Image Quality Issues

[olstrup]

I don't think the problem is your equipment, it is likely your understanding of photography basics and to a lesser degree how to use your specific equipment. Even though you'll get some helpful info here my suggestion is to go to other websites online that offer very detailed training or get a few books and start there.

This.

I may add that giving a verdict of a new camera one day after the purchace is a tall order. I have always needed a little time with a new camera to get the hang of its virtues and quirks (yes, all cameras, even the best, have their quirks) before I got optimal results.

 

[BBQue]

Great work, thanks for sharing this. I adore the 35mm Summilux, but could not afford one. Do you have any issues with corner smearing? Or was that only with the earliest Sony FF camera bodies?

In 1984, while on a layover in Frankfurt on my way to Tokyo, I saw a used Summilux in the window of a store just as the owner was pulling down the steel shutter for the night. I quickly figured out the dollar-Deutschmark exchange as $325, and bought it for my 1982 M4P. The first time I used it, I shot it wide open, and was aghast when the prints looked all hazy. I subsequently learned that the haze mostly disappeared by f2 and was 99% gone by f2.8.

As the digital era dawned, the Leica and my 3 M mounts languished until I accidentally saw an ad for an NEX-6 in 2013. I carried the lens to B&H, put it on a dumb adapter, and after a few test shots with the NEX-6 in the store, I was hooked on the camera and Sony’s EVF. A year later, I bought an A7, and that ended my decade with Nikon DSLRs.

I bought an FE 35mm f2.8 for the A7 because shooting MF was too slow for a family wedding I agreed to back-up shoot. When the TechArt Pro came out, I bought one for my A7II, and when I got my A7III, I bought a second TechArt - by that time, I was totally hooked on AF-ing all my M mounts and FD mounts from my pre-Nikon DSLR life (like many Canon users, I was infuriated by Canon going EOS, orphaning my lovely FD lenses).

The Tamron 28-75mm RXD is just the second FE mount lens I’ve bought. And I have to admit, its quality at f2.8 is very, very close to the best of my M mount and FD primes. But the Summilux on a TechArt Pro remains my basic “lens cap.” 37 years later, that Summilux remains stellar. It’s actually smaller on the TechArt than my small FE 35/2.8.

The only negative - I need to keep the Summilux insured for $2000 - the absurd price to which collectors have driven up that old lens.

What a great buy indeed!

 

[W3PYF]

Great work, thanks for sharing this. I adore the 35mm Summilux, but could not afford one. Do you have any issues with corner smearing? Or was that only with the earliest Sony FF camera bodies?

In 1984, while on a layover in Frankfurt on my way to Tokyo, I saw a used Summilux in the window of a store just as the owner was pulling down the steel shutter for the night. I quickly figured out the dollar-Deutschmark exchange as $325, and bought it for my 1982 M4P. The first time I used it, I shot it wide open, and was aghast when the prints looked all hazy. I subsequently learned that the haze mostly disappeared by f2 and was 99% gone by f2.8.

As the digital era dawned, the Leica and my 3 M mounts languished until I accidentally saw an ad for an NEX-6 in 2013. I carried the lens to B&H, put it on a dumb adapter, and after a few test shots with the NEX-6 in the store, I was hooked on the camera and Sony’s EVF. A year later, I bought an A7, and that ended my decade with Nikon DSLRs.

I bought an FE 35mm f2.8 for the A7 because shooting MF was too slow for a family wedding I agreed to back-up shoot. When the TechArt Pro came out, I bought one for my A7II, and when I got my A7III, I bought a second TechArt - by that time, I was totally hooked on AF-ing all my M mounts and FD mounts from my pre-Nikon DSLR life (like many Canon users, I was infuriated by Canon going EOS, orphaning my lovely FD lenses).

The Tamron 28-75mm RXD is just the second FE mount lens I’ve bought. And I have to admit, its quality at f2.8 is very, very close to the best of my M mount and FD primes. But the Summilux on a TechArt Pro remains my basic “lens cap.” 37 years later, that Summilux remains stellar. It’s actually smaller on the TechArt than my small FE 35/2.8.

The only negative - I need to keep the Summilux insured for $2000 - the absurd price to which collectors have driven up that old lens.

What a great buy indeed!

Also picked up a 90mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit later in the year for $200 on a back street in Copenhagen. But that lens, while tiny, has a bit of a flare issue with backlight. Better is the mint Nikkor 85mm f2 AiS I picked up on Craig's List in Boston for $50. Subject is a dietician for whom I was shooting website photos. Lens was on a TechArt Pro, as the strange firmware "Sony DT 2.8" EXIF shows.







This is my go-to talking-head lens for videos I now shoot in 4K with my A7III. This is a frame grab from a video with that lens on the A7III:

 

[jshen808]

..Are you using a 'lens filter' on your lens?

..Cheers..

 

[GARN]

Thanks! I am getting a bit better with the Sony. It’s just different I guess. There was something about the Fuji and the OOC pics. I start comparing the pics from both and the 2000 dollar price difference and think, was it worth it? Oh well, I sold the Fuji so it’s Sony only for now.

Here is a shot from today using a filter slow shutter and a couple more comparisons shots for the fun of it..






Sony A7iii




Fuji XT2






Sony A7iii








Sony A7riii




Fuji XT-2

 

[Lightfinity]

A better camera will not magically make better photos. Much of the advantage of full frame is in:

1) shallower depth of field given same field of view and aperture,

2) greater dynamic range and color depth when post processing, and

3) better noise performance at higher ISO settings, or when pushing a RAW file hard in post.

In all of your examples, you're conflating focus with depth of field. The Sony is focused on something, but probably not what you're expecting (especially if you have it in wide/auto). The depth of field then causes most of the rest of the scene to be visibly out of focus. This will even happen at 24/2.8 when you have a mix of things both near and far.

Regarding image quality, with the exception of noise performance at higher ISO, you're unlikely to see a direct difference in quality between the pictures without shooting high dynamic range scenes and, even then, pushing that dynamic range in post.

One of my favorite things about Sony sensors is just how much color detail you can recover/manipulate in post processing. You won't be getting the most out of your new camera until you spend some time learning how to adjust the photos in Lightroom (although, like others have said, you can get pretty good JPEGs too).

 

[GARN]

Thanks for the explanation. While reading that, a lightbulb went off. Thanks!

 

[splashy]

If they say " its sharp wide open" they mean it's sharp where you focused and everything on the same distance from the sensor, most of the time not the whole picture. (depending a bit on the distance) look at some YT's about DOF

You make a picture of a structure at F2.8 and the roof mushes up and some parts of the picture are not sharp. This is because the low F2.8 and your distance to the object.

Just try the same picture again and move back and/or use a higher F stop. Once you have an all sharp picture you understand the logic.

 

[W3PYF]

A better camera will not magically make better photos. Much of the advantage of full frame is in:

1) shallower depth of field given same field of view and aperture,

2) greater dynamic range and color depth when post processing, and

3) better noise performance at higher ISO settings, or when pushing a RAW file hard in post.

In all of your examples, you're conflating focus with depth of field. The Sony is focused on something, but probably not what you're expecting (especially if you have it in wide/auto). The depth of field then causes most of the rest of the scene to be visibly out of focus. This will even happen at 24/2.8 when you have a mix of things both near and far.

Regarding image quality, with the exception of noise performance at higher ISO, you're unlikely to see a direct difference in quality between the pictures without shooting high dynamic range scenes and, even then, pushing that dynamic range in post.

One of my favorite things about Sony sensors is just how much color detail you can recover/manipulate in post processing. You won't be getting the most out of your new camera until you spend some time learning how to adjust the photos in Lightroom (although, like others have said, you can get pretty good JPEGs too).

 

[olstrup]

A better camera will not magically make better photos. Much of the advantage of full frame is in:

1) shallower depth of field given same field of view and aperture,

2) greater dynamic range and color depth when post processing, and

3) better noise performance at higher ISO settings, or when pushing a RAW file hard in post.

In all of your examples, you're conflating focus with depth of field. The Sony is focused on something, but probably not what you're expecting (especially if you have it in wide/auto). The depth of field then causes most of the rest of the scene to be visibly out of focus. This will even happen at 24/2.8 when you have a mix of things both near and far.

Regarding image quality, with the exception of noise performance at higher ISO, you're unlikely to see a direct difference in quality between the pictures without shooting high dynamic range scenes and, even then, pushing that dynamic range in post.

One of my favorite things about Sony sensors is just how much color detail you can recover/manipulate in post processing. You won't be getting the most out of your new camera until you spend some time learning how to adjust the photos in Lightroom (although, like others have said, you can get pretty good JPEGs too).

Brilliant explanation.

The problem with too many photographers today: They try to use Lightroom when they’ve had no experience in (a) darkroom.

Indeed. Darkroom experience is helpful. So is a knowledge about the Zone System (a method for tieing together exposure with B&W film development and copying to get predictable and controllable results). The Zone System has been very helpful for me also when working with digital photography.

 

[Tapper123]

Your Fuji XT2 is already a superb camera, with some great lenses to use, and Fujis produce some of the best OOC jpegs in the business, especially if you love Fuji color signatures.

From looking at your shots I think the Sony setup is giving you a tiny bit more sharpness and detail. EDIT: oh wow, just saw those images you posted of the Red Clay place -- you do realize those are not comparable? f5.6 on Fuji and f2.8 on Sony, not the same thing. Instead, try comparing f5.6 on Fuji to f8 on Sony.

The reality is, the differences between those 2 camera's image quality will mostly be found at the extremes, i.e. low light, high ISO, DR in PP etc. And, of course the FF sensor and lenses will make it a bit easier to get shallower DOF.

Either way, you now own 2 fantastic cameras. Keep testing and see which one really suits you better and does what you want. Modern APSC sensors are seriously good, and you may not really need FF at all. Or, you might need/want FF depending on what you shoot. Did you have a clear idea of why you wanted/needed the bigger sensor? If it was just for general "better" image quality, well, I think you're seeing that in many cases there won't be that much difference.

 

[MILC man]

Thanks! I am getting a bit better with the Sony. It’s just different I guess.

these shots are not a "comparison"; it's different times of the day, at the minimum, radically different apertures, and the framing isn't the same.

if you want to compare crop vs. ff, learn what equivalence is, so that you'll be comparing like for like:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

Sony A7riii


Fuji XT-2

 

[BBQue]

Thanks! I am getting a bit better with the Sony. It’s just different I guess. There was something about the Fuji and the OOC pics. I start comparing the pics from both and the 2000 dollar price difference and think, was it worth it? Oh well, I sold the Fuji so it’s Sony only for now.

Here is a shot from today using a filter slow shutter and a couple more comparisons shots for the fun of it..


Sony A7iii


Fuji XT2


Sony A7iii


Sony A7riii


Fuji XT-2

In the "comparison shots" I find the Fuji colors unnaturally warm. Looks like on a sunny day, when it really was overcast and in the shadow. I much prefer the Sony colors here (and if you really want to make them look more sunny, just add some yellow and a touch magenta).

There are also many ways to adjust the JPG in camera (color balance, sharpness, contrast, saturation), so you can get different looks, but you know that.