Reading mode: Light Dark

What a sharp DSLR picture looks like

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron Parr
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
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 great shots from a Sony
F-class looks like. With their built-in lenses, these cameras are capable of
taking very sharp photos that are quite impressive with the default
settings and no additional processing.

These are from my F-717, shot in JPG-Fine and MPG with default process
except that I did select Low power for the built-in flash to avoid slightly
blown out faces in kiddie portraits. You will see a little noise in the
background, because small sensors do have some noise.

All shots were taken with the standard 9.7-48.5 f2.0/2.4 Zeiss
zoom lens.

1. (Imaginary link to average kiddie portrait with unflattering
on-camera flash, but with face well exposed.)

2. (Imaginary links to well-framed overhead shot, waist-level
shot, 90-degree stealth shot, and ground-level shot.)

3. (Imaginary link to MPG video clip of student receiving
diploma, complete with classmate's cheers).

You'll notice in #1 that the DOF is shallow, but not so shallow
that parts of the head are blurred. Shots taken with cheap zooms
--e.g., DRebel kit--may not be this sharp.

In case you're not familiar with moving pictures (#3), they are
achieved using a series of still photos in rapid succession.
In this case, are encoded with sound using a file format called MPG.
They can be played on your own computer or TV set.

If these shots look so good to you that you're willing to give up
a largish camera with multiple big, heavy, and expensive lenses, then
an F-Class Sony with a small sensor may be a good choice for you.
If you look at these shots, and they don't look any better than
what you've seen from non-video cameras without agile viewing
options, then you probably shouldn't get an F-Class camera.

[FWIW: For me, having the ability to get these kinds of results is
important. I'd really like if you understood that there is a difference
between these kinds of results and what you get from larger, more
expensive, but less agile cameras; but I'll think no less of you if you
don't think the difference is worth the effort.]

----The End----

P.S. I appreciate Ron's many useful contributions to the Forums.

P.P.S. I'm NOT planning to put this in a Canon SLR forum.
I'm sure it would look like trolling to them, notwithstanding
protestations to the contrary. (And if I talked down to them like
this, I expect the flames would be fierce.) So let's not go there.

Regards and happy shooting to all...
 
I don't see you around much...

Anyway, you still in MCO land?? We are moving that way at the end of hte MONTH!!!!!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!! (it's been a year coming... a long year!)

Anyway, we are looking at houses in North Lake County right now. I'm looking at 5 acres for a dream price (forget the house on it - the land alone seems CHEAP ;-) ).

So, I didn't know if you still around there - maybe we can have a Sony/Canon meet somewhere (i upgraded my 707 a few weeks ago to the DR).

Tracey
Jay Jervey said:
-- Jay
Click to expand...
 
Good point :-)

Dmitry
dpophyte said:
There is something about being a parent that makes people
inordinantly proud of their photographs based on the subject more
than any objective quality. I think Ron is experiencing that with
his pic, and I know you are with yours. ;D
Click to expand...
 
I would normally set the DOF to get the whole face in focus while using the great advantage (to many) of the shallow DOF to make the subject "pop" from the rest of the environment.
BTW. . . the 50mm f1.8 is not even at its best at f4.5. It's even better at f11.
Kerry Pierce said:
Stephen Reed said:
Another shot with a 50mm f1.8 prime lens.
http://www.pbase.com/image/18300976/original
Click to expand...
I don't want to be critical, it's a very nice shot. I would like to
point out that this is an example of shallow DOF that doesn't
appeal to me. The left eye is sharp. The right eye is OOF, even at
f/4.5.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
--
Stephen Reed



http://www.pbase.com/domotang
 
A brief answer to your question is that it would be a strange post b/c it would not play to the strengths of the camera used by the poster. (BTW, I'm amazed how everybody delights in criticizing irrelevant details of photos when those photos show technical points they don't find agreeable, but that's another story...)

Anyway, I think a more appropriate version of this would be if somebody presented some really close macro shots with relatively deep DOF despite the short distance to subject and then mentioned that he was presenting these because they demonstrate an advantage of small sensors that people often overlook.

I do think that such a post would be greeted with a good number of unduly rude responses, but this doesn't mean that it was incorrect to make this point or that the rudeness should be tolerated/encouraged.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
I used to own a F717 and also a D60 (28-135mm IS USM and 75-300mm USM). While each had its strengths, if I had to go back to buying either of them, I would opt for the F717, because of the ton of stuff I need to carry along to get a sharp image, using a heavy DSLR.

Of course DSLRs will get better images if the photog is good. They should, because each quality lens costs almost as much as a new F717, except for the EF 50mm f/1.8, which is surprisingly cheap. But is only 50mm and you have to change your lens for each type of shot if you only use primes.

I liked the silky smooth images that my D60 gave me, but I also loved the bright lens on the F717. Here are some sample images from F717s I found on PBase - Not my own, I am no pro, so my photos might not prove my point. :)

Anil





 
Nice shot, but not that sharp. Check out some of Ron Reznick's D2H bird shots if you want to see sharp.
Ron Parr said:
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/
Click to expand...
 
Hey there Tracey. Long time no talk. Yeah, I pop in and out of the forums here and there mostly reading. I also got a DR about 2 months ago and passed my 717 on to my sister (so it's still nearby in case I need a quick Sony fix!). So far I'm just LOVING the smooth clean pictures from my DR. As you noted in a previous message in this thread, Canon DSLR was the actual goal all along (even if weren't always consciously aware of it) -- and now we're there. It's wonderful.

Glad to hear you're finally coming this way from CA. Lake County is beautiful. It would be great to do some photo shooting. My email is [email protected] if you want to communicate phone numbers or whatever. And, yes, we still live here in Mickey-town although we just moved to a nice bigger place on 1/2 acre in Longwood.

Later,

-- Jay
 
Hi,

Could you pls give me the links to the D2H bird shots you mentioned? Thanks.

I am not a Sony or a Canon fanatic (or any other brand for that matter). Nor am I a DSLR or prosumer fanatic.

Just saying that unless you want really commercial grade photos, I dont think you absolutely need awesome and high-priced equipment. Most people resize and post their photos online for friends/family and some print them out at 5x7 or 8x10 occasionally.

I am not arguing that a larger sensor and a tack-sharp lens will give good results if the photog knows how to use them.

Anil
 
antoine said:
....
1) The film like feel (Color, contrast, DOF...) that I am pretty
sure it would be much better than F717 in these area because of the
better lens.
...
Click to expand...
DOF won't change...which to me, makes the real difference between a SLR and a small sensor digicam...

BaKMaN
 
Look at Ron's shot at reduced size of 600x400, it's not as sharp as the 717.
Look at the same shot at 100%, it's much sharper than the 717.

Why? because at 100%, noise in 717 image will pop. With noise visible, it no longer retain its sharpness.

--
Lance
http://www.pbase.com/lhphoto

--- Art critic doesn't have to be an artist ----
 
Ron (This isn't a troll post) Parr said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hi Ron,

Thanks for the post. Informative and objective, as usual, and certainly more relevant to this forum than the often inane 'OT:' postings that popup all too frequently and have nothing to do with photography at all (which, BTW, according to Phil's rules should only be posted in the Open Talk forum anyway).

I admire your aplomb in handling the detractors to this posting, something I don't have in similar situations unfortunately, which is why I seldom post anything meaningful anymore.

For some reason, people take this all much too seriously (I doubt very much that their livelihood depends on their Sony cameras) and should spend more time shooting the flowers and less time shooting off their mouths.

I hope you continue to keep us informed.

Gordon
 
Hi Ron -

Thanks for responding, and it's nice that the tone is civil,
all around.

I would like to offer a couple of responses:

1. If you were referring to me as not finding "technical
points...agreeable" in your photo, I don't know what
you are assuming. I have a healthy respect for the
potential sharpness of both 50mm primes and 6MP
sensors; and I don't find either one disagreeable.

I was surprised to see that you picked a shot with
fairly significant lighting problems as your example
of D60 brilliance. I would think you'd have other
very sharp shots, substantially free of technical
problems of any kind, that could have been used
as your example.

2. I think we're in agreement that Canon DSLRs and
Sony F-types have substantial differences.

And I can understand why DSLR fans play down
the importance of video clips, since they have no
counterpart for that. But I think you'd have to
accept the fact that such clips ARE important to
some people, albeit not to you.

Similarly, the agile viewing modes may not be
important to you; but they are VERY important
to me. I won't dwell on the obvious F-type
advantages in stealth and street type photography,
'cause I don't honestly do much photography of
that type. But as one who needs both a hat and
glasses, the difference in these scenarios is MAJOR:

(a) With my F-707: Flip finder screen to convenient
angle, push button, get shot. Next case.

(b) With my Nikon SLR: Take off hat (brim interferes
with peephole). Look for place to put hat while
taking photo. Take off glasses (also interfere with
peephole). Look for place to put glasses while
taking photo. Peer through peephole, push button,
get shot. Evaluate whether next shot is coming
quickly. If not, find glasses and put back on; then
find hat and put back on. Repeat entire process
on next shot. Hopefully get through shooting day
without losing either glasses or hat.

Yes, I enjoy the deep DOF on the few macro shots
that I take. And yes, I can appreciate that this could
be important for a real macro fan. But for me, the
reflex-style viewing is really much MORE important; and
I hope you can appreciate that.

Regards...
Ron Parr said:
A brief answer to your question is that it would be a strange post
b/c it would not play to the strengths of the camera used by the
poster. (BTW, I'm amazed how everybody delights in criticizing
irrelevant details of photos when those photos show technical
points they don't find agreeable, but that's another story...)

Anyway, I think a more appropriate version of this would be if
somebody presented some really close macro shots with relatively
deep DOF despite the short distance to subject and then mentioned
that he was presenting these because they demonstrate an advantage
of small sensors that people often overlook.

I do think that such a post would be greeted with a good number of
unduly rude responses, but this doesn't mean that it was incorrect
to make this point or that the rudeness should be
tolerated/encouraged.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
Click to expand...
 
LanceD said:
Look at Ron's shot at reduced size of 600x400, it's not as sharp as
the 717.
Look at the same shot at 100%, it's much sharper than the 717.

Why? because at 100%, noise in 717 image will pop. With noise
visible, it no longer retain its sharpness.
Click to expand...
I think part of the reasons why V1 and 717 shots look not so sharp at 100%, but sharp when reduced is because Sony uses a somewhat wide radius sharpening filter, which has the following effects:
  • Increased noise at 100%
  • Wide(r) sharpening halos
  • Sharp looking reductions because the shots have essentially been "pre-sharpened" for the reduced size.
--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
You've mentioned good points about the F7x7 style cameras and I don't dispute them.

I focused on the macro issue in my reply because this is one for which it is easier for people to be dispassionate and level headed. I don't think anybody who has tried to do a macro shot with a DSLR can feel that the shallow DOF is an advantage in that context.

For some reason, if you start talking about video (either captured, or on an EVF, or an LCD on the back of a camera), a good chunk of DSLR people get whipped up into a frenzy from which there is little hope of recovery. Ultimately, there are some personal preference issues deeply involved and too many people have trouble understanding that different people have different preferences (and that this is OK). Raising this topic seems to bring out the worst in everybody, so I just try to avoid it...

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