Sharp photos are 1a, and over discussed.

[tbcass]

.....IMPO, of course. I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp, nobody will be able to tell what photos came from what lens, and this is "even" including $10-$16K Big Whites, or comparable lenses from the other big names.

I use a 4K 32" monitor and a 58" 4k TV for viewing my photos. 5mp isn't large enough to fill the screen when viewed at 100%. I want at least 8 mp.

On the issue of sharpness preference, don't you think that it's ok for other people to have a different point of view? I believe that it's ok for people to want the sharpest possible photos for 100% viewing. We are all different and I say to each their own and we shouldn't be judging other preferences based on our own.

Well sure if you want to fill your screen from corner to corner, and then only if your photo is a 20:9 aspect ratio, which pretty much none of mine are.

No, TV ratio is 16:9. I still need at least 7mp to get the photo to fill the screen from top to bottom. 3-5 mp just doesn't cut it.

When I am working on, and viewing my photos in Photoshop, I have a toolbar on the top and bottom, and a wider set of tools on the right side. So a 4 1/2 or 5 megapixel image pretty much fills all of my available space, and that's fine for me.

I have set up some screensaver slideshows in the past, and I left those full size so that my PC could size them down one to one automatically. And that looked pretty cool, but I wouldn't do that for regular use.

Good for you but not for me.

--
Tom

 

[JohnSil]

In college courses, the first semester of a multiple semester course is called 1a. It's the beginners class

That's funny, you're going all the way back to kindergarten!

You're right but course work as an entry level description is USUALLY referred to by the beginner course of upper division....., 101 !!! LoL

John

 

[JohnSil]

1, I think way back in the day, to get really sharp high quality images, required super expensive, high quality lenses.

2, 101 and 1a are the same thing

3, It's mostly just me saying it doesn't really matter much, or at all, for the way most of us use our images.

1, Way back in the day there weren't a lot of lenses. I still own my beloved FD 600mm from the film days. They were pretty sharp.

2, 1a is lower division, 101 is upper division, so not the same!

3, "for the way most of us use our images." Many don't use their images at all.

But when you put it that way it only matters if it matters?

Those that need it will get the right tools for the job. Even those that don't need it often get the same tools but they can save a lot of money and get less demanding equipment.

IF you're gonna print a 60"x40" image, your file had better be up to the task!!!

The question isn't whether the expensive glass is better but as you said whether you demand or even need that diifference for your uses!

But Chris there IS a difference. Here, take a look.....

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

SS

 

[J A C S]

"Sharpeness is a bourgeois concept"

Henri Cartier-Bresson

Every time the issue of sharpness comes up in these forums someone posts this quote.

The problem is it's taken out of context. His hands were shaking because he was 80 something, and he jokingly remarked this to a friend.

+1

Apparently, he was 90.

 

[Ruby Rod]

For better or worse, this is a gear forum. If you are looking for a photography forum, you are in the wrong place. I personally enjoy the technical aspects of gear more than the creative aspects of photography.

You know you're not supposed to come right out and say that! :-D

--
Ruby
(If you can't see my posts it's because I often say things that get them deleted!)

 

[jimdelves]

There's room for everyone in the Realm of Sharp. Not sure why there is such a backlash regarding "sharp".

There’s not much of a backlash. The vast majority of this site is a shrine to sharpness, despite the fact that we’ve long since surpassed a level of resolution that most people can discern through a computer monitor (which is where 90% of images are seen) with even ‘average’ cameras.

Personally, I’m bored to death with MTF charts and ridiculous 200% pixel peeping. I find the imperfections in lenses much more interesting now that near perfection is routine. Which is why I’m mainly using T/S, lensbaby, anamorphic etc more and more. And increasingly, I find my subjects distinctly unimpressed with forensic rendering of their facial flaws so I’m often detuning sharpness anyway

 

[john isaacs]

.....IMPO, of course. I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp, nobody will be able to tell what photos came from what lens, and this is "even" including $10-$16K Big Whites, or comparable lenses from the other big names.

Then, you have a lot of folks talking a bunch of deep, technical jargon, most of which, I'm too ignorant to follow anyway lol

Just impress me with an amazing photo gallery. Then, if the gallery is the kind of stuff I mostly shoot, but it's blowing mine away, now you will really have my attention ! Of course in the end, even when I do stumble across photo pages that really catch my eye (which I do find pretty often) most of the time, I'd say that 1) they are probably just a lot more skilled photographer than I am, and 2) they are either living in, or traveling often to, tropical places with LOTS of really cool, striking birds.

Pretty much "never" do I see a gallery of the kind of stuff I shoot, and think, "Oh, well it's just better because they have this camera or that lens". Ha ! That is probably not true.

I disagree. Why would you shrink a photo to 3-5mp if you are going to display it on a 4K screeen that has 8.3mp resolution?

Most mirrorless bodies and lenses are capable of a lot better than 3-5mp, but if you don't want a big lens and plan to crop a lot, then I suspect that "plenty sharp enough" for you isn't very sharp.

 

[alcelc]

They are very sharp. No matter you would view them on any monitor (upto 8K such that no magnification would be required for a full screen view?), they should be sharp as they are.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

.....IMPO, of course. I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp, nobody will be able to tell what photos came from what lens, and this is "even" including $10-$16K Big Whites, or comparable lenses from the other big names.

Then, you have a lot of folks talking a bunch of deep, technical jargon, most of which, I'm too ignorant to follow anyway lol

Just impress me with an amazing photo gallery. Then, if the gallery is the kind of stuff I mostly shoot, but it's blowing mine away, now you will really have my attention ! Of course in the end, even when I do stumble across photo pages that really catch my eye (which I do find pretty often) most of the time, I'd say that 1) they are probably just a lot more skilled photographer than I am, and 2) they are either living in, or traveling often to, tropical places with LOTS of really cool, striking birds.

Pretty much "never" do I see a gallery of the kind of stuff I shoot, and think, "Oh, well it's just better because they have this camera or that lens". Ha ! That is probably not true.

I disagree. Why would you shrink a photo to 3-5mp if you are going to display it on a 4K screeen that has 8.3mp resolution?

Most mirrorless bodies and lenses are capable of a lot better than 3-5mp, but if you don't want a big lens and plan to crop a lot, then I suspect that "plenty sharp enough" for you isn't very sharp.

I explained why. Because without going into full frame mode (losing my top and bottom bars) and then, with the vast majority of my images not being of a aspect ratio that would fill the screen side to side (granted, I have a narrow tool bar on the left, and wider tool pallets on the right anyway) so it mostly not just empty space when I'm working on my shots.

You don't have to suspect anything. I posted some 100% shots above. They were not sharpened. Simply ran through DXO, then my normal workflow in Photoshop.

Inevitably, in this place... Well 'only in this place" lol .... Somebody will jump in to say, Oh but DXO Pure RAW adds sharpening. I think it might tona small degree, but I have my sharpness settings set to the minimum.

I think you need to get out and actually do more photography

Maybe you can show me some sharp shots if your own.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

They are very sharp. No matter you would view them on any monitor (upto 8K such that no magnification would be required for a full screen view?), they should be sharp as they are.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

In college courses, the first semester of a multiple semester course is called 1a. It's the beginners class

That's funny, you're going all the way back to kindergarten!

You're right but course work as an entry level description is USUALLY referred to by the beginner course of upper division....., 101 !!! LoL

John

Been few years since I've been in college

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

1, I think way back in the day, to get really sharp high quality images, required super expensive, high quality lenses.

2, 101 and 1a are the same thing

3, It's mostly just me saying it doesn't really matter much, or at all, for the way most of us use our images.

1, Way back in the day there weren't a lot of lenses. I still own my beloved FD 600mm from the film days. They were pretty sharp.

2, 1a is lower division, 101 is upper division, so not the same!

3, "for the way most of us use our images." Many don't use their images at all.

But when you put it that way it only matters if it matters?

Those that need it will get the right tools for the job. Even those that don't need it often get the same tools but they can save a lot of money and get less demanding equipment.

IF you're gonna print a 60"x40" image, your file had better be up to the task!!!

The question isn't whether the expensive glass is better but as you said whether you demand or even need that diifference for your uses!

But Chris there IS a difference. Here, take a look.....

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

SS

Oh I know there are differences on test charts. I just mean to say, for real world use (which again, is 99+% digital viewing) mid grade stuff... Like the 800 F11, 200-800, Sigma and Tamron 150-600's, etc, are capable of producing stuff that you can't see a difference with, this, and way higher priced "top tier" gear.

Now, as I mentioned in another thread, consistency might be a different thing.

As I have also said, I would like to own a RF 1200mm F8 and the R5 Mk II.... But even if I did, I'd probably only use it for about 5% of my shooting. Super low light situations

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

There's room for everyone in the Realm of Sharp. Not sure why there is such a backlash regarding "sharp".

There’s not much of a backlash. The vast majority of this site is a shrine to sharpness, despite the fact that we’ve long since surpassed a level of resolution that most people can discern through a computer monitor (which is where 90% of images are seen) with even ‘average’ cameras.

Personally, I’m bored to death with MTF charts and ridiculous 200% pixel peeping. I find the imperfections in lenses much more interesting now that near perfection is routine. Which is why I’m mainly using T/S, lensbaby, anamorphic etc more and more. And increasingly, I find my subjects distinctly unimpressed with forensic rendering of their facial flaws so I’m often detuning sharpness anyway

TY Now as I said above, I do like "sharp too". But I'll be honest, I used to be a lot more obsessed than I am now. Sometimes... Like yesterday lol .... I'll get some shots that are "not the sharpest shots my gear and myself can produce".... And I just have to remind myself, other than me talking about it here, by the time I shrink them down for digital viewing, and maybe even hit them with a light or selective bit of Topaz, nobody is going to know the difference

I'm more interested in the pose, the eye contact, the perch, the back ground, etc.

Those are the things that really make or break the shot for me.

 

[Horacecoker]

.....IMPO, of course. I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp, nobody will be able to tell what photos came from what lens, and this is "even" including $10-$16K Big Whites, or comparable lenses from the other big names.

I use a 4K 32" monitor and a 58" 4k TV for viewing my photos. 5mp isn't large enough to fill the screen when viewed at 100%. I want at least 8 mp.

On the issue of sharpness preference, don't you think that it's ok for other people to have a different point of view? I believe that it's ok for people to want the sharpest possible photos for 100% viewing. We are all different and I say to each their own and we shouldn't be judging other preferences based on our own.

Well said Tom,

There's absolutely nothing clever about downsizing a 33MP image to 3MP.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

.....IMPO, of course. I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp, nobody will be able to tell what photos came from what lens, and this is "even" including $10-$16K Big Whites, or comparable lenses from the other big names.

I use a 4K 32" monitor and a 58" 4k TV for viewing my photos. 5mp isn't large enough to fill the screen when viewed at 100%. I want at least 8 mp.

On the issue of sharpness preference, don't you think that it's ok for other people to have a different point of view? I believe that it's ok for people to want the sharpest possible photos for 100% viewing. We are all different and I say to each their own and we shouldn't be judging other preferences based on our own.

Well said Tom,

There's absolutely nothing clever about downsizing a 33MP image to 3MP.

I've posted 100% shots in this thread. I could post more, even though they are not super important to what I, or many folks do with there photos nowadays.

Or, you or Tom, or anyone who wants to, could post photos of your own, to show what sharp shots are supposed to look like ?

 

[Horacecoker]

.....IMPO, of course. I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp, nobody will be able to tell what photos came from what lens, and this is "even" including $10-$16K Big Whites, or comparable lenses from the other big names.

I use a 4K 32" monitor and a 58" 4k TV for viewing my photos. 5mp isn't large enough to fill the screen when viewed at 100%. I want at least 8 mp.

On the issue of sharpness preference, don't you think that it's ok for other people to have a different point of view? I believe that it's ok for people to want the sharpest possible photos for 100% viewing. We are all different and I say to each their own and we shouldn't be judging other preferences based on our own.

Well said Tom,

There's absolutely nothing clever about downsizing a 33MP image to 3MP.

I've posted 100% shots in this thread. I could post more, even though they are not super important to what I, or many folks do with there photos nowadays.

Or, you or Tom, or anyone who wants to, could post photos of your own, to show what sharp shots are supposed to look like ?

Good grief, you've got a short memory! You have obviously forgotten you started a near-identical thread on this very same sharpness stuff five months ago and challenged me to post some bird images.

If you can be bothered you'll find the images somewhere in that thread.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[Ruby Rod]

Ha! Don't be too hard on him. I've searched the web for answers to questions and found I had already answered the same question for somebody else several years ago. Wait a while and you'll be right there with the rest of us.

 

[tbcass]

Good grief, you've got a short memory! You have obviously forgotten you started a near-identical thread on this very same sharpness stuff five months ago and challenged me to post some bird images.

If you can be bothered you'll find the images somewhere in that thread.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67550643

Bird photos tend to benefit a great deal from being sharp. Macro photos are another. Landscape photos can look good without being extra sharp. I guess my point is a lot depends on the type of photography. My preferred photography these days is sports which only need to be sharp enough.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Good grief, you've got a short memory! You have obviously forgotten you started a near-identical thread on this very same sharpness stuff five months ago and challenged me to post some bird images.

If you can be bothered you'll find the images somewhere in that thread.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67550643

Bird photos tend to benefit a great deal from being sharp. Macro photos are another. Landscape photos can look good without being extra sharp. I guess my point is a lot depends on the type of photography. My preferred photography these days is sports which only need to be sharp enough.

No, Chris said sharpness doesn't matter and that we are wrong for not seeing things his way. Case closed.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

.....IMPO, of course. I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp, nobody will be able to tell what photos came from what lens, and this is "even" including $10-$16K Big Whites, or comparable lenses from the other big names.

I use a 4K 32" monitor and a 58" 4k TV for viewing my photos. 5mp isn't large enough to fill the screen when viewed at 100%. I want at least 8 mp.

On the issue of sharpness preference, don't you think that it's ok for other people to have a different point of view? I believe that it's ok for people to want the sharpest possible photos for 100% viewing. We are all different and I say to each their own and we shouldn't be judging other preferences based on our own.

Well said Tom,

There's absolutely nothing clever about downsizing a 33MP image to 3MP.

I've posted 100% shots in this thread. I could post more, even though they are not super important to what I, or many folks do with there photos nowadays.

Or, you or Tom, or anyone who wants to, could post photos of your own, to show what sharp shots are supposed to look like ?

Good grief, you've got a short memory! You have obviously forgotten you started a near-identical thread on this very same sharpness stuff five months ago and challenged me to post some bird images.

If you can be bothered you'll find the images somewhere in that thread.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67550643

I know right ? One would think I was older than most of you guys are lol