Reading mode: Light Dark

My D7000 is not sharp

Go to last post
Tbolt47,

I am not familiar with Olympus, but D7000 does need some sharpening applied to get "sharp" images. I played with my Nikon AF 180mm f2.8 ED this morning to illustrate. Shot on tripod at f5.6 @ 1/640s in RAW with picture control Neutral. Used live view but with wide view AF area, which doesn't give most precise AF on the cat. Then varied sharpness settings in Capture N2.

Sharpness = 0. Definitely looks soft:





Sharpness 2. Getting better:





Sharpness 5. Sharper still:





Sharpness 7. Overdoing it in my opinion:





Sharpness 2 + USM (Intensity 20%, radius 15%, threshold 5%):



 
Just some numbers and thoughts:

From the field of view (assuming the label is about 2 inches across), I think the bottle you shot is at a distance of about a meter or two.

At 300mm and f/4, your DOF is 0.6cm. That is, six millimeters. I don't know of any phase-detect autofocus systems capable of that precise focusing, and I doubt you'll find one in a lens built for sports, wildlife and action.

The 300/f4 is optimized for many things, but macro shots ain't it. That your photos of objects at close distances come out a bit weird is not really a surprise if you think about it that way. Try shooting at distances the 300/f4 is built for ("sports, wildlife and action"). At 50 meters you have a DOF of 4 meters and things should be a lot sharper.

You can also try turning up in-camera sharpening. (Even RAW files are sharpened by the RAW processor based on attached processing specs in the file - RAW ain't really completely RAW.)
 
Tbolt47 said:
To get something sharp enough I seem to have to use sharpening that is showing up the noise more to the point were it appears to have as much noise as the 620 - which is a noisey camera!
Click to expand...
Tbolt47 said:
So because I'm new to Nikon has anyone got any suggestions as to what I might be doing wrong?
Click to expand...
It's not Nikon-specific, but stop sharpening the entire image and you'll have less problems with noise. Try the masking slider in ACR.
 
The smaller the pixel pitch the higher the amount of sharpening for the same effect.
Tbolt47 said:
Randy Z said:
All digital photos need some sharpening applied, do a search, there are many tutorials. And you'll find that different cameras need different amounts/settings, especially as the MP rises.

The details are there, just waiting to be sharpened.
--
Z-Man
Click to expand...
I'm well aware that RAW files need sharpening I don't need a tutorial, I said I was new to Nikon not to photography, I showed unsharpened images so you could see the difference. My point is that a 12MP 4/3 camera is producing sharper images than a 16MP APS-C camera.

To get the D7000 picture even close to the same sharpness as the 620 I have to use 3 times as much sharpening which makes the noise higher than the 620 which is a noise camera to start with!
Click to expand...
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
I see a different perspective in these images, you shpould be careful with camera subject alignements if you really want to do such a comparison.

Smaller pixel pitch also requires more sharpening for same effect, with a smaller radius. Don't use same radius, you have to compensate for pixel pitch, it'll produce artifacts.

Also, CNX2 is better than any other converter, including VNX2, at this level of pixel peeping.

You should also use similar lenses for such a comparison.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
Exactly what are these? 100% crops from both cameras or corrected for sensor size and/or pixel count?
rhlpetrus said:
I see a different perspective in these images, you shpould be careful with camera subject alignements if you really want to do such a comparison.

Smaller pixel pitch also requires more sharpening for same effect, with a smaller radius. Don't use same radius, you have to compensate for pixel pitch, it'll produce artifacts.

Also, CNX2 is better than any other converter, including VNX2, at this level of pixel peeping.

You should also use similar lenses for such a comparison.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
Click to expand...
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
Ok, I read they are 100% crops. Well, then, you cannot compare them in terms of detail as such, unless you frame same scene with both, with the correspondingly larger rendition at 100% from the D7000 (and probably much more detail).

You have to use same enlargement factor for both cameras, meaning either reducing pixel count for D7000 or increasing for other camera, and keep same scene on frames.

It's like taking negatives from two cameras and enlarging one more and asking detail to be same, it'll never work that way.

And, again, at 100%, you need different parameters for sharpening for same effect. The default Nikon sharpening which VNX2 imports is usually pretty low compared to other brands.

Renato.
rhlpetrus said:
Exactly what are these? 100% crops from both cameras or corrected for sensor size and/or pixel count?
rhlpetrus said:
I see a different perspective in these images, you shpould be careful with camera subject alignements if you really want to do such a comparison.

Smaller pixel pitch also requires more sharpening for same effect, with a smaller radius. Don't use same radius, you have to compensate for pixel pitch, it'll produce artifacts.

Also, CNX2 is better than any other converter, including VNX2, at this level of pixel peeping.

You should also use similar lenses for such a comparison.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
Click to expand...
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
Click to expand...
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
 
A slight difference in sharpness can be due to the lens. Most camera tests use a 50mm prime lens because every camera maker has one that is sharp. Olympus in general is known to make kit lens that is shaper than average.
 
I didn't say they were the same it was just a quick example of what I was getting those were not control pictures. The 620 was 283mm (566mm EFL) at f5.6 and the D7000 was 300mm (450mm EFL) at f4 but the 620 was taken slightly further away - like I said not controlled.

It could be a DoF thing but I've taken some shots where you can see the area in focus and the out of focus areas either side and the in focus part just doesn't seem quite as sharp as I expected but it could be that more sharpen is need for the D7000 images.

Anyway I'm going to get on and take some pictures of things I bought this lens for and apply stronger sharpening and if I'm still not sure I will try out my friends 300f4 for comparsion.
 
This could be part of the problem as although my Olympus 50-200 has it's faults it can produce some good quality images that like someone said maybe be better than the 300f4 at close up work.
 
I think I'm right in saying the D7000 is 4.78 and the 620 is 4.46.

I'm going to download CNX2 demo and give it a try.

I know I should really use a similar lens but I used what I got, it was just a quick sample so people could see what I was talking about, yes it's uncontrolled and probably looks worse in that shot than it really is. I'm suspect it's the lens and it could just be that my Olympus 50-200 is a really good copy and the 300f4 is just normal copy as we are only talking a small difference at 100% and I bought this lens to mainly photography aircraft so I'm going to get on and do that and see what I end up with.
 
I was looking the other day at the Kirk replacement one, not cheap but looks very good.
 
I know it wasn't very controlled. I realise I should have resized but it was only a quick example. Once I've done some real shooting if I'm still not happy I will do some proper tests.
 
Tbolt47 said:
I didn't say they were the same it was just a quick example of what I was getting those were not control pictures. The 620 was 283mm (566mm EFL) at f5.6 and the D7000 was 300mm (450mm EFL) at f4 but the 620 was taken slightly further away - like I said not controlled.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. It's hard to control for everything, but if you're going to fret over the difference in sharpness I'm seeing here (not much), at least setting the aperture to f5.6 on the 300mm/D7000 combo would have been a better indicator. Even then, I'd expect the 4/3 sensor to render results that look sharper.
Tbolt47 said:
It could be a DoF thing but I've taken some shots where you can see the area in focus and the out of focus areas either side and the in focus part just doesn't seem quite as sharp as I expected but it could be that more sharpen is need for the D7000 images.
Click to expand...
It's possible. In fact, every image needs a different amount of sharpening based on its characteristics and needs.
Tbolt47 said:
Anyway I'm going to get on and take some pictures of things I bought this lens for and apply stronger sharpening and if I'm still not sure I will try out my friends 300f4 for comparsion.
Click to expand...
Have fun. I think you'll be pleased once you dial in your settings and post-processing to optimize output.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seeking the heart and spirit in each image



Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03
 
Tbolt47 said:
This could be part of the problem as although my Olympus 50-200 has it's faults it can produce some good quality images that like someone said maybe be better than the 300f4 at close up work.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's another possibility. As someone already mentioned, summoning a lens designed for long work to do macro may not be the best way to judge sharpness. A possible additional test for you is to focus on mid-distance to long-distance object with both camera/lens combinations, while trying to keep things as constant as possible (same aperture for a close approximation), and see what you get. I bet the 300 f/4 will start producing nicer results once you start using it per its designed intent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seeking the heart and spirit in each image



Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03
 
Tbolt47 said:
I was looking the other day at the Kirk replacement one, not cheap but looks very good.
Click to expand...
i have this lens and still using it on an older body, so if it's not performing well on the newer sensors i might have forsake a newer body for a D300s, i use it handheld for lots of aviation shots which i know you shoot too, so i look forward to seeing how it performs for you in this regard
--
to me........to you
 
but I think you will be happier if you stop the 300mm f4 down a bit. It's sharper at 5.6 or 6.3 in my opinion. I'm not sure what exactly is wrong but that should help in the real world. I also find that the D7000 RAW files need more and different sharpening than my Oly RAW files.
Good luck.
Jolene
--



My galleries-- http://www.zenfolio.com/jolieo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top