A7iii poor image sharpness help

[Abarth1200]

Hello, im new here. However i have shot with Sony cameras since my A37 SLT, then A6300, A6600 and now A7iii bought used with 40 shutter count.

It came with a 16-35mm F4 carl zeiss lens, and immediately i noticed it wasnt as sharp as my A6600 with 16-55f2.8 G lens or 12mm rokinon. I took the same photos, the same settings, same exposures and yet couldnt get better image quality. So i sold the lens off to buy a viltrox 16mm f1.8 hoping for some better photos. Alas it looks the same.

Attached is a photo i took with the 16-35f4 lens and my new viltrox, can i ask your opinions on if its just me expecting too much or maybe some other issue with the camera?

Has anyone ever had to send there Sony in for recalibration? could me camera be a fake? I did manage to update to the latest firmware through imaging edge so i doubt that, I have the first owners purchase receipt from 2020 a reputable camera store in London.

Currently awaiting delivery of 2 brand new sony lenses a 24-70 f2.8 GM1 and a 70-200 F4 macro so i can rule out completely the lenses.




16-35 F4 carl zeiss lens A7iii Point of focus corner of shed roof.




Viltrox 16mm f1.8 A7iii point of focus central of skip.

I hope somebody can take me seriously, im gutted i sold my A6600 to fund this change, I had very nice lenses for that camera that werent FF suitable.

 

[eques]

You can see that the swing in the 1st picture is nice and sharp, the foreground isn't - focus wass on the swing, the foreground is out of focus. The container in the 2dn is sharp, while the background is not.

Your new camera is full frame - the bigger the sensor, the shallower is the DOF. Your older cameras were APSc: an aperture of say f/4 on an FF camera gives you the same DOF as f/2.8 on an APSc camera, or the other way round: f/5.6 on APSc is like f/8 on FF.

This effect gives you the possibility to control DOF better with a FF camera using out of focus areas to emphasiue what is in focus. If you want "all" in fiocus, you have to set apertures like f/8 - f/16.

Peter

 

[Adam-T]

Hello, im new here. However i have shot with Sony cameras since my A37 SLT, then A6300, A6600 and now A7iii bought used with 40 shutter count.

the Zony 16-35 was notorious for sample variation and low end 3rd party lenses tend to be also (especially samyang small AF primes) , that viltrox looks sharp in the middle but just above on the ridge of the skip it`s not looking so good , could be a bad copy ? - I don`t know the lens though .. I can`t see it being the body as its sharp where its focused,. the A7-III has an amazing rep for stabiity and reliability .

the Sony 16-55 is the equivalent of a G-Master lens for APS_C , i`d not expect an oid Zony 16-35 to come close (it`s both old and an ultrawide) , as I say I don`t know the Viltrox or its reputation .

Also are you comparing JPGs, the A6400/6600 probably have a later gen JPG engine (alongside the RT Tracking AF etc that gen introduced) than the A7-III so there may be a difference in low ISO noise reduction and fine detail sharpening, just a thought . I`ve only ever shot a Mk3 in RAW so don`t know..

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[Abarth1200]

Shot raw, and exported as jpeg for the forum, but I do compare them as raw files.

 

[Abarth1200]

You can see that the swing in the 1st picture is nice and sharp, the foreground isn't - focus wass on the swing, the foreground is out of focus. The container in the 2dn is sharp, while the background is not.

Your new camera is full frame - the bigger the sensor, the shallower is the DOF. Your older cameras were APSc: an aperture of say f/4 on an FF camera gives you the same DOF as f/2.8 on an APSc camera, or the other way round: f/5.6 on APSc is like f/8 on FF.

This effect gives you the possibility to control DOF better with a FF camera using out of focus areas to emphasiue what is in focus. If you want "all" in fiocus, you have to set apertures like f/8 - f/16.

Peter

Yes i understand the DOF, but at that distance and F6.3 with a 16mm wide angle most of the scene should have been in focus. Ive also compared to f8 9 13 and all apertures seemed less sharp then the apsc lens. These were the photos i had to hand.

 

[Adam-T]

Shot raw, and exported as jpeg for the forum, but I do compare them as raw files.

OK that`s great

I`d have gone for the 20-70 G F4 over the old heavy GM 24-70 Mk1 and Viltrox as it almost covers the same range as both and unlikely you`d use the Viltrox wider than F4 and the 20-70 is great at F4 - the 70-200 F4 Macro is amazing . you`ll love that .

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[Abarth1200]

Shot raw, and exported as jpeg for the forum, but I do compare them as raw files.

OK that`s great

I`d have gone for the 20-70 G F4 over the old heavy GM 24-70 Mk1 and Viltrox as it almost covers the same range as both and unlikely you`d use the Viltrox wider than F4 and the 20-70 is great at F4 - the 70-200 F4 Macro is amazing . you`ll love that .

I can return it, but i was mainly wanting it for the f2.8 and opportunity to shoot portraits and cars and some low light stuff, I really wish they made a 18-55 f 2.8 G lens that would end all my debating on which lenses to buy!

I did have another use for the viltrox, astrophotography and long exposure landscapes in low light. The 24-70 will stay on camera during the day walk around, the 70-200 for those macro and huge landscape scenes along with some wildlife etc. Viltrox for long exposure night work.

 

[ahaslett]

The original 16-35/4 is not known as a good lens, so full marks for selling it!

The Viltrox reviews well but you may have a weak copy.

I see processing as an issue with your sample, and possibly veiling glare. I have a Laowa 10/2 for MFT that is excellent but with the same odd vignetting that reviewers mention for the Viltrox 16/1.8 and heroic veiling glare.

I’d be interested in processing your Viltrox image if you could post a link to the RAW. Based on the reviews, I’m thinking I might buy one…

The A7iii has a weak AA filter. The A6600 has none.

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

 

[Adam-T]

I can return it, but i was mainly wanting it for the f2.8 and opportunity to shoot portraits and cars and some low light stuff, I really wish they made a 18-55 f 2.8 G lens that would end all my debating on which lenses to buy!

Ahh gotcha , an 18-55 F2.8 would be massive but Tamron do a 20-40 F2.8 , their 28-75 F2.8 G2 is astoundingly good at F2.8

I did have another use for the viltrox, astrophotography and long exposure landscapes in low light. The 24-70 will stay on camera during the day walk around, the 70-200 for those macro and huge landscape scenes along with some wildlife etc. Viltrox for long exposure night work.

Gotcha ..

 

[Jacques Cornell]

You can see that the swing in the 1st picture is nice and sharp, the foreground isn't - focus wass on the swing, the foreground is out of focus. The container in the 2dn is sharp, while the background is not.

Your new camera is full frame - the bigger the sensor, the shallower is the DOF. Your older cameras were APSc: an aperture of say f/4 on an FF camera gives you the same DOF as f/2.8

f2.5

on an APSc camera, or the other way round: f/5.6 on APSc is like f/8

f9

on FF.

This effect gives you the possibility to control DOF better with a FF camera using out of focus areas to emphasiue what is in focus. If you want "all" in fiocus, you have to set apertures like f/8 - f/16.

Peter

The difference between APS-C and 35mm formats is 1-1/3 stops.

FWIW, the difference between Micro Four Thirds and APS-C is only 2/3 of a stop.