Does a body produce sharpness?

shaylou said:
I was just wondering if a body could produce sharpness or if it is just the lens that handles this.

:canon::exit:
Click to expand...
You create sharpness because your in control of the camera and lens. It's your setting of the body and lens that gets results.
 
The sensor can have an impact on sharpness, witness to that will be the recent trend for sensors without an anti aliasing filter.

Beyond that, then lenses and technique are maybe more significant. But sharpness isn't the be all and end all, no doubt someone will come along with the Ansel Adams quotes about sharpness.....
 
As Steve says, it's combining body with lens ... e.g. (all things being equal) a quality lens at the right settings for shooting some flying ducks will likely produce sharp results with the shutter (body) set at 1/2500 sec, whereas if the shutter (body) is set at 1/60 sec the result is likely to be one fuzzy duck.
 
I think that you need to turn the theories around.

Subject sharpness is an absolute and then various things (lens, body, settings, user, motion, environment) all conspire to reduce it. You might argue that software can increase sharpness but in reality all it does is attempt to modify the image of the subject to define it better.

Bob
 
In terms of gear it's almost entirely the lens, but the reason for most of the unsharp shots that people complain of is the photographer. If you choose the right shutter speed, use a tripod, turn off image stabilisation, set your kit zoom lens to its sharpest focal length (probably somewhere in the middle) and sharpest aperture (probably f8), and choose or arrange for good lighting, you will get a shot that after appropriate post processing will be hard to distinguish in sharpness from a shot with a good prime.

[Michael Caine accent] Not many people know that! [/accent]
 
Thanks for all the great input. Let take this a bit further. If all equipment is the same except for the body (both full frame - close on mp) on a tripod with a stationary subject and perfect technique will/can one bodies output be sharper than the other? If so why? :exit:

:canon:
 
If one body has a weaker anti-aliasing filter then that could lead to a sharper image....all other things in your scenario being equal.

Bob
 
What about sharpness settings in picture control? One body could be set to a - number, the other to a + number :thinking:
 
shaylou said:
Thanks for all the great input. Let take this a bit further. If all equipment is the same except for the body (both full frame - close on mp) on a tripod with a stationary subject and perfect technique will/can one bodies output be sharper than the other? If so why? :exit:

:canon:
Click to expand...


Well yes, because there are different types of sensor - for example the Sigma Foveon sensory uses a different approach to detecting colours which means it doesn't need to have the bayer filter (completely different to AA filter) and so it can produce sharper images - just look at how crazy people go over the Merrill camera image quality.
 
shaylou said:
if that filter is the same can you think of any other reason one may be sharper than the other?
Click to expand...
As in post#5......it's all about a reduction in sharpness so I'm sure that there are any number of reasons that a body might not be up to scratch.
Possibilities off the top of my head (although I'm sure that there are many more)

Mount and/or sensor not perpendicular to the lens axis.
Register flange distance not correct.
Internal reflections/minor light leaks....this would reduce contrast and may be perceived as less sharp.
A smeared sensor could diffuse the incoming light.
Automatic sensor cleaning running continuously...in the realms of very unlikely.

It's starting to look like a quiz question!

Bob
 
Nawty said:
Well yes, because there are different types of sensor - for example the Sigma Foveon sensory uses a different approach to detecting colours which means it doesn't need to have the bayer filter (completely different to AA filter) .......
Click to expand...
....but the Bayer filter is behind the micro-lenses so the resolution has already been defined by the time the filtering occurs. I'm not saying that perception of sharpness may be different but the Bayer filter is at sensel level and not at pixel level.

Bob
 
It is ultimately the lens that defines the sharpness as light from the subject travels through the lens and open shutter and hits the sensor or film. Try as you might with a digital camera and remove the lens you will never be able to take a photograph in focus.
However, on a digital camera both the sensor and processor can enhance the information recorded, combined with the lens from the point of the subject in focus to the sensor plane (indicated with a circle with a line through it)
 
Last edited:
Yes, everything else being equal some sensors are sharper than others, as noted particularly those with weak or no anti aliasing filters. Of course the trade off with those is the possibility to introduce other artefacts like moire. There are also sensors out there with other than standard pixel arrays, Fuji has been good at introducing these weird and wonderful sensors like the current X-Trans which is very easy to get mushy details from if you process raw files. Similar can be said from their past Super CCD SR sensors, which captured eveyrthing diagonally. Amazing for portraiture but struggled with certain landscapes.
 
A lens produces a given sharpness of the subject.
The body records that image via the sensor.
the sensor can not create greater sharpness than the lens provides.
the larger the sensor and the more pixels it can record the sharper the image can be recorded.
The presence of an antialiasing filter will spread this image over a number of pixels, reducing sharpness but also reducing the possibility of moire.
This is further processed by the camera firmware which can reduce the effect of chromatic aberration, and also use unsharp mask algorithms to increase edge sharpness.
When shooting raw files these latter stages are mostly carried out during raw processing.
Most of these process and algorithms have been designed for the standard bayer filter sensors.
Fuji sensors have required the rewriting of these algorithms to deal with their novel filter arrangements.
Latest Raw processors do this very well as demonstrated in this posters image.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/fuji-x-e1-x-e2.433415/page-57#post-6745858
 
shaylou said:
I'm not talking about setting here I was trying to figure if the body made a difference.
Click to expand...

In the grand scheme of things no, it's the lens that makes the difference (see my earlier post) This can be exampled by the lens / film combination. However, as I mentioned earlier the sensor and processor work in tandem to optimise and record the best possible image so you can't disregard the body completely. One without the other would be useless.
 
Last edited:
The sensor/camera can only record the image presented by the lens, but has a big influence on the end result. Resolution obviously, with more pixels. And a sensor with high dynamic range will record more detail in the shadow areas, more so at at low ISO. Post processing can have an even more dramatic effect.

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned directly is the physical size of the sensor that probably has the biggest impact on sharpness. Larger sensors allow the lens to perform better, because they need less enlargement in final output. Therefore they demand lower resolution from the lens, which in turn means the lens produces higher contrast images (basic physics, MTF [modulation transfer function] theory - when resolution goes up, contrast goes down). This is why full-frame is sharper than APS-C, which is sharper than M4/3, which is sharper than 1-inch, which is sharper than compacts etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top