Which of these looks sharper/better to you?

Started 3 months ago | Polls
Papa48 Senior Member • Posts: 1,329
Re: Which of these looks sharper/better to you?
1

tbcass wrote:

Bobthearch wrote:

The first photo seems slightly more detailed, maybe because the features are simply larger because it's zoomed in closer?

Also, I like the composition of the first photo better, a traditional moon shape. The second photo, due to the shadow, looks like a giant egg.

Also, the 'best' features are right at the edge of the shadow, and with deep shade in the craters. This provides a point of interest for the viewers' eyes.

They are both random crops from a larger photo. The question isn't about composition or points of interest but the technical quality. It's a comparison between 2 different lenses, one a Sony 70-400 with a 1.4 TC mounted on a 42mp FF camera and the other a Tamron 150-600 mounted on a 24mp APS-C camera. The Sony is nearly 3 times the cost of the Tamron.

Your first sample has higher magnification but less edge acutance. The second seems better in that department, but with less magnification it's hard to tell.  My eyes might just be reacting to the apparently higher contrast. It's a bit of apples and oranges. I'd prefer the lens that made the second image. It appears to have two advantages - acutance and contrast, if you did the test without changing other factors in post.

 Papa48's gear list:Papa48's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Fujifilm X10 Fujifilm X-S1 Nikon Coolpix A Panasonic FZ1000
tbcass
OP tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 43,211
Re: Which of these looks sharper/better to you?

You continue to cling to the false idea that the Sony with TC is clearly sharper which it is not and the overwhelming opinion agrees with me.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
tbcass
OP tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 43,211
Re: Which of these looks sharper/better to you?

Don't confuse him with facts. He just can't stand the idea that a lens TC combo that costs 3 times the Tamron will perform as well.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
tbcass
OP tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 43,211
Re: Which of these looks sharper/better to you?

TheSonyEnthusiast wrote:

Other than crater edges as the only real means to compare, this is apples to oranges anyways. It's manual focus vs autofocus, full frame vs APSC, 560mm vs 900mm (600 with 1.5 crop), ND8 filter vs none, one moon phase vs another, the list goes on.

The FF vs APS-C argument isn't valid because it's mostly compensated by the fact that the A99ii is 42mp vs 24mp for the A77ii.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
TheSonyEnthusiast
TheSonyEnthusiast Regular Member • Posts: 266
Re: Which of these looks sharper/better to you?

StefanD wrote:

TheSonyEnthusiast wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

TheSonyEnthusiast wrote:

The first shot is mine and I think the reason the first photo has the moon periphery out of focus is because teleconverter shrinks the already narrow depth of field of the 70-400.

I don't think you'd be having a DoF issue with something 400,000 kilometres away. It looks more like motion blur. Don't forget the moon is constantly moving across the frame unless you are tracking it on a EQ mount.

With the TC the f-ratio become slower and it exaggerates lens softness. What was the ISO and shutter speed?

While I will admit the shot was at 1/20 of a second, if it were motion blur it would affect the sharpness across the entire image. The reason I think it may be depth of field is due to the preciseness necessary in manually focusing; I took a series of shots barely nudging the focus each time toward infinity, and a fraction of a millimeter either way resulted in less resolved craters.

According to this DoF calculator, the DoF of a 600mm lens at f/8 focussed at the moon (384402000m) ranges from 1500m to infinity. That should be enough to have the whole moon in focus.

What's on paper and in practice do not necessarily match up.  The distances denoted on a lens's DoF window go up logarithmically, and different makes and models of lenses have different depths of field.  According to the DoF window on a typical lens itself, I should be able to have something at an "infinite distance" (I.e. Moon) in focus across a slight range of focus barrel movement as long as infinity is within that.  Usually DOF finders have markings for F8 and F32, and that would be for the lens itself (case in point, I could go narrower with F5.6); if you threw a teleconverter on a 1.4 teleconverter and smallest f-stop were 5.6, the range in focus would be for F8 now, for the F8 on the rangefinder window, thats now f11, etc, so your depth of field is different between between your lens at F32 vs with a teleconverter stopped at F32, the former will have more depth to its focus than the latter.

With the SAL70400G2 though, that isn't the case as there is no DOF indicator in the rangefinder window; there is only a black line denoting the focus (see photo below), which is no surprise because the depth of field on the lens is so shallow that Sony engineers probably felt putting a range on it would be pointless.

With the teleconverter attached, *any deviation* of the focus barrel either left or right from a specific point pushes it out of focus.  Which should be no surprise given then narrow window that is made narrower by teleconverter use, the logarithmic scale of distance to infinity, and the moon being *just before* infinity.  If you have a 70400G2, SAL14TC and an a99M2, try it and you'll see what I'm talking about.

-- hide signature --

I make my own repairs at home.

 TheSonyEnthusiast's gear list:TheSonyEnthusiast's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Sony SLT-A55 Sony SLT-A35 Sony SLT-A77 +30 more
TheSonyEnthusiast
TheSonyEnthusiast Regular Member • Posts: 266
What is your problem?
2

tbcass wrote:

Don't confuse him with facts. He just can't stand the idea that a lens TC combo that costs 3 times the Tamron will perform as well.

Really Tom, what is it?  You're getting so bent out of shape at the idea that other people feel the Tamron 150-600 is a little softer on edges that you've devolved into petty personal attacks that are clearly a violation of DPReview community standards.  The OP in the original post you responded to *didn't care* about cost yet you keep bringing it up to a "technical quality" comparison as if its irrelevance somehow matters.  Have I at *any point* said your lens is garbage, sucks, or anything derogatory to that nature?  No.  It's a bit softer on edges no matter where I look on your photo, where as the part of my crop that is in focus has more defined edges.

I have repeatedly given concessions playing devil's advocate saying this and that could be done to probably refine the edges where I'd be satisfied but as it sits, I'm not impressed, "convinced,"  or "surprised" at the quality of the Tamron from a one-off shot.

Seriously dude, calm down and chill out.  Or feel free to continue insulting me and misrepresent my difference of opinion on what matters *to me* as an 'argument' purely on the aesthetics of two photos using two different:  focal lengths, cameras, sensors, shutter speeds, ISO, apertures, moon phases, color settings, atmospherics, file types, angles, weather, temperature, elevation "cost," etc, but if you do consider yourself reported.

-- hide signature --

I make my own repairs at home.

 TheSonyEnthusiast's gear list:TheSonyEnthusiast's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Sony SLT-A55 Sony SLT-A35 Sony SLT-A77 +30 more
TheSonyEnthusiast
TheSonyEnthusiast Regular Member • Posts: 266
Atmospherics or periphery was just out of focus

StefanD wrote:

TheSonyEnthusiast wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

TheSonyEnthusiast wrote:

The first shot is mine and I think the reason the first photo has the moon periphery out of focus is because teleconverter shrinks the already narrow depth of field of the 70-400.

I don't think you'd be having a DoF issue with something 400,000 kilometres away. It looks more like motion blur. Don't forget the moon is constantly moving across the frame unless you are tracking it on a EQ mount.

With the TC the f-ratio become slower and it exaggerates lens softness. What was the ISO and shutter speed?

While I will admit the shot was at 1/20 of a second, if it were motion blur it would affect the sharpness across the entire image. The reason I think it may be depth of field is due to the preciseness necessary in manually focusing; I took a series of shots barely nudging the focus each time toward infinity, and a fraction of a millimeter either way resulted in less resolved craters.

According to this DoF calculator, the DoF of a 600mm lens at f/8 focussed at the moon (384402000m) ranges from 1500m to infinity. That should be enough to have the whole moon in focus.

Looking over the series of photos I shot, I noticed some shimmer attributable to atmospherics between photos, along with focus.  Given the face of the moon is 'slightly' closer than the periphery, the photo I took may have had the face *just within* focus that could result in the softer periphery, or it may have been due to atmospherics.   This shot was one of the earlier shots in the set, and I do have others where I got more and even all of the periphery in focus.

-- hide signature --

I make my own repairs at home.

 TheSonyEnthusiast's gear list:TheSonyEnthusiast's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Sony SLT-A55 Sony SLT-A35 Sony SLT-A77 +30 more
TheSonyEnthusiast
TheSonyEnthusiast Regular Member • Posts: 266
Re: Which of these looks sharper/better to you?

Lensmate wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

TheSonyEnthusiast wrote:

Everything was set on a 10 second delay to minimize motion blur

Don't forget about the motion of the moon across the sky/frame.

At longer focal lengths, slower shutter speeds start to become problematic.

Atmospheric ' Seeing ' plays such a major role in all this [when all the photographic technique is covered correctly] that moment to moment conditions can render a capture blurry without any warning.

-Martin P

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photosauraus_rex/

Atmospherics may have played a little bit of a role in my photo, going over the series I shot there was shimmer in some and not others.  Alternatively the face of the moon may have been just in focus that resulted in the out of focus periphery.

-- hide signature --

I make my own repairs at home.

 TheSonyEnthusiast's gear list:TheSonyEnthusiast's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Sony SLT-A55 Sony SLT-A35 Sony SLT-A77 +30 more
TheSonyEnthusiast
TheSonyEnthusiast Regular Member • Posts: 266
Re: Which of these looks sharper/better to you?

tbcass wrote:

You continue to cling to the false idea that the Sony with TC is clearly sharper which it is not and the overwhelming opinion agrees with me.

The entirety of your shot is in focus but the part in focus in my photo has more defined edges in the first photo, that isn't a false notion.

-- hide signature --

I make my own repairs at home.

 TheSonyEnthusiast's gear list:TheSonyEnthusiast's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Sony SLT-A55 Sony SLT-A35 Sony SLT-A77 +30 more
LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,144
Re: Which of these looks sharper/better to you?

StefanD wrote:

TheSonyEnthusiast wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

TheSonyEnthusiast wrote:

The first shot is mine and I think the reason the first photo has the moon periphery out of focus is because teleconverter shrinks the already narrow depth of field of the 70-400.

I don't think you'd be having a DoF issue with something 400,000 kilometres away. It looks more like motion blur. Don't forget the moon is constantly moving across the frame unless you are tracking it on a EQ mount.

With the TC the f-ratio become slower and it exaggerates lens softness. What was the ISO and shutter speed?

While I will admit the shot was at 1/20 of a second, if it were motion blur it would affect the sharpness across the entire image. The reason I think it may be depth of field is due to the preciseness necessary in manually focusing; I took a series of shots barely nudging the focus each time toward infinity, and a fraction of a millimeter either way resulted in less resolved craters.

According to this DoF calculator, the DoF of a 600mm lens at f/8 focussed at the moon (384402000m) ranges from 1500m to infinity. That should be enough to have the whole moon in focus.

Not so much with long camera lenses, but with uncorrected telescopes, lack of a field-flattener can mean slightly defocused edges of images but anything with a field-flattener should show clear focus across the frame.

kiwi2
kiwi2 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,542
Re: Which of these looks sharper/better to you?

Lensmate wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

TheSonyEnthusiast wrote:

Everything was set on a 10 second delay to minimize motion blur

Don't forget about the motion of the moon across the sky/frame.

At longer focal lengths, slower shutter speeds start to become problematic.

Atmospheric ' Seeing ' plays such a major role in all this [when all the photographic technique is covered correctly] that moment to moment conditions can render a capture blurry without any warning.

Which is also helped with faster shutter speeds as slower SS make it worse.

-- hide signature --
 kiwi2's gear list:kiwi2's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T100 Samyang 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +4 more
tbcass
OP tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 43,211
Re: Which of these looks sharper/better to you?

I find it amusing that after I posted info that revealed which was the Sony and also mentioned this thread in the Sony SLT forum the 70-400 got a bunch of votes. It's why in polls like this what gear is represented must be kept secrete. Now I do not claim the Tamron is as good as the Sony because the 70-400 G2 is supposed to be the best of it's type but but for sharpness they are darn close. Here's a sharpness comparison between The Tamron mounted on a Canon 5D MK III and a Sony A900, cameras that are pretty comparable relative to resolution. In fact the Sony's slightly higher resolution sensor might give the 70-400 a slight advantage yet the two are very close.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare-fullscreen?compare=true&lensId=tamron_150-600_5-6p3_vc&cameraId=canon_eos5dmkiii&version=0&fl=400&av=5.6&view=mtf-ca&lensId2=sony_70-400_4-5p6_gssmii&cameraId2=sony_dslra900&version2=0&fl2=400&av2=5.6

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,144
Re: Which of these looks sharper/better to you?

kiwi2 wrote:

Lensmate wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

TheSonyEnthusiast wrote:

Everything was set on a 10 second delay to minimize motion blur

Don't forget about the motion of the moon across the sky/frame.

At longer focal lengths, slower shutter speeds start to become problematic.

Atmospheric ' Seeing ' plays such a major role in all this [when all the photographic technique is covered correctly] that moment to moment conditions can render a capture blurry without any warning.

Which is also helped with faster shutter speeds as slower SS make it worse.

Depends on the seeing type.  If the object is just boiling at a high "frequency" nothing will help it much.  If the seeing in kind of rippling intermittently, then you can luck-out, get good shot (or, a few hundred if you shoot video and use a stacking-rejecting program).  What is known is that poor seeing effects increase with increased focal length and aperture.  This doesn't mean you can't use a larger aperture lens, just that more often a small one will be able to utilized its best resolution.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads