RX10 III: best IQ f-stop(s) consensus...?

[Jeff Greenberg]

Although am often shooting a "forced" f2.8 due to pop-up fill flash "P",
do owners here agree on which f-stops show highest IQ edge-to-edge?

f6.3 to f9? only f8? completely different?

 

[Horacecoker]

Although am often shooting a "forced" f2.8 due to pop-up fill flash "P",
do owners here agree on which f-stops show highest IQ edge-to-edge?

f6.3 to f9? only f8? completely different?

No idea really but I never go beyond F5.6 with a 1" sensor camera. Higher F stops are not recommended due to diffraction issues. Nor are they necessary to achieve a deep depth of field.

I tell you what, Jeff. Why don't you do some tests yourself and let us know your findings?

David

 

[Jeff Greenberg]

Why don't you do some tests yourself and let us know your findings?

=====
Quite willing! Would like to hear if my specific lens has issues, too.
Limiting to couple compositions, couple mm's, multiple f-stops,
(realize more thorough testing at many mm & distances preferred, but...)

what would be most telling...?
a. 2-dimensional composition edge-to-edge, e.g., newspaper taped to wall...?
(focused at what mm?)
b. panoramic view focused at ∞ , e.g., ocean & sky...?
c. other?

I tend to shoot at wide end, so on my own I might
choose 80mm for (a) & 24mm for (b) & just for fun
something at 600mm...

How do I upload entire RAWs to DPR...?

 

[Digital Nigel]

Why don't you do some tests yourself and let us know your findings?

=====
Quite willing! Would like to hear if my specific lens has issues, too.
Limiting to couple compositions, couple mm's, multiple f-stops,
(realize more thorough testing at many mm & distances preferred, but...)

what would be most telling...?
a. 2-dimensional composition edge-to-edge, e.g., newspaper taped to wall...?
(focused at what mm?)
b. panoramic view focused at ∞ , e.g., ocean & sky...?
c. other?

I tend to shoot at wide end, so on my own I might
choose 80mm for (a) & 24mm for (b) & just for fun
something at 600mm...

How do I upload entire RAWs to DPR...?

You can't, not to DPR. Use something like Dropbox.

 

[Jeff Greenberg]

Don't know anything about Dropbox.
Is it free?

I might load to my own hostgator website.
(unlimited AFAIK)
I would upload unprocessed .ARWs
All Sony owners can handle those, right?
Anyone can convert to DNGs with free Adobe DNG converter.
Would this in any way defeat testing...?

 

[Digital Nigel]

Don't know anything about Dropbox.
Is it free?

The entry level account is free, and you shouldn't need to upgrade to a premium level.

I might load to my own hostgator website.
(unlimited AFAIK)
I would upload unprocessed .ARWs
All Sony owners can handle those, right?

Not just Sony owners …

Anyone can convert to DNGs with free Adobe DNG converter.

Or using their existing favourite RAW processor.

Would this in any way defeat testing...?

I don't think so.

 

[rapick]

Why don't you do some tests yourself and let us know your findings?

=====

Just suggesting...

Quite willing! Would like to hear if my specific lens has issues, too.
Limiting to couple compositions, couple mm's, multiple f-stops,
(realize more thorough testing at many mm & distances preferred, but...)

Why make things complicated? Just one composition, e.g. a landscape with lot of details (as DPR do in their tests). Just make sure to have focus at the same spot during your test.

what would be most telling...?
a. 2-dimensional composition edge-to-edge, e.g., newspaper taped to wall...?
(focused at what mm?)
b. panoramic view focused at ∞ , e.g., ocean & sky...?
c. other?

I tend to shoot at wide end, so on my own I might
choose 80mm for (a) & 24mm for (b) & just for fun
something at 600mm...

I'd say 24, 100, 200 & 600 eq.

For aperture, I would start with "wide open" (that means F/2.4 at 24 mm to F/4 at 600 mm) compared to F/5.6 - Pretty sure that smaller (e.g. F/8) is worse IQ due to diffraction.

After that, based on results, you can try apertures in-between (e.g. F/4, at wide angle end)

How do I upload entire RAWs to DPR...?

Why? I think everybody here can trust your judgment... or repeat the test by him/herself!

Waiting for your results!

 

[Jerry045]

Find something with very fine details like a feather or fine print.

Take your test shots. use a tripod, turn off OIS and use the timer if you don't have a remote release. Set the ISO to 100.

Then rather than trying to upload huge files of complete shots, crop the same area of each shot for comparison. Then make a collage of the crops.

It makes a comparison so much easier.

Sort of like this:




From Dr. Jimmy Brown's resolution test chart.

As you can see, f5.6 was the sweet spot in this test. f11 and f16 suffered from diffraction effects.

You can do something similar for the corners also.

--
Jerry

Jerry Malin

Explore Jerry Malin’s 969 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Jeff Greenberg]

> crop the same area of each shot for comparison. Then make a collage of the crops.

Hopefully the "cloud" seeing test RAWs thread will
collectively do this -- I can commit to posting RAWs of
multiple f-stops, multiple mm's; I can shoot either:

a. sunlit cityscape with edge to edge detail
(never moving tripod, always at or near infinity focus)
b. edge to edge 2-page newspaper ads with color, taped to glass, backlit by sky
(moving tripod & refocusing for each mm so full 2 pages fills frame)

So, either 3D or 2D composition, what's best...?

 

[PC Wheeler]

Sounds like too much work, Jeff I'd just go for f/5.6 and be done with it .. assuming enough light that the ISO isn't pushed up too high; in that case, wide open.

 

[Jeff Greenberg]

Sounds like too much work

=====
After reading reports since 2013 of RX10 owners'
unaligned lenses causing one-sided softness, &
fearing my own RX10 had issues, but took no action,
will now eagerly invite perfectionist Pixel Peepers to
view my RX10 III .ARWs at many f-stop & mm combos!

 

[PC Wheeler]

Sounds like too much work

=====
After reading reports since 2013 of RX10 owners'
unaligned lenses causing one-sided softness, &
fearing my own RX10 had issues, but took no action,
will now eagerly invite perfectionist Pixel Peepers to
view my RX10 III .ARWs at many f-stop & mm combos!

That sounds like too much work, too

These days I mostly shoot jpgs unless in some difficult situation where I need to push ISO a bit or some such. And the RX10's and RX100's seem to do very well with jpgs.

--
Phil

 

[elliottnewcomb]

Jeff,

It's a wonderful lens, and quite sharp at any aperture. All of them are.

When I had my RX10m1, I did a sharpness shootout: R1, RX10m1, rx100m1

My conclusion was, forget about it, just use the settings needed for any shot, bingo.

Test your specific lens using Jpeg, don't let RAW software get involved.

I shoot my back fence: textured wood, lines, tops of pickets, ivy, vines, shadows, stuff behind, grass in front at base. IOW, check sharpness in a photo. I don't take photos of test charts, so why would I use one to prove something I may never see.

As others have noted, f5.6 with 1" sensor gives full focus depth for landscape shots, so higher f#s are only to cut the light for specific reasons, not sharpness.

I use wider apertures to allow faster shutter speeds or lower ISO most of the time. You will see ISO noise before you will see lack of sharpness, and that noise is everywhere, not some inconspicuous corner.

--
Elliott

 

[Jeff Greenberg]

Thanks for extra fine JPG tip.

(53) images here:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[Horacecoker]

Jeff,

It's a wonderful lens, and quite sharp at any aperture. All of them are.

When I had my RX10m1, I did a sharpness shootout: R1, RX10m1, rx100m1

My conclusion was, forget about it, just use the settings needed for any shot, bingo.

Test your specific lens using Jpeg, don't let RAW software get involved.

I shoot my back fence: textured wood, lines, tops of pickets, ivy, vines, shadows, stuff behind, grass in front at base. IOW, check sharpness in a photo. I don't take photos of test charts, so why would I use one to prove something I may never see.

As others have noted, f5.6 with 1" sensor gives full focus depth for landscape shots, so higher f#s are only to cut the light for specific reasons, not sharpness.

I use wider apertures to allow faster shutter speeds or lower ISO most of the time. You will see ISO noise before you will see lack of sharpness, and that noise is everywhere, not some inconspicuous corner.

--
Elliott

Well said.

David

 

[Horacecoker]

Just to let you know Jeff, I have not abandoned this thread. I know it was me who suggested you do some tests yourself but I didn't for one minute think you'd take me up on it. Because you have taken the trouble I feel it is only right that I respond in detail. But at the moment I can't due to having a two year old grandson taking up most of my time. At this stage I will just say by studying your images at 100% I can categorically say there is no advantage quality wise to use any aperture smaller than F4 at ANY focal length.

This statement brings to mind the time when the RX10iii first came out and one disgruntled forum member told us he sent his RX10iii back because there was no improvement in image quality when he stopped down the lens to F5.6 from F4. You expect this with full frame but as I've mentioned several times in my posts, it doesn't work like this with 1" sensors. What he failed to say at the time was that the IQ at F4 was stellar anyway and didn't need stopping down!

I've been reading a lot about the effects of diffraction and for the time being I'll leave you with this little extract from one of the many articles I've read about it. The article is written pertaining to full frame sensors so I've included the equivalent apertures in brackets for a 1" sensor.

Extremely small apertures are physically limited from being "sharp" through the physics of diffraction. From this set of images we can observe that the images start to lose their sharpness around f/11 (F/4) but is tolerable even up to f/16 (F/5.6). From f/22 (F8) onwards though, the sharpness in images worsen dramatically until f/36 (F13) which is quite unusable.

BTW your images at 600mm are of no value (that's a kinder way of saying worthless) for F stop comparison purposes due to varying degrees of heat haze. This doesn't apply to all your other images and I will shortly post some 100% crops to demonstrate the effects of diffraction and why (if quality is paramount) you should not really go beyond F5.6.

David

 

[Jeff Greenberg]

1. there is no advantage quality wise to use any aperture smaller than F4 at ANY focal length.

2. your images at 600mm are of no value...for F stop comparison purposes due to varying degrees of heat haze.

=====

Thanks for response!

1. Is there IQ disadvantage below f4?
(besides shallower DOF)

2. thought bottom edge details were close
enough to eliminate rising hot air issues -- sorry!!!

Will shoot at f5.6 or less except rare cases
requiring extreme DOF inches-to-infinitiy...

 

[rapick]

1. there is no advantage quality wise to use any aperture smaller than F4 at ANY focal length.

2. your images at 600mm are of no value...for F stop comparison purposes due to varying degrees of heat haze.

=====

Thanks for response!
1. Is there IQ disadvantage below f4?
(besides shallower DOF)
2. thought bottom edge details were close
enough to eliminate rising hot air issues -- sorry!!!
Will shoot at f5.6 or less except rare cases
requiring extreme DOF inches-to-infinitiy...

Jeff,

I viewed your pics (thanks for sharing!!!) 1:1 on my 21.5" iMAC and came to the same conclusions as Horace: IQ starts to worsen above f/4 (degradation at f/5.6 is very slight, though).

On the other side I can't see any lower quality in the pics shot "wide open". can you?

I was surprised to view so much heat haze in the 600 mm pics. Very hot location? I can see a LOT of A/C condensers on the buildings roof.

 

[Jeff Greenberg]

Miami Beach.
Probably 80-82F at that time.
Less rising hot air on bottom edge = nearer...?

regards

 

[Horacecoker]

1. there is no advantage quality wise to use any aperture smaller than F4 at ANY focal length.

2. your images at 600mm are of no value...for F stop comparison purposes due to varying degrees of heat haze.

=====

Thanks for response!
1. Is there IQ disadvantage below f4?
(besides shallower DOF)

Not really - as far as I can make out from your test photos F4 is the 'sweet spot ' for all focal lengths. That is not to say anything less at wide angle is especially noticeably inferior. These are the amazing characteristics of your particular lens in my opinion.

Will shoot at f5.6 or less except rare cases
requiring extreme DOF inches-to-infinitiy...

Don't take my word for it just yet. Proof positive will follow shortly, possibly tomorrow.

David