altered' DOF, perhaps lower dynamic range, less ability to go REALLY wide angle with 2x crop factor...

I'm on APS-C, not full frame, so have compromises too - in my case the prob being a lack of unlimited funds, you could then add your size and weight arguments, though if I had my way I'd walk around with a D3 and 600 f4 on my shoulder the whole time.

btw yesterday I spent a good chunk of afternoon catching little nephews out of the slide with one hand while holding DSLR with grip (50mm 1.8 fyi for imagining size) in the other and taking pics.

If the micros were so good the Pentax 645 wouldn't have a market

- just saying that everyone needs to watch out for becoming fanbois and be realistic about their compromises

Lower dynamic range is something for which I have no answer.. but like I say I've paid my money and taken my choice 🙂

Wide angles - yeah, that's something I still need to experience. I've got the 9-18mm on my shopping list which won't be as wide as your Sigma 10-20mms (but it's apparently a much better lens...)

Anyway just to clarify - I'm not on micro 4/3 I'm on 4/3. It's even more niche 😉 OMG just realised I'm the budget DSLR equivalent of a rigid SS.. aaarrghh...

How about a STW photography meet?

5th - saw that LL article a while ago! indeed a very good one. I too have some favourite shots taken with an old compact (in reasonable conditions). Some of the things I feel just can't be fully replicated even in good conditions though are separation of backgrounds etc. through DOF, speed in general for action, viewfinder, very wide angle, quality/stability at extreme telephoto...

that list got away with me a bit actually!

mol - tough to meet across the channel, but not a bad idea.

I actually went for the Sigma 8-16mm for wide angle, so 10mm sounds pathetic these days! I love it and particular enjoy getting the nephews from odd points of view.

Lower dynamic range is something for which I have no answer

A fast lens helps keep the iso down so you've got maximum DR. Which is my only real complaint with m4/3. A distinct lack of sensibly priced fast lenses (AF ones at least).

"The lesson here, especially for newbies and amateurs (the pros have always understood this) is – stop fussing over each new camera's image quality"

I've not read that LL article before but I did see someone comment on it. FWIW I correctly called the two large images before scrolling down to the caption - the colours look more vivid in the expensive one.

I too have my walls adorned with lovely shots taken on my compact. I've no idea how I am going to get such good macro pics with my DSLR without a ton of extra kit.

You can't actually see the extra DR in jpg or prints

Hmm.. all my pics so far come via my HP Photosmart.. what's the dynamic range of a 5 colour printer? Is that even an appropriate question?

b17 - where are you? I think I did know but have forgotten.

Is there really that huge a difference in IQ between a 43 (crop factor 2), APS-D (CF-1.62) and APS-C (CF-1.52)??

I'm a total photography newbie, but isn't this a bit like overweight middle aged men arguing over the virtues of saving 50g on a seatpost? (or maybe that just applies to me)

Anyway, here a pro 4/3 article to add fuel to the fire:

http://fourthirds-user.com/forum/blog.php?bt=532

EDIT: The next article in the blog is interesting too, suggests that Pana 43 sensors are better than Oly for sensitivity

Hmm.. all my pics so far come via my HP Photosmart.. what's the dynamic range of a 5 colour printer? Is that even an appropriate question?

but isn't this a bit like overweight middle aged men arguing over the virtues of saving 50g on a seatpost?

There's a very obvious difference but it may not matter depending on what you do.

I'm a total photography newbie, but isn't this a bit like overweight middle aged men arguing over the virtues of saving 50g on a seatpost?

Yes, it's exactly like that 🙂

Interesting article. Hence suggesting a photography meet - would be good to all sit in the same room (or stand in the same woods) and take the same pics to compare. Like I say I've never used a Nikon but that article suggests that if I did I'd find the metering selecting longer shutter speeds than I would be expecting - slightly. Also interesting to note that the poster apparently owns Canon, Nikon and Oly.

DxO just told me all my kit is rubbish...

Hmm.. all my pics so far come via my HP Photosmart.. what's the dynamic range of a 5 colour printer

kit is irrelevant if you print on a cheap printer or upload to flickr and view images on a non-graphics uncalibrated screen.

just keep taking pictures and save yourself the worry and cash.

More like arguing 1x9 vs 2x9 vs 3x9.

There's a very obvious difference but it may not matter depending on what you do.

+1

Mol - 'brummie-ish' in Belgium.

FWIW I don't think I'm too Nikon fanboi, in fact I envy some of the lens choice for Canon in my favourite field of birds/nature. I wouldn't go back to a compact/smaller system except for carrying on the bike where maximum convenience is a compromise I'll live with.

MrSmith - as explained that's what I do 🙂 The comment about DxO was tongue in cheek 🙂

Bloody hell printing is complicated. I've now got no idea if any of it matters so I'll follow MrSmith's advice 🙂

Presumably then sending my pics to Photobox or going to a local photo printers would result in significantly better prints than my HP.....?

Well I couldn't find the pics that prompted the original question, but here are some pics including high ISO ones 🙂

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/5752277504_eeb8c527a2.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/5752277504_eeb8c527a2.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5752277504/ ]Coffee Family[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr - ISO 3200

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5308/5752277952_d961a57cc4.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5308/5752277952_d961a57cc4.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5752277952/ ]Time for Bed[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr - ISO 1600

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5187/5752278648_c910064868.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5187/5752278648_c910064868.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5752278648/ ]Small House on a Stick[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr - ISO 100

[url= http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2314/5751735169_ddd89801df.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2314/5751735169_ddd89801df.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5751735169/ ]Obligatory Old Door[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr ISO 800

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5061/5751786315_00a5fb0c7b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5061/5751786315_00a5fb0c7b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5751786315/ ]Lineup[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr ISO 100 with flash, cropped

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/5752330536_a60628b9b5.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/5752330536_a60628b9b5.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5752330536/ ]Candid snap[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr - ISO 100 with flash, this is a 100% crop - very pleased with this for a tiny cheap zoom lens at full whack 150mm

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/5752330784_a59a5a04aa.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/5752330784_a59a5a04aa.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5752330784/ ]Hi Mum[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/5751831873_f673b8b043.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/5751831873_f673b8b043.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5751831873/ ]House detail[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr - this was the image that surprised me how sharp it was, although it's not as good as some of the other images I found!

These have all had their noise reduction and sharpening sliders tweaked a bit in the PS RAW editor, but no fancy techniques obviously. Did nothing to the colours or WB.

I think maybe the coffee one up top could use some work but I have no idea what. Pretty pleased with it for such a high ISO shot (relatively). Likewise the bedroom one - it's normally the shadows that show up all the grunge.

I am a Nikon user but for a recent trek in Himalayas I took 2 Panasonic MFT cameras, so that I could carry one at all times round my neck, and keep the second as a backup in my pack. I am pretty happy with that as a strategy for the trip, but I can't pretend that the image quality matches what I would have got from my Nikon. The main problem for me is the lack of any decent fast lenses for the MFT format, unless you pay silly money and mount a Leica lens via an adaptor.

(Pictures [url= http://www.autresdirections.co.uk/PHOTOS/Himalayas/index.html ]here[/url], if anyone gives a sh1t.)

Is there really that huge a difference in IQ between a 43 (crop factor 2), APS-D (CF-1.62) and APS-C (CF-1.52)??

No.

The main problem for me is the lack of [b]any[/b] decent fast lenses for the MFT format

I agree there should be more - the 20mm 1.7 is a cracker though.

In 4/3 format there's only the Sigma 25mm f1.7 and 30mm f1.4, unless you count the Oly 25mm f2.8 - that's basically it. I've got the 30mm f1.4 on the way so will post pics when I get it 🙂

I like the look of that Panny 20mm f1.7, if I had a m4/3 camera I'd really want one.

I like the look of that Panny 20mm f1.7, if I had a m4/3 camera I'd really want one.

Yes it's nice, and it's a shame that it's the only good lens for MFT (m43, etc etc etc 🙂 ) What about a nice portrait lens, a telephoto, a good wide-angle?

Lots of rumours about new lenses for M43 coming out this year:

http://www.mu-43.com/f92/micro-four-thirds-lens-rumors-speculation-11426/

E.g. 45mm f2.8, 25mm f1.4

Also Pana are said to be releasing some collapsible zooms, a-la the Oly kit lens:

http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-panasonic-will-announce-its-first-collapsible-lenses-within-this-year/

I think the Pana-Pancake would be great, but it's not cheap!

EDIT: The internet gossip I have been reading suggests that the M43 standard is being built 'bottom up', i.e. consumer grade lenses are coming out first, with more pro-quality lenses coming out in the longer term.

EDIT2: Lots more rumours here: http://www.43rumors.com/category/rumor/page/2/ but word on the street is fast M43 lenses are going to be expensive.

Old manual lenses are very easy to use on m4/3. I've got...

25mm f1.4
35m f1.7
50mm f1.2
75mm f1.4
135mm f2.8
200mm f3.3

That lot cost less than a 20mm f1.7. Nothing wide is available unfortunately, but I can live without fast wide lenses.

[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/30820703@N08/sets/ ]Sample photos...[/url]

Not knowing anything much at all I bought a 50mm Olympus f1.8 manual lens. It's great fun, but at f1.8 it performs quite poorly, and I didn't appreciate that it would act like a 100mm on the M43 camera. Crazy shallow DOF compared to the kit lens though, which is fun.

Shame the other old Olympus lenses are so much more expensive though! Also a shame that you can't get a wide-angle effect out of 35mm lenses.

Whether old fast lenses are poor or good depends on how you evaluate them. If you want sharp wide open or flare resistance they're crap.

If you want soft rendering, shallow depth of field and nice bokeh they can be winners. Very popular with the ladies. For some reason they don't like clinically sharp modern lenses that perfectly render every wrinkle.

EDIT: The internet gossip I have been reading suggests that the M43 standard is being built 'bottom up', i.e. consumer grade lenses are coming out first, with more pro-quality lenses coming out in the longer term.

Makes business sense for them to do that, but it is a bit frustrating for me personally - I would be willing to pay for a fast zoom to replace the kit lens, for example.

Would a fast zoom sell? It would be big. Kind of defeats the point of the format.

It's a fair point. What's the appeal of m43 to pros anyway other than small size? I can see how a pro or a journo would love a m43 to keep with them at all times for the opportunistic photo, but it'd have to stay small for that purpose.

PS no-one like my piccies?

Didn't comment on the photos as I couldn't see what you were complaining about!

No like I said I couldn't find any of the soft ones 🙂 I posted some high ISO ones to show that it's not all bad news on 4/3

Yeah, no complaints at high iso for 'normal' use here either.

I've got a print (20"?) on my wall taken with a film slr in the 90s. iso200 film. The level of grain (noise) is, for my digital eyes, now completely unacceptable for a low light iso6400 print, never mind iso200 in bright sunlight on a bloody sand dune!!!

Standards are just so ludicrously high now that the 'poorest' results are in fact very good.