Acceptable Image Quality?

Well Im still trying to decide if there is a problem with my camera or lens. Im mostly happy with it, but still have a few doubts. A few have remarked (independently) that they might not be 100% up to scratch.

Im perfectly willing to accept that this could be me and not the camera , but basically if ive just paid out for what is for most people a pretty expensive bit of kit, id like to be sure its working properly.

Here is a full size image i took recently, jpg, no post processing.

http://www.pbase.com/trwalpole/image/67662626

What don't you like?
That is a really nice image...
------------
Ken - KM 5D
Sigma Trinity 10-20, 24-135 f2.8-4.5, 70-300 APO DG
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Qubit said:

Well Im still trying to decide if there is a problem with my camera
or lens. . . . . >
Im perfectly willing to accept that this could be me and not the
camera , > Here is a full size image i took recently, jpg, no post processing.

http://www.pbase.com/trwalpole/image/67662626

Click to expand...

Qubit, you and I are quite in same boat regarding our willingness to look inward for answers to less than perfect results. I'm still heavily in learning mode, so take my remarks here for whatever they may be worth.

I tend to agree the yellow flower is less than perfect. It's really a pretty tough subject. I don't know how much 'trumpet' flare there is in that blossom, but any shadow will add to the flat brown hole in the center. I think it's also slightly out of focus, although f9 should have given pretty good depth of field, more than I'd use in this case.

I'd suggest two things to try: 1. bracket exposure or perhaps change to spot from matrix to expose for the dark center. 2. Don't rely on autofocus (if in fact you did) on a close flower shot. Set a fixed focus point and move the camera to achieve focus. This can be tricky in itself (at least for me) as I'm not all that bodily steady when crouched over some poor defenseless flower. It's easy to sway in and out of a shallow dof.

For comparison, you can look at http://public.fotki.com/BigHatPix/a_water_garden/dsc00117.html

EXIF is available on site, lens was the beercan.

Good luck. I'm finding the a100 to be a wonderful machine, very forgiving of my shortcomings, I hope you will as well.
--
Daryl

--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites

Was this shot with the standard kit lens ? Exif suggest that it might have been. F9.0 1/250 105mm Equivalent.

There are depth of field issues with this photo - not all the water droplets are in sharp focus. Is that bothering you ? The kit lens is not the sharpest lens around & closeups like this show up any deficiencies ruthlessly. You have used close to the optimum aperture but I can't tell if you used SSS which can help with slight movement blurring.

105mm is not the sharpest focal length but you could have got more DOF with a smaller aperture & slower shutter if you had used SSS. There is also slight under exposure which has lost some detail from the centre of the flowers. The lighting is also a bit flat - some extra strength in side lighting would have given better dimensionality to the image.

Lastly this picture could be improved with some PP - mainly USM sharpening & a touch of levels or curves applied.

Don't be too disheartened - you did ask ! A DSLR costs a lot of money but does not guarantee perfect results straightaway. You would get much better results with this type of shot if you use a good macro lens - such as the 100mm macro used by Aarif. The apparent paradox is that it is much easier to get good shots like this with a good P&S which has bags of DOF.

Keith-C

Thanks for your comments, im certainly always open to all comments and critiscisms)

Yep this is shot with the kit lens, and yep at F9 as ive identified that to my eyes at least this lens is at its best around f9/f10. SSS was off because it was tripod mounted. Yes i guess really my issues are with the basic sharpness (which as you say can be improved upon with some PP - i have already tried a little with this image and it can indeed be improved upon a bit). Although i did wonder if i had some slight AF issues at one point.

I am tempted to get a better lens to try to see if that will improve matters slightly re sharpness. Obviously i dont want to spend a lot if there are problems, i had spotted that the 35-70mm can be had very cheaply but is quite well regarded in sharpness terms (although is not the most useful range at 52-105 equiv) Or perhaps the 70-210 f3.5-4.5? ( i know neither of these are great lenses though, im just after something a bit better than the kit lens)

Thanks Im not unhappy with it really, ive just recieved a few independent remarks that had led me to perhaps think i might have a lens or camera issue. Or maybe a lack of photographic talent issue!

Hi, thanks for the reply.

Yep i did use autofocus for this one, as thats one of the things ive been testing as a cause of any possible problem.

I was trying to get the droplets in focus (hence the focal point is the droplets to the centre not the flower itself) Ive photographed these flowers in my garden a bit and its hard to get the centre bit looking anything but dark - they are very dark, a dark purple in fact and quite deep too, hence the epxosure issue there.

If you expose it more for the centre you run the risk of blown highlights a bit more. Although I admit that this is slightly underexposed (seems to be a bit of a common occurence with the A100 from what im reading) andi should have shot it in raw

Nice shots with the beercan, perhaps i might get one although they seem quite expensive now.

Thanks

Both lenses that you mention are very good value for the money if you buy used.The one to get is the 35-70mm F4.0 macro the F3.5 is not so good. The f4.0 belongs to the same era as the fabled 'Beercan'.

The 70-210F 3.5-4.5 ( not the F4.5 later model) is very comparable to the Beercan but is much lighter & less likely to be left at home.

PS - if using tripods for such pictures be sure to use the 2 second mirror lock-up as this can considerably minimise mirror slap vibration. That way you don't need cable releases & avoid residual vibration from pressing the shutter too hard - effects of which can be exacerbated in lightweight tripods.

Keith-C

OK, cheers for your advice, much appreciated. Im also looking at a 100-200mm f4.5 as this seems to be from the same sort of era and perhaps under-rated. I must admit i didnt use the mirror lock up here as the wind didnt have predictable lulls. Ive tested the mirror lock up on some indoor subjects (err a cereal box actually) and must admit it does appear to make a difference to edge sharpness and possibly details as well.

Qubit said:

Yep this is shot with the kit lens, and yep at F9 as ive identified
that to my eyes at least this lens is at its best around f9/f10.

Click to expand...

I was going to ask that myself ... DOF is very shallow; where the image is in focus, there's detail, but not as crisp as you might hope for this kind of shot. The kit lens is a fine enough lens for what it is and how many people will use it; at 100% view, even stopped down, it's not going to record the kind of detail you can get from many other lenses. In my testing, it recorded less detail at f/8 than other lenses could show on the 6MP 7D, so on the 10MP A100, you've definitely got more room. Or, in other words, I don't think there's anything wrong with the image or the gear

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Qubit said:

Yep this is shot with the kit lens, and yep at F9 as ive identified
that to my eyes at least this lens is at its best around f9/f10.

Click to expand...

By the way, in this type of shot, you typically sacrifice absolute sharpness for depth of field, and stopping down to f/16 or f/22 (and living with the loss of sharpness to diffraction) isn't unreasonable to get more in focus. Having the water drops in focus is key, but the center of the flower at the center of the image ends up distracting (much more so than the outsides of the flower petals, which can go OOF with no harm. Another option would be recomposing, maybe only shooting a quarter of the flower, with water drops in focus and the center of the flower either not showing at all, or toward the edge of the image ... of course, with the kit lens, you may likely have been at max magnification, so this might not be an option with that lens.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Qubet,

Reading your replies to the responses sounds to me like you're well on your way. Hang in there and post a few along the way.

The 35-70/4 does pretty good macro . . . in that regard it's probably better than the kit lens. They are very reasonable on Ebay, often cheaper when mounted to a Maxxum 7000 than offered singly . . . it may make sense to get one just for close ups. There were a ton of these made in the early AF days, you may even find one in a pawn shop. It's no match for the kit lens in general utility . . . but then you don't need it to be.

Now go find a more photgenic flower
--
Daryl

No! to me this is not acceptable image quality

I find too little in focus, no matter what setting your aperature was on, I am not familiar with the A100 but I am with the KM 5D, which I believe are similar. I have both decent quality lens and Not so decent quality lens. My worst is a Minolta 35-70, (I don't use it) which would deliver a much better image on my 5D. than the one took.

The camera or the lens or both, I would expect better from a tripod shot, and you probably do also

I'd borrow a lens for another shot which could elimanate the lens, then borrow a camera.
Roy

Hmm,

thanks for your reply. Its interesting to see the range of responses to this image (and others i have posted). Some seem to think OK, others not.

I called the Sony service centre here in the UK. Lets just say that i wouldnt necessarily be very confident sending my camera to them based on the guy i spoke to. First he hadnt heard of the camera model. Then eventually he cottoned on that it was "oh yeh the one with the lens you take off".

Here is another (possibly better?) flower. And one of a set I took on a visit to Ely Cathedral in the UK.

http://www.pbase.com/trwalpole/image/67799332

http://www.pbase.com/trwalpole/image/67800074

I have been battling with exactly the same dilema - is something wrong with my camera or my ability to shoot sharp pictures? I find that especially red and yellow flowers lack sharpness and detail.

Check this one - used tripod, manual focus, 2sec timer, lens Tamron 90mm macro. No PP. I wouldn't mind better sharpness & more detail.

I did state in an earlier post to avoid bright yellow subjects for a test like this!

This pic wouldn't make me cry at this stage for a number of reasons.

It's yellow!. Yellow tends to confuse the lightmeter and often leads to under-exposure, as here. Best to dial in +0.7 to +1 full stop.

You used one of the sharpest lenses on the market, but at f5.6 and at this sort of range only approx a couple of mm is in focus anyway. However, the dust on the centre flower seems to have been caught quite sharply here.

The supplied software has been used on this pic and I think that there is better available, even for free.

You shot in jpeg I think. Nothing wrong with that understand but you have colour set at srgb and everything else turned off. Personally I shoot raw with the same settings, except I use AdobeRGB and rely on the fact that I can process the 'digital negative' how I want. With jpeg you generally want a useable pic direct from the camera, more or less so take some time and use the various settings to give the results you and your camera can produce.

With sharpness on normal it will be a little soft. Nudge the slider up 1 notch at a time till you feel it is how you want it.
Same applies to contrast and you need to find the balance between the two.

This doesn't apply to everyone but if I do shoot in jpeg I personally prefer the saturation notched a little to the negative side and use the software to increase it if necessary. I find the Bibble software 'Vibrance' tool works well for me.

Basically, I don't think you picked the best subject for trial purposes, especially for the Tammy 90mm Macro lens (my most used lens!) but if you take this pic and adjust the 'Levels' a little and add a tad of 'USM' it will come out much better. I just did that with this pic and it looks OK, with the full sized version you may be pleasantly suprised. With jpeg or raw, some element of pp is necessary, imho, to get the best out of the pic. Turning on the settings will often improve jpeg images once you get to know them.

BUT..........avoid bright yellow subjects!!.........;-))

Good luck.

Denis.

--
DenisG.
http://www.denisg.co.uk/gallery/
First get a pic, if it's still there, compose one!

Thanx Denis for your advice. I purposely didn't apply any PP so that the pic could be seen as it comes from the camera as the guy who initiated this thread was not happy with his.

I have a question for you - is it normal for the Tamron (or perhaps any macro lens?) not to be able to focus in short distances? Mine hunts and hunts, and then stops anywhere so basically all my macros are done with manual focus.

Thanx, Renata.

Renata said:

Thanx Denis for your advice. I purposely didn't apply any PP so
that the pic could be seen as it comes from the camera as the guy
who initiated this thread was not happy with his.

I have a question for you - is it normal for the Tamron (or perhaps
any macro lens?) not to be able to focus in short distances? Mine
hunts and hunts, and then stops anywhere so basically all my macros
are done with manual focus.

Thanx, Renata.

Click to expand...

Yes, to a degree anyway. If you check the Lenses page at Dyxum you will find this as a moan/whinge from a number of users many of whom think of it as a design fault. They are so, so wrong. A true 1:1 macro lens like the Tammy, Siggy or Sony/Minolta not to mention Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus et-al is made for close work with a tiny, tiny depth-of-field. In some cases fractions of a mm. To be able to adjust focus within these very fine constraints the focus movement of the lens must be very fine threaded. To use a normal thread would make it almost impossible to fine focus because even the slightest touch woud be a touch too much. That's why there are more turns from close focus to infinity on a macro lens than a normal (non true macro) lens. To assist you here, Tammy and most others offer the 'Limit' switch on the lens which restricts the movement so if you must AF try using it.

Bearing this in mind, if the light is low(ish) or as in the case of yellow subjects which can 'glow' and lose focus contrast, if the lens misses focus on first pass it has to make a long journey because of the fine thread to get back to it. Time consuming. I know of very few macroholics like myself that use autofocus on a regular basis although I accept that some do. Most I think use manual focus (so easy on the 7D!) together with a time proven technique.

Basically, you take the camera to the subject rough focusing manually as you go. When you have the frame filling picture or desired composition in the viewfinder then focus on the part which will give the desired dof. Half press the shutter and then without touching the focus ring move yourself and camera backwards and forwards to get the focus spot on. I tend to pull back slightly and then move forward and fully depress the shutter button just before I think it is 'there'.

You use a tripod I see. In general terms I don't do flowers or subjects that hang around long enough to wave a tripod about so I am hand held 90% of the time. If the subjects you take allow this (like flowers!) then there is a tool which mechanises the above technique, search for focus rails. Kirk, Mannfrotto (Bogen stateside) and Novoflex do them and are worth their weight in gold for many reasons. The technique above is one but you can also take consecutive pics and move the camera forward by say, 0.5mm before each pic and then combine them in PS to give a faux dof appearing much deeper than it actually was. Almost essential when you discover the reversed lens on a macro lens technique!!

My advise would be not to get too deep into macro..........it IS addictive!!.....LOL....

Denis.

--
DenisG.
http://www.denisg.co.uk/gallery/
First get a pic, if it's still there, compose one!