Sony A7CR + Sony 20-70 F4 G image quality seems off

[DJ2025]

I can't help but feel that there is something off in this combo. I'm sure it is some sort of user error, but for the life of me cannot figure out what it is. This shot is an example when I look at the foliage, the image quality really just doesn't seem to be there. This was shot at ISO 800, f/14, and 1/15. Did I use too small an aperture and am I seeing the result of diffraction? Thanks in advance for any input.



The full image is also here:

https://flic.kr/p/2rBdBG3

View attachment 966d47444a7a42a5894f97dba5a536bc.jpg

 

[AshleyMC]

DJ2025 wrote:

I can't help but feel that there is something off in this combo. I'm sure it is some sort of user error, but for the life of me cannot figure out what it is. This shot is an example when I look at the foliage, the image quality really just doesn't seem to be there. This was shot at ISO 800, f/14, and 1/15. Did I use too small an aperture and am I seeing the result of diffraction? Thanks in advance for any input.

Where did you place the focus point?

I suspect that you placed the focus point close to where you were standing.

f/14 does not necessarily mean “extra huge” depth-of-field that keeps “everything sharp” from near to far. I could use f/14 on a leaf right in front of me and have blurry background.

Also, I personally would not use f/14, 1/15 sec and 800 ISO in that case. But my approach is less relevant in the context of your inquiry, so no suggestion is offered.

The camera and especially the lens are fine.

 

[Mike Evangelist]

I'm sure it is some sort of user error, but for the life of me cannot figure out what it is. ...This was shot at ISO 800, f/14, and 1/15.

Three things:

• Focusing nearer would have helped a lot. Focus point is near the very top of the image, and that looks acceptably sharp (see next point).

• too small an aperture. On a 61mpx sensor, anything smaller than ƒ8 and defraction will degrade sharpness.

• If handheld, the slow shutter speed likely reduced sharpness also.

 

[DuxX]

Very bad and too intensive post-processing. Extreme shadows pull.

Don't get me wrong - this photo is a short and clear tutorial on how not to process photos. We have all gone through these phases to a greater or lesser extent. Unfortunately, good photo equipment cannot correct all the mistakes that we photographers are able to make. It takes study and practice to achieve a good level of technical experience and careful correct processing.

 

[ahaslett]

I have that exact combo. You are right - that’s not good.

You don’t say whether you had Steady Shot on. At 1/15 it appears so, and you should be OK.

By f14, you are aiming for a resolution in the plane of critical focus somewhere in the region of 12-16Mpix. ISO 800 isn’t so bad, but it will contribute to a further small loss of IQ to noise reduction (assuming you applied some).



F11 is about my limit, and you have to compose to decide on where in the image you want critical focus.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Architeuthis]

How does the RAW file look like?

As already said the photo looks overprocessed (I asume because it is just underexposed): too much exposure elevation and/or shadow enhancement...

 

[Craig Gillette]

It looks like only a small area near the upper right corner has direct sunlight. So diffused lighting and not getting edges, shadows, etc., adds to the softness?

 

[LarryRC]

From sonyalphablog the lens does suffer from diffraction, tested with a 61 mpx senson fron f11 up.

https://sonyalpha.blog/2023/02/09/sony-20-70mm-f4-g/#jp-carousel-88169

 

[Docno]

I was only able to find a handful of images in my collection with his combination, which probably means the aperture setting was an experiment or error on my part -- I usually don't go above f/11 and most of my landscape images are shot at f/8. I chose images where I had to do extreme lifting of shadows, and I think this, combined with diffraction, reduces sharpness/detail. Still, this camera/lens combination is an excellent one when you don't push it too far. (These images were taken in the Republic of Georgia).



View attachment 4504245.jpg
Less detail than normal, but you can still the hoarding around the medieval church on the mountain



View attachment 4504244.jpg
Before any exposure 'fixes'



View attachment 4504253.jpg



View attachment 4504254.jpg

 

[Martin_99]

I can't help but feel that there is something off in this combo. I'm sure it is some sort of user error, but for the life of me cannot figure out what it is. This shot is an example when I look at the foliage, the image quality really just doesn't seem to be there. This was shot at ISO 800, f/14, and 1/15. Did I use too small an aperture and am I seeing the result of diffraction? Thanks in advance for any input.

The full image is also here:

https://flic.kr/p/2rBdBG3

View attachment 966d47444a7a42a5894f97dba5a536bc.jpg

As other pointed, looks badly overprocessed, I guess, that photo was underexposed in the first place.

Also f14 is not optimal, I would stay in f8-f11 max range for better sharpness/depth of field ratio. See sharpness graph of 20-70 below:

 

[Architeuthis]

Concerning refraction at f/14 one must say that the, clearly bad, photo shown cannot be the result of f/14. When comparing well exposed and othwerwise identical photos, photos taken at f/14 vs f/5.6 will look pretty identical when viewed as a whole on a computer screen (except greater DOF at f/14). One would see a loss of detail only at pixel peeping level (100% zoom on a screen)...

 

[Martin_99]

Concerning refraction at f/14 one must say that the, clearly bad, photo shown cannot be the result of f/14.

No, major reason is wrong setting/postprocess as I mentioned. Aperture is only minor issue.

When comparing well exposed and othwerwise identical photos, photos taken at f/14 vs f/5.6 will look pretty identical when viewed as a whole on a computer screen

Probably yes, but we are talking here about full 61Mpx photo which should be examined in detail in order to help OP. At such high resolution magnified at 100% you will see the difference between f5.6 and f14.

(except greater DOF at f/14). One would see a loss of detail only at pixel peeping level (100% zoom on a screen)...

 

[ahaslett]

Concerning refraction at f/14 one must say that the, clearly bad, photo shown cannot be the result of f/14.

No, major reason is wrong setting/postprocess as I mentioned. Aperture is only minor issue.

When comparing well exposed and othwerwise identical photos, photos taken at f/14 vs f/5.6 will look pretty identical when viewed as a whole on a computer screen

Probably yes, but we are talking here about full 61Mpx photo which should be examined in detail in order to help OP. At such high resolution magnified at 100% you will see the difference between f5.6 and f14.

(except greater DOF at f/14). One would see a loss of detail only at pixel peeping level (100% zoom on a screen)...

TLR Why buy a 61Mpix sensor if 12Mpix is enough for your subjects and viewing conditions.

I make that comment as someone who used to use 12Mpix bodies with low DR.





Has a lot of 16Mpix keepers and routinely uses 20Mpix bodies.







There are many people who need to "pixel peep" to see IQ differences. I'm not one of them for some of my subjects.

View attachment cee3f5aae58d486b9cfb88c628ecb5d0.jpg



I promise you that I can see softening of foliage in landscapes at f7.1 (f14 equivalent) with a 20Mpix sensor. That wouldn't stop me shooting up to and beyond that where it suits me, but the softening is real.

View attachment ac79c8b4377f4781afc1c6bd82f0c7f2.jpg

If you want to exploit a >40Mpix FF sensor, then going beyond f8 should be done with photographic judgment and intent. If f14 works most of the time for you, you can save a lot of money and weight on kit.


24-90/8 equivalent, sharp from wide open, WR, excellent IBIS, high function 20Mpix body, 668g, cost me £950 new as a kit from an authorised dealer, small sensor low-light AF advantage

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Architeuthis]

I do not mean that diffraction at high aperture values does not matter...

I wanted to say that the photo that is presented is really a failure. Probably because of underexposure and rising exposure in postprocessing (maybe the tread opener just makes photos in JPEG mode and what he sees is already the result of in-camera postprocessing (of a heavily underexposed photo))?).

The quality of the photo shown can not be attributed to diffraction in the given case. Diffraction alone, when other parametrs are o.k., would make the photo softer, pretty difficult to detect when viewing the photo on a small computer screen in an internet browser.

 

[DJ2025]

Thanks everyone for the extremely helpful responses. As I said initially, strongly assumed this was user error...

 

[PWPhotography]

I can't help but feel that there is something off in this combo. I'm sure it is some sort of user error, but for the life of me cannot figure out what it is. This shot is an example when I look at the foliage, the image quality really just doesn't seem to be there. This was shot at ISO 800, f/14, and 1/15. Did I use too small an aperture and am I seeing the result of diffraction? Thanks in advance for any input.

The full image is also here:

https://flic.kr/p/2rBdBG3

View attachment 966d47444a7a42a5894f97dba5a536bc.jpg

As others pointed out - F14, ISO 800, 1/15 handheld that likely resulted motion blur some degree all together contributed poor IQ ;-) If you really want very near subject and background all in focus, using focus stacking that is the only solution. Stopping down even f22 from a single photo could not deliver but of course would be even worse. I usually don't stop down beyond F11 that F11 is mainly for sunstars. Stopping down usually will not address very deep DOF scenes where you'd need focus stacking.

20-70 G is very sharp overall. It's my default lens in all trips that you could refer my Flickr photos with full EXIF. I am still processing tons of photos from recent Belgium trip about two weeks ago. Again 20-70 G was my default lens on A7r V.


Bruges, Belgium

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[lehill]

I can't help but feel that there is something off in this combo. I'm sure it is some sort of user error, but for the life of me cannot figure out what it is. This shot is an example when I look at the foliage, the image quality really just doesn't seem to be there. This was shot at ISO 800, f/14, and 1/15. Did I use too small an aperture and am I seeing the result of diffraction? Thanks in advance for any input.

The full image is also here:

https://flic.kr/p/2rBdBG3

View attachment 966d47444a7a42a5894f97dba5a536bc.jpg

This photo has been bothering me for a few days now. Others have pointed out that f/14 will contribute to overall image softness. For scenes like this, my routine uses hyperfocal distance focusing and very wide-angle lenses. For example, compose your scene at 20mm focal length and f/8, then focus on something 5-6 ft away (which is the hyperfocal distance for 20mm & f/8). Diffraction is not significant at f/8, yet everything from about 3 ft to infinity will be sharp enough (example).

When I first opened the image, the two things that immediately stood out to me were:

• Very flat lighting
• Colors are too saturated for scrubland or chaparral.

Thanks for including an image with full metadata. In addition to EXIF info, there are many Lightroom post-processing settings included. They show:

• This image was shot in RAW and processed in Lightroom*
• Creative Style "Standard" was set in-camera, the Adobe Color profile was used during RAW processing. For such flat lighting, perhaps the Adobe Landscape profile would have been a better choice. There is probably a camera matching Landscape profile available too.
• Sliders were adjusted in Camera Raw "Lighting" section, perhaps by using the "Auto" button.
• Color saturation was boosted with Vibrance: +15
• Default settings for Sharpening and Color Noise reduction were used. My metadata reader doesn't reveal whether any Luminance Noise reduction was used.
• The camera settings indicate the scene was in deep shade, which explains the flat lighting. The ambient light level was about EV 8.

However, I think the most grievous oversight was using in-camera Auto White Balance or not correcting the WB in post. Using AWB resulted in bluish color cast on the entire scene (see the branches on the log). I'm not sure if you can "process backwards" with a JPEG image, but I tried it in Camera Raw and got an absolutely gorgeous scene with natural-looking color. I also used a little Clarity to boost the contrast. It's a fantastic photo that needs a little processing help.

My suggestion would be to lean into post-processing a bit more and try to avoid Auto or Default settings when possible.

*Unfortunately, Lightroom does not write Sony Maker Notes metadata to the JPEG file. It's not possible to extract non-EXIF camera settings from Lightroom-processed JPEG images.

--
Lance H

 

[Martin Ocando]

I can't help but feel that there is something off in this combo. I'm sure it is some sort of user error, but for the life of me cannot figure out what it is. This shot is an example when I look at the foliage, the image quality really just doesn't seem to be there. This was shot at ISO 800, f/14, and 1/15. Did I use too small an aperture and am I seeing the result of diffraction? Thanks in advance for any input.

The full image is also here:

https://flic.kr/p/2rBdBG3

View attachment 966d47444a7a42a5894f97dba5a536bc.jpg

Adding to what others have said, what I can see right away is that the scene is way too flat light-wise. What I mean is that apparently you pulled the shadows to even out the image and that destroys depth. I can't really tell what's near and what's far. I can see a person hiking on the far right of the image, and also a streak of sunlight on the top right. I would have moved myself a bit to the left in front of the dry trunk, lower a bit, lose a bit of the orange wall, and include the part with the sun, expose for the highlights and let the rest fall into a bit of shadow. That would have created much more depth and a more interesting image. You could have also included the hiker a bit more in the center which would have provided a very useful point of reference to appreciate the size and distance of the bushes and walls.

This is what I mean by not fearing letting things go to shadow to differentiate between far and close subjects.

View attachment dcad4179bc6f4f839b8007e55490c140.jpg

I could have done something like this, but notice how it loses depth and overall interest making it a messy and cluttered image with no point of interest making your eyes wander around trying to cling to the subject which should be El Capitan:



--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell