Camera and lens sharpness

danolive1

danolive1

Messages
316
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, iam thinking of going full frame but looking at some full size images on the web iam a little underwhelmed by the sharpness of a lot of the images out there, been looking on flickr and pixelpeeper to name but two.
So my question is am i looking at the wrong examples?
Below is what I took with my sony a57 and 35mm 1.8, this is the kind of sharpness iam looking for.

http://imgur.com/yndeH20?tags
 
Last edited:
To be honest - you'll find both good and bad regardless of what examples you look for on the web.

Is it specifically 'sharpness' you're chasing as there's a lot more too it than that.

Nice example by the way.
 
Not just looking at sharpness some of my best pics have been slightly off focus due to my subject moving.
Just wondering if a ff camera would make the above types of shot look better due to more dof etc?
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't necessarily 'make' your images better but If you're talking portraiture then (given the right lenses) there's a world of reasons why full frame would make sense.
 
danolive1 said:
Not just looking at sharpness some of my best pics have been slightly off focus due to my subject moving.
Just wondering if a ff camera would make the above types of shot look better due to more dof etc?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you mean less dof, to isolate the subject better ? I believe that an aps-c camera (or other camera with a smaller sensor) would have greater depth of field than the full frame model, see this link for some info.
 
danolive1 said:
Hi all, iam thinking of going full frame but looking at some full size images on the web iam a little underwhelmed by the sharpness of a lot of the images out there,
Click to expand...

I can show you poor dull unsharp images taken with the best camera equipment around.. I can show you crisp clear sharp pics with the worse camera gear around...

yes your looking at the wrong examples :)
 
if you want sharpness then buy a sigma dp.
a average shot is pretty sharp at 100%, a above average is *very* sharp, as in redifing what you think is sharp
they pack a ton of detail into there 16mp, about the same as a a7r or d800 (depending on subject)

they are issues, but if you like to pixel peep or crop, then they are probably your best bet.
 
It's not the camera, it's the lens and the photographer.

If it's just sharpness you want, save your money and invest in better glass for your A57. That would be much more effective than full frame with mediocre glass
 
KIPAX said:
yes your looking at the wrong examples :)
Click to expand...
This :)

Other then perhaps Lomo, I'm not aware of any system that gives you soft images...Heck even my 150mm soft focus lens has sharp elements to it :)
 
One of the problems with looking on line is that a lot of the websites will only accept images of a certain size, plus they also get compressed to reduce storage. This doesn't help if you are chasing sharpness.

Will a full frame camera give sharper images than a cropped sensor one? Given all things being the same then the answer would be yes. But only because the amount of magnification will be less to give a similar size image. Can you get sharp images from a cropped sensor camera, the answer is also yes. The main problem I have found in many cases is the optics. You need a good lens to give you the resolution you need.

Pop over to DP review. They have some very good and in depth reviews of lenses that they have carried out themselves, plus sample images and DXO ratings. This may help you decide what lens you might need. In fact reading readers reviews of your lens ( They haven't tested it themselves I don't think ) it gets rave reviews from users. Always nice when other photographers confirm how good your choice is :)

It's worth spending a bit of money on a lens, but a bit of research can help you spend enough but not too much. If in doubt then hire a lens for a few days ( I'm sure you'll be able to get a good deal eh Stuart :) ) OK it costs a bit, but better to spend a few pound to confirm you decision than spend a lot and find out it's not what you want. Remember as well cameras depreciate dramatically, lenses tend to hold their value. A lens that was good 10 years ago is probably still good today
 
StewartR said:
Are you on commission from Sigma? I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this from you. Whenever anybody is talking about potentially getting a new camera, up pops @pingu666 with a recommendation for the Sigma DP. You're doing it so much, it's getting a bit spammy.
Click to expand...


Lol, I'm looking for a reliable, small reasonably priced hatchback that returns good mileage ? Any suggestions.

"Have you tried the Sigma DP" ?
 
However in the context of this thread it is a valid comment to try the Sigma DP....
 
There are so many factors in involved in perceived sharpness that it is hard to known where to start. Your mention of pixelpeeper gives a clue.
All things being equal, there is no reason that that a Full Frame should be less sharp than a crop sensor.

However Sharpness is not the same as detail. Some FF pro cameras do not have especially high pixel counts so they can not reproduce very high detail, but the detail they do produce will seem sharp in use. This is especially true in cameras intended for sports and high ISO use.

Other Cameras are set up with high mega-pixel sensors and with out any filtering on them. These will produce very fine and sharp detail if used with the highest resolution lenses.

For people who do not pixel peep almost any good camera and lens will produce Sharp bright detail filled pictures at normal sizes that are used in real life.

On the question of depth of field, FF will always produce less DOF than a crop sensor in the same situation using the equivalent focal length and aperture.

A secondary cause of lack of sharpness is camera movement... Shake... It is very common indeed. There is a link between focal length, magnification and shake that is more obvious when you pixel peep on FF. We all suffer from shake to a greater or lesser degree, it rarely becomes a problem unless it is age related or the like.
Shake can be reduced but Not eliminated by the uses of higher shutter speeds and reduction systems.. As it smears fine detail between more than one pixel it is a real killer of sharpness.
 
The fundamental difference between full-frame and APS-C is that the larger format requires less enlargement for a given size output/print. So less lens resolution is required, which means the lens doesn't have to work so hard. Image contrast is increased, and that's why FF images look sharper.

Other related factors - the larger format collects more photons/light, so noise is reduced, dynamic range increased, and there's more shadow detail. And as mentioned, in like-for-like framing at same f/number, FF has less depth-of-field, to the tune of about 1.3 stops over APS-C.

There is no question that FF delivers better image quality than APS-C. And by the same token, medium format is better than FF. And also, M4/3rds and smaller formats are not as good as APS-C. Perhaps more importantly, given the performance of modern equipment, how much IQ do you need?
 
StewartR said:
Are you on commission from Sigma? I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this from you. Whenever anybody is talking about potentially getting a new camera, up pops @pingu666 with a recommendation for the Sigma DP. You're doing it so much, it's getting a bit spammy.
Click to expand...

Thing is though Stewart as far as IQ goes Paul is bang on with the recommendation, for the price of a budget body or lens you are getting high end IQ that would normally cost you £1000s in a Bayer system. But it's really hard to explain how good it is to those that don't own one. If IQ is your thing then a Sigma DPm should be high on your list.
 
i recommend them because they are very very good.

its abit like a leica, until you use one, (and see results) then its abit ok there good but... or you think oh those are just the very best shots, post processed very well, but no...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3590843

but a dp hoovers up *real* detail, and has a surprising hit rate, closest competitor is a7r, but then you need great lenses too
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top