Image Sharpness/Detail

First of all, I have a Canon Rebel T6 with the kit lenses.  I've noticed when I blow up my images on here/Photoshop/Lightroom that they're not as detailed/sharp as someone with a higher end camera with better lenses.  Is the 18mp Canon Rebel holding me back, the kit lenses, or is it me?  Here are a few examples.  I use aperture mode, with single point auto focus.

Bobmx50 wrote:

Digirame wrote:

It could be all three, the photographer, the camera and the lens. First, review whether you are having depth of field issues (see a depth of field calculator on the internet). Secondly, a more up-to-date camera could help a little. Third, go read the reviews about the Canon 75-300mm lens. I think you would be much better off using a Canon 55-250mm STM lens (assuming you are looking for something that is affordable in that price range).

You don't need to spend a whole lot. Just consider any improvements that you could make as a photographer and upgrade a little. If that interests you, then you could ask others what they would recommend. I'm presently using two older Canon DSLR cameras and one newer Canon DSLR camera (the Canon T7i (800D) camera). They all take good pictures. I would never use a Canon 75-300mm lens.

Thank you for your input! Judging from the images I posted do you think it's possible to make them even more sharper with what I have or no? I think i'm using the camera and kit lenses to the best of their ability without upgrading gear.

Here's what I would do:

I agree with Digirame above, but you can also try this before upgrading. I have a t7i but a very expensive lens (100-400 mk2 IS L).. and the IQ is amazing

1) use one shot (not AI Servo) for portrait

2) Use manual focus override if your lens allows it (on mine I leave the lens switched to AF but I can still turn the manual focus ring)... This allows for greater precision

3) Make sure you are STEADY.. Lean against something if you are shooting hand held

4) Increase your f stop (unless you really want the wide open bokeh)

5) Make sure your shutter speed is high enough

6) Shoot in RAW.  Do not use in camera picture mode settings (which are for jpg).. and do all your adjustments in your RAW processing software (I use Canon DPP and Adobe PS).

If you are shooting jpegs the options for further software sharpening of  all or part of the image which will yield what you want are limited because the jpeg has thrown out the needed data and locked the image to a particular aesthetic algorithm.

In this best of all possible digital worlds recording images in raw at the maximum bit depth and biggest color space allows almost unlimited opportunities to massage the data. The 18mp sensor in your camera in no way restricts that nor do the kit lenses when used optimally.

Your images are fine but you have to consider issues like lighting and depth of field both when capturing the image and post processing if you want to emphasize sharpness/texture in all or part of the image. I am sure you realize there is no way or reason to to software sharpen/enhance texture in what is out of the plane of focus.

If you are already shooting raw then find more training videos about sharpening and texture enhancement and experimenting in a program that allows layering, optimally Photoshop. If you are processing on the typical laptop its monitor is a significant limitation because you can only judge what you see and you can only see what the laptop monitor shows. An external monitor plugged into the laptop can reveal a whole new world--it is easier to process images on a larger monitor than any laptop screen and even more so as monitor resolution increases.

Shooting the same jpeg on a higher megapixel sensor with a more expensive lens will yield only a marginal difference in the image compared to what it does to your credit card bill. Its a lot cheaper and in the long run more beneficial to hone processing skills than to buy "better" versions of existing gear.

I had a similar curiosity from my 800d. I did change the lens to something a bit sharper which helped, but I think the main improvement came from learning about sharpening. The raw files can sometimes need a bit of work - so before buying new kit I'd do as I did and read about sharpening quite a bit, it makes a huge difference!

I must admit for portraits on a crop body the 50mm f1.8 STM I got for £100 used seemed good value, and I did notice that versus the kit lens the shots definitely seemed a bit clearer and sharper, or at least should I say, resolved the finer details better in trees for example. Also the 17-50 kit lens replacement I think produced better images. However I can't emphasise enough the improvement that came from learning about sharpening! Very much depends which software you use though I imagine.

Why not take a shot in raw+jpg mode, and compare the sharpness from the jpg to your raw file final version? As the JPG's do sharpen up quite a bit out of camera. If there is a discrepancy its probably editing improvements required.

Those are lovely pictures! When you look closer the second one of the dog seems sharper. The last one is also a lovely picture but maybe you could have blurred the background a bit but great colors in your composition!

Don't get over-obsessed with sharpness! Al your pictures are sharp enough if you would make a print. For really sharp results I would buy a 24, 40 or 50 mm prime. They are not that expensive and you will see a very big difference on your computer screen but not on your prints.

First, that 75-300 lens is a possibly one of the worst Canon makes so a new lens will improve things somewhat. As someone said the 55- 250 can be found used or refurbished for very little money.

2nd, why are so many people obsessed with pixel level sharpness? Go look at pictures on Flickr or 500 px or any other photo sharing site. There are some amazing pictures that aren't razor sharp. Give yourself a break, work on improving you all around skills and, un ess you're a dedicated wildlife shooter that needs fine feather / fur detail, don't obsess about sharpness at 100%.

N4RF wrote:

I was glad to see this thread because I have the same camera and was having the same problem with the same lens.

I eventually traded in the lens for a Tamron 18-400 and have seen better results.

One problem I may have is an older computer and monitor and I tend to pixel peep.

Best of luck!

I had that lens (Tamron 18-400) Excellent but I needed more and it didn't have a manual focus override .... so I upgraded to a Canon 100-400 mk2 IS L and a Canon 1.4 EX III.

You can see some of my Tamron shots here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cdmazoff/albums/72157690821638142

Excellent suggestion but speaking for myself, you only see this when you mature a bit in photography. At this moment I sometimes decide not to sharpen at all if I find that better fitting the subject. Composition, colours are often more important.

I agree with the folks here that say the 75-300 is not a very good lens.  I loved it when I first started, but when I saw my friends work compared to mine I knew I had to upgrade.  In my opinion it's a horrible lens.  If you're on a budget the 55-250 would be a great lens.  I have one too, if you're anywhere near the IL/WI state line.  I've owned the 100-400 ver 2 now for about 6 months and love it.

I thought the same when I bought my T6i, I found that the Anti-aliasing filter placed on the sensor causes some softness to the image.

I keep the camera on RAW, play with sharpening and I'm very happy with the results.

I also used the 55-250mm STM with great results and I also own the 100-400 Mk II and I love it.

I'll echo the good advice above about steadying your camera when using a telephoto lens. The longer the focal length, the more pronounced even the slightest camera movement will be. An ounce of prevention is worth an hour's worth of post-processing work. A tripod, wall, fence post, tripod head on a suction base that can be fastened to a vehicle, a bean bag — anything you can bring or employ to steady the camera will be a big help when shooting telephoto. In less than great light that goes double.

Of course, you want to favor smaller apertures for greater depth of field, but keep short of where diffraction sets in. And, fine-tuning focus can sometimes help ensure the best possible sharpness in your center of interest.

Lastly, keep some healthy perspective about what you intend to do with your images. Pro's who do work for advertising agency and publication art or photo directors must deliver super sharp images unless a particular subject calls for something else. Some of the pro's images are used for huge enlargements.  For your purposes, if most images will be viewed on screen and some printed snapshot size, with a very few enlarged for framing and hanging on a wall, your need for super-sharp images is less. As others have mentioned, what you see when you enlarge an on-screen image to full size (pixel peeping) is extreme. Photos enlarged to hang in your home or be part of a photo album or book can look and be excellent even if  they're not perfectly sharp and quite so splendidly detailed when pixel peeping.