Canon 100-400 quality

J

jontucker

Messages
799
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
My new 100-400 lens arrived earlier and I just stuck my head out the window and shot the first thing I saw.

Just wondering if you guys think this is the sort of quality I should be getting from this lens. The light outside is pretty crappy which hasn't helped obviously. Shot at 400mm, 1/250, f8, ISO200. IS on.

First is the full image, second is a 100% crop.





What do you think?
 
Hmm I did wonder although I would have thought 1/250 with IS would be enough to freeze it. I think I'll reserve judgement until I can try it out properly in better light.
 
Yep another +1 to a bit of motion blur. As a rule of thumb try to keep your shutter speed above your focal length e.g. 400mm quicker than 1/400. Also have a quick look on the net the 100-400 is known for being a bit soft toward the 400 end, try pulling back the zoom slightly (and as you said, wait for better light).
 
I would say set to ISO 400, Tv 500 and try again.
To give some idea of how much detail you should expect, his was shot at 8m, on a 400d at 400ISO, so there is noise there too. The height of the text in real life is 1"
 
Hawker said:
Yep another +1 to a bit of motion blur. As a rule of thumb try to keep your shutter speed above your focal length e.g. 400mm quicker than 1/400. Also have a quick look on the net the 100-400 is known for being a bit soft toward the 400 end, try pulling back the zoom slightly (and as you said, wait for better light).
Click to expand...

+1

also x1.6 as 50D is a crop camera - shoot at 1/640
 
Viper said:
i would say that looks like motion blur to me.

when i first used my 100-400 i was dubious of its quality, but i have used it more and the pictures are brilliant now :)
Click to expand...

:agree::beer:i love mine to bits now i can use it:beer:
 
Hawker said:
Yep another +1 to a bit of motion blur. As a rule of thumb try to keep your shutter speed above your focal length e.g. 400mm quicker than 1/400. Also have a quick look on the net the 100-400 is known for being a bit soft toward the 400 end, try pulling back the zoom slightly (and as you said, wait for better light).
Click to expand...

your forgetting IS on this lens it jusy how much slower you can go for first time
 
Also, remember that IS doesn't make any difference if the subject is moving (slightest movement can cause blur)
 
Jon, the lens itself should be plenty sharp enough at f/8, as far as the optics are concerned. Here is an example from mine with my 50D at 400mm, 1/800, f/8, 200 ISO....

20090803_174807_1389_LR.jpg


100% crop....
20090803_174807_1389_LR-2.jpg


Likely reasons for soft images are....

- the presence of a (UV) filter, especially if not top grade;
- focus miscalibration;
- camera shake - even IS can't cope with a jerky shutter release finger;
- subject movement;
- flat light, robbing the image of contrast and thus reducing perceived sharpness;
- failure to process.sharpen correctly if shooting raw.

If you have a filter fitted then remove it and then try again. If you have not yet calibrated your AF then do that. I need +8 with my 100-400 on my 50D and +10 with it on my 1D3.

To eliminate issues of camera shake and subject movement you'll need to run off a few test shots with a contrasty, sharp, static subject, in good light, and with the camera on a tripod. Mirror lockup and timed or remote release will eliminate shake at the camera end. Use Live AF (contrast detect) to obtain the sharpest focus possible, before firing off your test shots. That should give you a baseline for the best your lens is capable of. Then try using ordinary AF and see if the image goes soft. If it does then you need to sort out your AF calibration. If the image remains sharp then your problem is elsewhere; probably in your long lens technique. It takes concentration and practice to get that right, but the rewards are worth the effort. BTW, IS takes ~ 1 second to get up to speed. You need to prime the IS in advance rather than simply pressing the shutter button straight down in one movement. Press, pause, release.

I hope that helps. Feel free to ask further questions if need be :)

Heres one at 400mm, 1/250, f/6.3, 400 ISO, no edits....
20090716_162333_0065_LR.jpg


100% crop....
20090716_162333_0065_LR-2.jpg
 
tdodd said:
Jon, the lens itself should be plenty sharp enough at f/8, as far as the optics are concerned. Here is an example from mine with my 50D at 400mm, 1/800, f/8, 200 ISO....

20090803_174807_1389_LR.jpg


100% crop....
20090803_174807_1389_LR-2.jpg


Likely reasons for soft images are....

- the presence of a (UV) filter, especially if not top grade;
- focus miscalibration;
- camera shake - even IS can't cope with a jerky shutter release finger;
- subject movement;
- flat light, robbing the image of contrast and thus reducing perceived sharpness;
- failure to process.sharpen correctly if shooting raw.

If you have a filter fitted then remove it and then try again. If you have not yet calibrated your AF then do that. I need +8 with my 100-400 on my 50D and +10 with it on my 1D3.

To eliminate issues of camera shake and subject movement you'll need to run off a few test shots with a contrasty, sharp, static subject, in good light, and with the camera on a tripod. Mirror lockup and timed or remote release will eliminate shake at the camera end. Use Live AF (contrast detect) to obtain the sharpest focus possible, before firing off your test shots. That should give you a baseline for the best your lens is capable of. Then try using ordinary AF and see if the image goes soft. If it does then you need to sort out your AF calibration. If the image remains sharp then your problem is elsewhere; probably in your long lens technique. It takes concentration and practice to get that right, but the rewards are worth the effort. BTW, IS takes ~ 1 second to get up to speed. You need to prime the IS in advance rather than simply pressing the shutter button straight down in one movement. Press, pause, release.

I hope that helps. Feel free to ask further questions if need be :)

Heres one at 400mm, 1/250, f/6.3, 400 ISO, no edits....
20090716_162333_0065_LR.jpg


100% crop....
20090716_162333_0065_LR-2.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to reply in such depth Tim.

- the presence of a (UV) filter, especially if not top grade;
No filter fitted.
- focus miscalibration;
Possibly, I haven't calibrated it but I will do now.
- camera shake - even IS can't cope with a jerky shutter release finger;
Again , possibly. I'm usually smooth on the trigger but testing with remote release is probably worth while.
- subject movement;
I didn't think it was moving but again it's not beyond the realm of possibilty.
- flat light, robbing the image of contrast and thus reducing perceived sharpness;
Definitely.
- failure to process.sharpen correctly if shooting raw.
On this occasion I happened to be shooting in JPEG but usually I process raw in Aperture 2.

I think the light is the main problem but the other things could be factors too. I will calibrate the AF and see if it helps. I already have an IS lens so I'm used to the delay before it kicks in.

Hopefully the sun will come out at the weekend so I can give your suggestions a try. Thanks again. :)
 
I'm not sure if this proves anything or not but I've taken this photo with a OCF for light (HSS) at 400mm, f14, 1/1250 with IS off and with the camera laying on the floor. mirror lockup and shutter on timer.





It looks pretty sharp (not pin sharp mind you) to me but does this indicate that the lens ok or not?
 
Jon these are pretty big crops mate and it's hard to judge anything from them. You need to get out and take some shots in decent light and we'll have more idea, but you're probably worrying about nothing. ;)
 
You can't test (meaningfully) at f/14. The 50D will start to show diffraction softening from f/8 onwards when viewing at 100%. I would fully expect it to look soft at f/14. That's not a fault with the lens. That's physics. You should be testing the lens wide open - 400mm, f/5.6.

I know this is like comparing apples with bricks, but look at the MTF results for the sharp 85/1.8 prime. You will see that sharpness is already falling off beyond f/5.6.....

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/421-canon_85_18_50d?start=1

Ditto the highly regarded 70-200/fL IS - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/449-canon_70200_4is_50d?start=1

The equivalent test with the 100-400 was only performed with a 350D so the diffraction softening is not picked up so early on, due to the low pixel density. Thus sharpness appears to peak at around f/8, and that probably is the sweet spot for this lens - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/204-canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-usm-l-is-test-report--review?start=1. However, you paid for an f/5.6 lens. If you have to stop down to f/8 for acceptable results that is not good enough, in my opinion. The lens must perform well, wide open. Also, for meaningful AF testing you need to be wide open in order to minimise the DOF.

If you want to see what the lens should be capable of then you might like to look at this 155 page thread exclusively about this lens. Of course, you need to be mindful of the skills of the individual photographers, but I ignore the dodgy shots (put those down to pilot error) and enjoy the decent stuff.....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=373778
 
CT said:
Jon these are pretty big crops mate and it's hard to judge anything from them. You need to get out and take some shots in decent light and we'll have more idea, but you're probably worrying about nothing. ;)
Click to expand...

Roger that. I think you're probably right that I am worrying for nothing but also I am shocked at how bad my technique must be when I look at Tim's pigeon! Hoping to get out at the weekend in some decent weather...

tdodd said:
You can't test (meaningfully) at f/14. The 50D will start to show diffraction softening from f/8 onwards when viewing at 100%. I would fully expect it to look soft at f/14. That's not a fault with the lens. That's physics. You should be testing the lens wide open - 400mm, f/5.6.

I know this is like comparing apples with bricks, but look at the MTF results for the sharp 85/1.8 prime. You will see that sharpness is already falling off beyond f/5.6.....

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/421-canon_85_18_50d?start=1

Ditto the highly regarded 70-200/fL IS - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/449-canon_70200_4is_50d?start=1

The equivalent test with the 100-400 was only performed with a 350D so the diffraction softening is not picked up so early on, due to the low pixel density. Thus sharpness appears to peak at around f/8, and that probably is the sweet spot for this lens - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/204-canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-usm-l-is-test-report--review?start=1. However, you paid for an f/5.6 lens. If you have to stop down to f/8 for acceptable results that is not good enough, in my opinion. The lens must perform well, wide open. Also, for meaningful AF testing you need to be wide open in order to minimise the DOF.

If you want to see what the lens should be capable of then you might like to look at this 155 page thread exclusively about this lens. Of course, you need to be mindful of the skills of the individual photographers, but I ignore the dodgy shots (put those down to pilot error) and enjoy the decent stuff.....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=373778
Click to expand...

Clearly there is a lot of technical stuff that I know nothing about Tim. I will have a browse through that thread later. I'm quite looking forward to being better at this you know... :bonk:
 
jontucker said:
Roger that. I think you're probably right that I am worrying for nothing but also I am shocked at how bad my technique must be when I look at Tim's pigeon! Hoping to get out at the weekend in some decent weather...
Click to expand...

Well those really are enormous crops even for the 50D. The camera is capable of pulling off crops like that but the shot needs to be pretty well perfect to get away with it. ;)
 
jontucker said:
Roger that. I think you're probably right that I am worrying for nothing but also I am shocked at how bad my technique must be when I look at Tim's pigeon! Hoping to get out at the weekend in some decent weather...
Click to expand...

Well, as you see, the pigeon was shot in strong sunlight, so that helped for starters, both for focusing and for the perception of sharpness. Then there is the fact that I have calibrated the AF for the lens with my 50D, and it did need adjustment. Using the DOF calculator here - http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html - I estimate that the DOF for that shot was about 12cm, when viewed as a 10x8 sized image. However, enlarged to a virtual image at 100% it would be a 36x24 image, and at that size the DOF becomes less than 1cm. Thus accurate AF is essential if you want your 100% crops to look sharp, never mind the lens and your own technique etc..

As for technique, I was seated at the time I shot that, with one elbow resting on the arm of the chair and the other arm crooked in snugly against my body, so my aim was very, very steady. There was also no possibility of me wavering back or forth by even 1mm between focusing and releasing the shutter. I can't remember how I processed that shot but even on Lightroom defaults it looks sharp. The lens did its bit, but I made sure I did mine as well :)
 
tdodd said:
Well, as you see, the pigeon was shot in strong sunlight, so that helped for starters, both for focusing and for the perception of sharpness. Then there is the fact that I have calibrated the AF for the lens with my 50D, and it did need adjustment. Using the DOF calculator here - http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html - I estimate that the DOF for that shot was about 12cm, when viewed as a 10x8 sized image. However, enlarged to a virtual image at 100% it would be a 36x24 image, and at that size the DOF becomes less than 1cm. Thus accurate AF is essential if you want your 100% crops to look sharp, never mind the lens and your own technique etc..

As for technique, I was seated at the time I shot that, with one elbow resting on the arm of the chair and the other arm crooked in snugly against my body, so my aim was very, very steady. There was also no possibility of me wavering back or forth by even 1mm between focusing and releasing the shutter. I can't remember how I processed that shot but even on Lightroom defaults it looks sharp. The lens did its bit, but I made sure I did mine as well :)
Click to expand...

I might be asking you to come and do my bit as well before too long! :'(

I've been trying to calibrate and it looks to my eyes as though -1 is slightly better than 0 although it's only VERY slightly. Any other number looks worse. That's quite a nice little feature on the 50d isn't it.... perhaps I should do my other lenses too.
 
I think I'd struggle to see much difference between -1 and 0. Probably the best approach is to follow the advice given by Chuck Westfall - scroll down a page or so to see the Q&A about AF microadjustment for the 1D3. the same approach applies to the 50D as well....

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html

Here is an example of my home made AF calibration target and Focus/DOF scale for calibrating my 100-400....

20090805_162143_1444_LR.jpg


The box forms a large, contrasty, unambiguous target for focusing, parallel with the sensor, and the steel tape allows me to examine whereabouts the sharpest point of focus is actually landing, and if it is off, in which direction and by how much.
 
thats brilliant, I've been meaning to check the calibration of my focus but not having the kit to do so had stopped. I shall now go get my ruler
 
tdodd said:
I think I'd struggle to see much difference between -1 and 0. Probably the best approach is to follow the advice given by Chuck Westfall - scroll down a page or so to see the Q&A about AF microadjustment for the 1D3. the same approach applies to the 50D as well....

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html

Here is an example of my home made AF calibration target and Focus/DOF scale for calibrating my 100-400....

20090805_162143_1444_LR.jpg


The box forms a large, contrasty, unambiguous target for focusing, parallel with the sensor, and the steel tape allows me to examine whereabouts the sharpest point of focus is actually landing, and if it is off, in which direction and by how much.
Click to expand...

As it happens, Chuck's method is exactly the way I did it. I like your setup though... makes perfect sense to me. The only thing I was doing differently was that I was indoors using a flash. Would that make any difference to the outcome? The subject was about 12 metres away.
 
jontucker said:
As it happens, Chuck's method is exactly the way I did it. I like your setup though... makes perfect sense to me. The only thing I was doing differently was that I was indoors using a flash. Would that make any difference to the outcome? The subject was about 12 metres away.
Click to expand...
Flash will enhance contrast, at the moment you capture the image, but it won't help the AF to home in on the target accurately in the first place.

Also, you said you used f/14, which is nothing like the wide open f/5.6 that should be used for this lens. All lenses should be calibrated wide open, whatever their max aperture might be.

As far as I know, my target complies perfectly with Chuck's recommended method....

# Position a reference target for the camera to focus on. The reference target should have sufficient contrast for the AF system to read, should be flat and parallel to the camera's focal plane, and should be centered with respect to the picture area.
Click to expand...

The box is the target. The ruler allows the focus accuracy to be determined. Shooting outdoors allows the recommended 20m distance (50X focal length) and makes it easy to get decent lighting on the subject. You must be in a pretty large room/building to achieve 20m distance indoors!
 
tdodd said:
Flash will enhance contrast, at the moment you capture the image, but it won't help the AF to home in on the target accurately in the first place.

Also, you said you used f/14, which is nothing like the wide open f/5.6 that should be used for this lens. All lenses should be calibrated wide open, whatever their max aperture might be.

As far as I know, my target complies perfectly with Chuck's recommended method....

The box is the target. The ruler allows the focus accuracy to be determined. Shooting outdoors allows the recommended 20m distance (50X focal length) and makes it easy to get decent lighting on the subject. You must be in a pretty large room/building to achieve 20m distance indoors!
Click to expand...

Ah ok, good point re flash not helping the AF.

I think we have crossed wires here... the photos above were not from me calibrating the AF. I switched to f5.6 (after your earlier post) and everything else was as per Chucks method except the distance... I can only get 12m in my mansion. This was all after I shot the Snow Leopard box.

Sadly it's been raining here today so I couldn't do it outside and I'm itching to get to grips with this lens.

As I keep saying (and trying to persuade myself!) I'll try all this properly at the w/e as long as the weather is ok. Patience Jon, patience.
 
just reading a few replys can some one tell me how do i calibrate the af like tim said to +8 or what ever it takes
 
Have a look at the video tutorial for the Lens Align system....

http://www.lensalign.com/resources/video-LAP-Calibration.html

Just apply the same approach to calibration with your own DIY "Lens Align" tool, such as the one I set up. Of course, you can stump up the sponduliks for the genuine article if you feel so inclined. I prefer to save money and apply common sense. :)
 
buckas said:
+1

also x1.6 as 50D is a crop camera - shoot at 1/640
Click to expand...

The crop factor doesnt effect this rule of thumb - it wont make any difference, should be just as sharp at the speed with crop as FF, it just crops the image.
 
I'm actually not sure about that Jim. The rule of thumb was actually from the film days and now we have such high density sensors, they really do need the very best in camera craft. You have to move the camera less to get blur at 100% view on a newer camera.

It's not actually down to crop factor but it is down to pixel density and crop factor is a reasonable representation of that.
 
Hmm, how large is that tool (width)? Has it taken into acount that the focal plane isn't actually a plane, but the surface of a sphere?
 
tdodd said:
I think I'd struggle to see much difference between -1 and 0. Probably the best approach is to follow the advice given by Chuck Westfall - scroll down a page or so to see the Q&A about AF microadjustment for the 1D3. the same approach applies to the 50D as well....

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html

Here is an example of my home made AF calibration target and Focus/DOF scale for calibrating my 100-400....

20090805_162143_1444_LR.jpg


The box forms a large, contrasty, unambiguous target for focusing, parallel with the sensor, and the steel tape allows me to examine whereabouts the sharpest point of focus is actually landing, and if it is off, in which direction and by how much.
Click to expand...

Tim, that's a good practical test, basically the same as the one I've been advocating using three cereal boxes side by side with a ruler propped up vertically :thumbs: Same difference. I use it to check all my lenses.

However, you have not shot square to the box (slightly above) and while that's okay at 400mm f/5.6 it might show a non-existant error with an f/2.8 lens. Just a comment for others to note I guess ;)
 
Hoppy, you are quite correct that I am a little off angle there, and I agree that ideally I should have fixed that. However, in my defence, when calibrating at a range of 20m the DOF at 400mm and f/5.6 is 53cm, so I think having the box at that slight angle might make a difference of up to 1cm in distance from top to bottom, which means that by focusing on the centre of the box the "error" was no more than 5mm, is neither here nor there. Even at f/2.8 the DOF is 26cm, so again I feel the "error" is of no consequence. Certainly, any error caused by misalignment of the box is insignificant when compared to the margin for focus inconsistency from one shot to the next.
 
Well chaps, I just followed Chucks method to the letter and it seems that the most accurate focusing is with the mirco adjustment set to zero.

The weather is still ***** and I'm still struggling to get the results that I expected. At the moment I am quite disappointed with this lens (or with myself, I'm not sure) but I am still reserving judgement until I can try it out in the sunshine.
 
Jon, sorry to hear you are having problems. Just to eliminate focus calibration as an issue, can you try using Live View and focusing with Live AF, which ought to get you as sharp an image as is possible, as far as focus accuracy goes. If you are getting soft images even then, assuming you are using a tripod and timed or remote shutter release, then it may be that you have a soft copy and it will need replacing.

But, before you go that far, what is your post processing workflow? What sharpening settings are you using and in what software? Are you shooting raw or JPEG, and if JPEG, what are your in camera settings for picture style and sharpening? If raw I'm afraid I don't know what Aperture does as a default. If you have a raw file available and can upload it somewhere I'll happily take a look at it for you and stick it through my own standard workflow to see how it looks.
 
Thanks for replying again, Tim.

I have been shooting in raw and JPEG. Camera has been set to 'Standard' which is still on the default sharpening (3). All have been imported directly into Aperture from the camera and then I've applied various contrast and sharpening settings. None of which have produced results I am happy with.

I have taken some shots, out of my bedroom window, (from inside, so zero breeze) of a chimney pot across the street. I tethered the camera to my laptop and used Live View as you suggested. Camera in Av, ISO 100, F5,6 at 340mm (trying further back from 400mm). With absolutely no camera shake and with contrast focusing the picture still looks soft to me.

I've uploaded the raw, the JPEG, and a screen grab of the EOS util so you can see where I was focusing to my iDisk and I've just PM'd you the address. I would be extremely grateful if you could take a look and let me know what you think. If I need to do something different with the test shot let me know and I'll upload again. :thumbs:
 
tdodd said:
Hoppy, you are quite correct that I am a little off angle there, and I agree that ideally I should have fixed that. However, in my defence, when calibrating at a range of 20m the DOF at 400mm and f/5.6 is 53cm, so I think having the box at that slight angle might make a difference of up to 1cm in distance from top to bottom, which means that by focusing on the centre of the box the "error" was no more than 5mm, is neither here nor there. Even at f/2.8 the DOF is 26cm, so again I feel the "error" is of no consequence. Certainly, any error caused by misalignment of the box is insignificant when compared to the margin for focus inconsistency from one shot to the next.
Click to expand...

Take your point Tim ;) As I said, I was referring for the benefit of others who may want to use a similar test for faster lenses, and also shorter lenses where field curvature is an issue that would be exagerated with anything less than perfect alignment. And TBH I'm not sure how strictly relevant depth of field is when you blow up the image to 100% and effectlively several feet wide on screen, and then look at it from 6in away. In other words, it's much less than you have stated for the purposes of this test.

I have also been taken to task in the past for presenting a similar test procedure that was perceived as a bit crude and unscientific (compared to that horrible A4 target shot at close distance at 45 degrees :eek: ). I actually think it is exactly the opposite and a bit of relevant rough science is infinitely preferable to highly accurate pseudo science. I would rather be approximately right than precisely wrong in any case, but this particular test is not only easy and relevant, but should also be extremely accurate.
 
I've just discovered something odd. When using the EOS Utility in Live View mode, you can open up a window that is a 100% zoom of what the sensor is capturing.

When I open up the 100% live view window, the image shimmers very slightly in and out of focus (or at least thats what it looks like) and it also looks like the image is being distorted (kind of a slight bulge and then pinch). I have taken a load of screen grabs in a row and looked through them to find the sharpest image and having done so, then compared it to an exposure taken immediately after the screen grabs.

The screen grab is significantly sharper than the JPG, let alone the raw and I cannot process them images to get the same level of detail.

What the hell is going on???!!!?
 
Jon, I got your files and have downloaded them. On first viewing I could see that the shot was not razor sharp, when opened in DPP and observing that you were using Standard picture style and sharpening of 3, which are the defaults I use. However, I could not be sure that they were so bad as to be worse than my own lens. Certainly when viewed at 50% the shot looked just fine. So I shot a quick example with my own camera for comparison. I have the fortune to have better light than you, which adds to contrast and increases the perception of sharpness, but it does seem that my lens is performing better than yours, unless your eyes tell a different story.

Here are 100% centre crops, firstly from my lens at 400mm, then your 340mm shot, then a shot from my lens at 340mm. They were processed in DPP on identical settings.....

20090926_172409_3065_DPP.JPG

20090926_163656_0002_DPP.JPG

20090926_172435_3066_DPP.JPG


The different brick texture and light quality is making comparison tough, but I think my lens does have the edge. What do you think?

EDIT - actually, it is interesting to note that we both shot at 1/200, f/5.6, 100 ISO, so maybe the light levels are similar, but your light appears flat and even, while mine is clearly coming in at an angle and creating micro-shadows in the brickwork, which enhances the impression of detail/sharpness.
 
Yes yours definitely looks sharper but as you say it could be the light.

What do you make of my last post? It's really strange. Here are the images that show what I'm talking about....

This is the JPEG straight from the camera



And this is a screen grab of the 100% Live View in EOS Util



Could the problem lie with the camera and not with the lens?
 
I also see shimmer when shooting at longer distances. I am pretty sure it is heat haze, even if only very slight, and it can affect sharpness. Indeed, it causes havoc with some of my wildlife efforts when shooting at the wrong time of day on a hot, sunny day. I did make a longer chimney shot this afternoon, which I did not post above, and I saw the wobble/shimmer whilst in Live View. Here is an equivalent crop from that shot....

20090926_171741_3063_DPP.JPG


Now that would not be a keeper!

I don't know for sure why your screen grabs look sharper than the output from the camera. That is a striking difference you have there. Personally I never shoot JPEG, so I don't know what to expect from the camera's own output. I always shoot raw and simply adjust sharpening as necessary for each image. Often it is fine to remain on defaults. Sometimes an image needs a little helping hand. I think there are too many variables in play from one shot to the next to determine the precise cause of slight softness in one image vs another, atmosphere being one of them, so I just compensate as necessary. You said you took several screen grabs and picked the sharpest. Maybe, given the environment you are shooting in there, you need to fire off several frames and pick the sharpest of those. That would be a fair comparison. Cherry picking the best screen grab against a single shot is probably not fairly representative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top