What a sharp DSLR picture looks like

[Ron Parr]

This isn't a troll post. I'm not saying that everybody needs to buy a camera that produces shots like this instead of some other camera.

What I am doing is showing people here what a sharp shot from a Canon DSLR looks like. With good lenses, these cameras are capable of taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the default settings and no additional processing.

This from my D60, shot in RAW with default process except that I did exposure compensation in RAW conversion. This is necessary because of the regrettable way the D60 handles flash shots using Canon's flashes. (The short version is that it tends to underexpose, unless you do a flash exposure lock, which is impractical for kids.) The end result is that you will see a little noise in the background.

This shot was taken with the sub $100 50mm 1.8 lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23883902

You'll notice that the DOF is very shallow, but that what's in focus is extremely sharp. Shots taken with cheap zooms will not be this sharp.

If this shot looks so good to you that you're willing to get a largish camera and swap lenses (or buy very big and heavy lenses), then a digital SLR with a large sensor may be a good choice for you. If you look at this shot and it doesn't look any better than what you've seen from an a small sensor camera, then you probably shouldn't get a digital SLR.

[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get this kind of result is worth the bother. I'd really like if you understood that there is a difference between this kind of result and what you get from a small sensor, but I'll think no less of you if you don't think the difference is worth the effort.]

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[James_Vic]

nt

 

[CTzen]

--
Slava

 

[sandy b]

Well, the parts that are sharp are very sharp. However this whole depth of field thing, I don't get. Why would you want a portarait where the depth of field doesnt even leave the whole face in focus?

BTW, adorable child.

This isn't a troll post. I'm not saying that everybody needs to
buy a camera that produces shots like this instead of some other
camera.

What I am doing is showing people here what a sharp shot from a
Canon DSLR looks like. With good lenses, these cameras are capable
of taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the
default settings and no additional processing.

This from my D60, shot in RAW with default process except that I
did exposure compensation in RAW conversion. This is necessary
because of the regrettable way the D60 handles flash shots using
Canon's flashes. (The short version is that it tends to
underexpose, unless you do a flash exposure lock, which is
impractical for kids.) The end result is that you will see a
little noise in the background.

This shot was taken with the sub $100 50mm 1.8 lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23883902

You'll notice that the DOF is very shallow, but that what's in
focus is extremely sharp. Shots taken with cheap zooms will not be
this sharp.

If this shot looks so good to you that you're willing to get a
largish camera and swap lenses (or buy very big and heavy lenses),
then a digital SLR with a large sensor may be a good choice for
you. If you look at this shot and it doesn't look any better than
what you've seen from an a small sensor camera, then you probably
shouldn't get a digital SLR.

[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get this kind of result is
worth the bother. I'd really like if you understood that there is
a difference between this kind of result and what you get from a
small sensor, but I'll think no less of you if you don't think the
difference is worth the effort.]

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[sandy b]

BTW, adorable child.

This isn't a troll post. I'm not saying that everybody needs to
buy a camera that produces shots like this instead of some other
camera.

What I am doing is showing people here what a sharp shot from a
Canon DSLR looks like. With good lenses, these cameras are capable
of taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the
default settings and no additional processing.

This from my D60, shot in RAW with default process except that I
did exposure compensation in RAW conversion. This is necessary
because of the regrettable way the D60 handles flash shots using
Canon's flashes. (The short version is that it tends to
underexpose, unless you do a flash exposure lock, which is
impractical for kids.) The end result is that you will see a
little noise in the background.

This shot was taken with the sub $100 50mm 1.8 lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23883902

You'll notice that the DOF is very shallow, but that what's in
focus is extremely sharp. Shots taken with cheap zooms will not be
this sharp.

If this shot looks so good to you that you're willing to get a
largish camera and swap lenses (or buy very big and heavy lenses),
then a digital SLR with a large sensor may be a good choice for
you. If you look at this shot and it doesn't look any better than
what you've seen from an a small sensor camera, then you probably
shouldn't get a digital SLR.

[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get this kind of result is
worth the bother. I'd really like if you understood that there is
a difference between this kind of result and what you get from a
small sensor, but I'll think no less of you if you don't think the
difference is worth the effort.]

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Kerry Pierce]

What I am doing is showing people here what a sharp shot from a
Canon DSLR looks like. With good lenses, these cameras are capable
of taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the
default settings and no additional processing.

Rather impressive, especially considering the sharpness that has been retained after considerable downsizing. I assume that you didn't sharpen it after downsizing.

You'll notice that the DOF is very shallow, but that what's in
focus is extremely sharp. Shots taken with cheap zooms will not be
this sharp.

These are 2 major points that concern me. I'm not a real fan of shallow DOF, which means I'd be stopping down a lot. I've seen far too many DSLR shots that didn't appeal to me because of their shallow DOF and softness. I don't know if the medium priced lenses can handle that and still retain their sharpness and speed. Are you saying that you need L lenses to have that kind of sharpness in a zoom?

I'm a fan of the 717's DOF and clarity. I presume that the deep DOF gives the impression of a much sharper image, perhaps than it really is. Is that a safe assumption?

[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get this kind of result is
worth the bother. I'd really like if you understood that there is
a difference between this kind of result and what you get from a
small sensor, but I'll think no less of you if you don't think the
difference is worth the effort.]

Well, FWIW, I don't know if it's worth the effort for the kind of shooting I'm doing now, but it's something to consider and I appreciate your post.

Thanks.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Dmitry K]

F717, no post-processing either. Believe me this wasn't sudden luck; I have enough shots of such quality.

I don't blaming you but see no reason to share your excitement. The shot is very good in composition and mood; quality is very good either but isn't something extraordinary though.

http://www.katemirov.com/public_images/DSC00080.JPG

Dmitry

 

[Stephen Reed]

If you don't mind, I'll answer some of these.

Rather impressive, especially considering the sharpness that has
been retained after considerable downsizing. I assume that you
didn't sharpen it after downsizing.

It wasn't downsized.

These are 2 major points that concern me. I'm not a real fan of
shallow DOF, which means I'd be stopping down a lot. I've seen far
too many DSLR shots that didn't appeal to me because of their
shallow DOF and softness. I don't know if the medium priced lenses
can handle that and still retain their sharpness and speed. Are you
saying that you need L lenses to have that kind of sharpness in a
zoom?

"L" lenses help ($$$), but you can get great results out of non "L" lenses.
You'll NENER beat a prime lens though.

I'm a fan of the 717's DOF and clarity. I presume that the deep
DOF gives the impression of a much sharper image, perhaps than it
really is. Is that a safe assumption?

Sometimes the opposite is true. Shallow DOF can make your intended subject "POP" and appear much sharper. It's much liker contrast.
--
Stephen Reed



http://www.pbase.com/domotang

 

[Mike Fitzgerald]

Rather impressive, especially considering the sharpness that has
been retained after considerable downsizing. I assume that you
didn't sharpen it after downsizing.

Kerry, Ron uploaded the full ex-camera image, and the only downsizing here has been done automatically by pBase (and there would be no post-sharpening). It's worth noting that you should never critically assess a "large" view where such exists at pBase.

All views but the original, as created and stored by pBase, are very heavily compressed JPEGs (I estimate an equivalent of between 6 and 7 on Photoshop's current scale of 12). That includes the "large" size which is only generated when the original exceeds 800 pixels on either or both edges. That's why for normal viewing, unless you have a specific reason to upload the true original, you should always do your own downsampling to within an 800 x 800 pixel matrix (and generally follow that with modest resharpening to account for the downsampling losses) prior to uploading to pBase.

Mike

 

[Stephen Reed]

This was shot with a 50mm f1.8 prime lens. The image is a 100% crop of the original (not downsized).



--
Stephen Reed



http://www.pbase.com/domotang

 

[TS]

A prime lens? Are we going back to the dark ages? Prime lens were my favorite 20 years ago. If you are talking about pure image quality, nothing can match a hasselblad or a Linof. May be you should try one of those and you will mock at your D60.

This isn't a troll post. I'm not saying that everybody needs to
buy a camera that produces shots like this instead of some other
camera.

What I am doing is showing people here what a sharp shot from a
Canon DSLR looks like. With good lenses, these cameras are capable
of taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the
default settings and no additional processing.

This from my D60, shot in RAW with default process except that I
did exposure compensation in RAW conversion. This is necessary
because of the regrettable way the D60 handles flash shots using
Canon's flashes. (The short version is that it tends to
underexpose, unless you do a flash exposure lock, which is
impractical for kids.) The end result is that you will see a
little noise in the background.

This shot was taken with the sub $100 50mm 1.8 lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23883902

You'll notice that the DOF is very shallow, but that what's in
focus is extremely sharp. Shots taken with cheap zooms will not be
this sharp.

If this shot looks so good to you that you're willing to get a
largish camera and swap lenses (or buy very big and heavy lenses),
then a digital SLR with a large sensor may be a good choice for
you. If you look at this shot and it doesn't look any better than
what you've seen from an a small sensor camera, then you probably
shouldn't get a digital SLR.

[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get this kind of result is
worth the bother. I'd really like if you understood that there is
a difference between this kind of result and what you get from a
small sensor, but I'll think no less of you if you don't think the
difference is worth the effort.]

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Stephen Reed]

Are you being serious? Studios use primes all the time.

A prime lens? Are we going back to the dark ages? Prime lens were
my favorite 20 years ago. If you are talking about pure image
quality, nothing can match a hasselblad or a Linof. May be you
should try one of those and you will mock at your D60.

--
Stephen Reed

 

[Bo Bengtsson]

This isn't a troll post. I'm not saying that everybody needs to
buy a camera that produces shots like this instead of some other
camera.

What I am doing is showing people here what a sharp shot from a
Canon DSLR looks like. With good lenses, these cameras are capable
of taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the
default settings and no additional processing.

This from my D60, shot in RAW with default process except that I
did exposure compensation in RAW conversion. This is necessary
because of the regrettable way the D60 handles flash shots using
Canon's flashes. (The short version is that it tends to
underexpose, unless you do a flash exposure lock, which is
impractical for kids.) The end result is that you will see a
little noise in the background.

This shot was taken with the sub $100 50mm 1.8 lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23883902

You'll notice that the DOF is very shallow, but that what's in
focus is extremely sharp. Shots taken with cheap zooms will not be
this sharp.

If this shot looks so good to you that you're willing to get a
largish camera and swap lenses (or buy very big and heavy lenses),
then a digital SLR with a large sensor may be a good choice for
you. If you look at this shot and it doesn't look any better than
what you've seen from an a small sensor camera, then you probably
shouldn't get a digital SLR.

[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get this kind of result is
worth the bother. I'd really like if you understood that there is
a difference between this kind of result and what you get from a
small sensor, but I'll think no less of you if you don't think the
difference is worth the effort.]

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Kerry Pierce]

Rather impressive, especially considering the sharpness that has
been retained after considerable downsizing. I assume that you
didn't sharpen it after downsizing.

It wasn't downsized.

I didn't check the size, but assumed that it wasn't full size because it downloaded so fast....

"L" lenses help ($$$), but you can get great results out of non "L"
lenses.
You'll NEVER beat a prime lens though.

Yeah, I know, but I'm lazy and have grown quite fond of zooms... :-(

Sometimes the opposite is true. Shallow DOF can make your intended
subject "POP" and appear much sharper. It's much liker contrast.

Sure. I've seen good examples of that. But, I've seen many more examples where I thought the DOF was too shallow. One guy's POP might be another guy's PO--....

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Stephen Reed]

Yeah, I know, but I'm lazy and have grown quite fond of zooms... :-(

I only use primes for certain shots. Most of the time I use a zoom as well.

Sure. I've seen good examples of that. But, I've seen many more
examples where I thought the DOF was too shallow. One guy's POP
might be another guy's PO--....

You got that right.

--
Stephen Reed

 

[TS]

Studios also use hasselblads and Linofs. Many professional photographers use trucks to carry their gears, but stf members don't.

A prime lens? Are we going back to the dark ages? Prime lens were
my favorite 20 years ago. If you are talking about pure image
quality, nothing can match a hasselblad or a Linof. May be you
should try one of those and you will mock at your D60.

--
Stephen Reed

 

[Stephen Reed]

I have a 500C hasselblad. Never use it anymore, but one of the best none-the-less.

I still think your statement about primes being "dark ages" was very silly and unfounded. Many photographers I know shoot primes. I use them whenever I can.

Studios also use hasselblads and Linofs. Many professional
photographers use trucks to carry their gears, but stf members
don't.

--
Stephen Reed

 

[Bobby Tan]

This shot, taken by Klaus Wiese with his F707, was voted the #1
mage in the Exhibitions Gallery of Challenge 56 which just ended:

http://www.pbase.com/image/23585828

This is a deserved win. Congratulations, Klaus!

 

[Stephen Reed]

Another shot with a 50mm f1.8 prime lens.
http://www.pbase.com/image/18300976/original

--
Stephen Reed

 

[mxcat]

of rocket surgeons..

untouched
http://www.mxcat.com/smallsensor.jpg