In search of image quality

Started Feb 7, 2014 | Discussions thread
Michel J Veteran Member • Posts: 4,009
Re: In search of image quality

Chris Malcolm wrote:

WaltKnapp wrote:

doctorxring wrote:

Which of these options will give the best image quality over what I have already ? Would this be a small increment of image quality or a significant increase over my current combo ?

Take a really hard look at you as a photographer. You may very well find that learning more about photography will give you far more gain in image quality. The photographer has the greatest influence of image quality. You cannot buy being a expert photographer, you have to learn.

-- hide signature --

I'm Only Responsible For What I Say, Not For What You Understand.

I've ended up with an A77 & the 16-50mm. I started several years ago with an A350 and the 18-250mm lens. I also now have the 35mm f/1.8 prime and a number of other excellent primes. There are several favourite standard photographs I always get round to redoing with every improved camera and lens. So I can review the improvements in image quality over the years.

My conclusion is that by far the largest improvement has been due to improving my own skills in taking the shot. The second largest source of improvement has been the improvement in my post processing skills. And if I hadn't started out already pretty good at post processing that would have been by far the biggest contributor to image quality.

In fact I started out with decades of film SLR and darkroom experience behind me when I converted to digital DSLR. Without those background skills the contribution of my own developing photographic and image editing skills to image quality would have been even larger.

What has been the single most important contributor to my developing image quality over the years? Moving away from handheld shots. That has involved two things. The first has been acquiring more and better camera support devices, such as tripods and monopods.

True. Account must be taken of the resolving power (according to pixel count), period.

In the other hand, the shorter the focal lenght, the more IBIS is efficient, and the slower "security speed" is required.

The second has been using them more often. I should also mention the second most important factor in my improving image quality: getting sharper focus by learning when AF didn't get the sharpest focus, and shifting to manual focus.

I think you forgot the most important: 1) if you use AF is not for using MF (because I think the O.P. isn't a newby that they didn't think of it first.) 2) you missed the AF micro-ajustements 3) I agree you can get better result whith MF, but after I'm starting to use fine micro-ajustements, I used spot-AF and never noticed a loss of sharpness into it (all tests was made wide open: above and bellow 20mm).

For example very few DSLRs get AF right at focal lengths less than around 20mm, even at f/8 , if you're being really fussy about image sharpness.

What difference does it make since we know the autofocus adjustments are made wide open by the camera, no matter if you shot to F/8 or whatever? Could you clarify this?

-- hide signature --

Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow