"Not getting expected sharpness from new RX10 M4"

[Dave C 150]

I had expected to be blown away by what everybody had told me about the camera. The main problem is the lens is so soft. At first I thought it was the initial shots were in low light and high ISO but now I have some in good light and low ISO and they are still soft.I



am an experienced bird photographer and have no issues with any of my other cameras. Is it possible to get a bad copy like you get a bad copy of a DSLR lens?

I'll post an example although not sure if that works well.

 

[Rodrigo Pasiani]

Something is wrong.

Even my Mk I is way sharper than that.

Do you have more images to share?

--
Gear list: eyes, brain, hands and a couple of cameras.
Instagram: @rodrigo_pasiani
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rodrigo_pc/albums/72157697391983321

 

[Brandon birder]

Hard to tell on such a large crop at the distance the bird must have been. I find the RX10 needs 40 sharpening in LR and even respond well to higher sharpening with masking. Closer smaller birds needing a similar crop have more detail.

--
Cheers, Brandon.
Olympus EM1mIII, EM10 mII, Sony RX10 M4, RX100 M7
Nikon V1,V3, D500, D810
FlickR Photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/

 

[Dave C 150]

Hard to tell on such a large crop at the distance the bird must have been. I find the RX10 needs 40 sharpening in LR and even respond well to higher sharpening with masking. Closer smaller birds needing a similar crop have more detail.

Except that is uncropped and I was 5 metres away and had to step back to get it in the frame! Shot in raw, a couple of minor exposure adjustments and converted to jpeg. The original file is as unsharp as this one appears to be.

 

[Jerry045]

Dave:

You posted a 1.7MP image. The camera is capable of a 20MP image. Either you cropped the crap out of it or reduced the size.

Post the full-size image. Otherwise, we can't tell what you did, and what camera settings you used.

I also suggest you go to CREATIVE STYLE (Page 10) in the menu. Set it to Standard or Vivid (your choice. I like Vivid myself) and set sharpening to +1

Set High ISO NR to low.

Post a full shot so we can see what you did.



--
Jerry
http://www.flickr.com/photos/av8tor045

 

[Dave C 150]

A couple more. Different types of shot. The thing is it doesn't look like front or back focusing as nothing is as sharp as I would expect. If image stabilisation is working shutter speeds should be more than enough at these focal lengths.

 

[Digital Nigel]

A couple more. Different types of shot. The thing is it doesn't look like front or back focusing as nothing is as sharp as I would expect. If image stabilisation is working shutter speeds should be more than enough at these focal lengths.

I think you are not processing the raw photos at all. These are almost certainly the small embedded 1.6mp preview JPEGs extracted from the raw file. What software are you using to develop the raw files?

And please share one or more raw files with us (using something like Dropbox).

 

[Digital Nigel]

Hard to tell on such a large crop at the distance the bird must have been. I find the RX10 needs 40 sharpening in LR and even respond well to higher sharpening with masking. Closer smaller birds needing a similar crop have more detail.

Except that is uncropped and I was 5 metres away and had to step back to get it in the frame! Shot in raw, a couple of minor exposure adjustments and converted to jpeg. The original file is as unsharp as this one appears to be.

What software did you use to process the raw files? It looks to me that you've only looked at the tiny thumbnail JPEGs embedded in the raw file. Did you transfer the files to a phone or tablet via WiFi? Do the files have an .ARW extension?

 

[tbcass]

You may be an experienced bird photographer but you are not experienced with the RX10iv. Keep at it. Many people have posted sharp detailed photos of birds taken with the camera.

--
Tom

 

[tbcass]

Dave:

You posted a 1.7MP image. The camera is capable of a 20MP image. Either you cropped the crap out of it or reduced the size.

Post the full-size image. Otherwise, we can't tell what you did, and what camera settings you used.

I also suggest you go to CREATIVE STYLE (Page 10) in the menu. Set it to Standard or Vivid (your choice. I like Vivid myself) and set sharpening to +1

Set High ISO NR to low.

Post a full shot so we can see what you did.

Great photo. If that doesn't convince him/her they can do better then nothing will.

--
Tom

 

[Digital Nigel]

You may be an experienced bird photographer but you are not experienced with the RX10iv. Keep at it. Many people have posted sharp detailed photos of birds taken with the camera.

These were sharp, detailed 1.6mp previews from the raw files, not images post-processed from raw.

 

[Jerry045]

Dave:

You posted a 1.7MP image. The camera is capable of a 20MP image. Either you cropped the crap out of it or reduced the size.

Post the full-size image. Otherwise, we can't tell what you did, and what camera settings you used.

I also suggest you go to CREATIVE STYLE (Page 10) in the menu. Set it to Standard or Vivid (your choice. I like Vivid myself) and set sharpening to +1

Set High ISO NR to low.

Post a full shot so we can see what you did.

Great photo. If that doesn't convince him/her they can do better then nothing will.

Thanks Tom.

After reading Nigel's comment on the imbedded JPG, given the size of what he posted, it looks like Nigel was dead on, and he tweaked the imbedded JPG not a full size image.

--
Jerry
http://www.flickr.com/photos/av8tor045

 

[Rambow]

 

[Digital Nigel]

You may be an experienced bird photographer but you are not experienced with the RX10iv. Keep at it. Many people have posted sharp detailed photos of birds taken with the camera.

These were sharp, detailed 1.6mp previews from the raw files, not images post-processed from raw.

So he doesn't know how to edit images and blames the camera.

Maybe the solution is to let the camera do the work and enjoy the jpegs without trying to be the the sorcerer's apprentice(allusion to Goethe here)?


"To edit learn you must, otherwise hm raw to edit you cannot"

My guess is that he did a WiFi transfer of the raw files and didn't realise that the camera only transfers the embedded tiny JPEG, not the raw file itself. He then didn't notice that he was post-processing a tiny JPEG, not a 20mp raw file.

I'm surprised that an experienced photographer wouldn't notice what he was processing — I've also ended up with those little preview files, and immediately spotted that they weren't raw files.

 

[Dave C 150]

Right, have you finished patronising me your"he did this, did that stuff"

These are full size 5496x3672 ARW files. 20.1mb. I didn't re-size them but converted the full frame to jpeg in a high quality setting. I've never used wifi transfer in my 60 odd years with film and digital photography and files are transferred directly from the card in my desktop PC. I usually shoot raw with my DSLRs, and process them in Photoshop before converting to Jpegs. I've never had shots this soft in full size raw from a DSLR. I'm not expecting it to match my Nikon D500 and Tamron 100-400mm lens. But as you sarcastically remarked - others have got super sharp pictures. You don't spend a over a thousand pounds on a camera with a Zeiss lens without doing some research first. This is why I have asked the questions - is it possible the camera isn't as it should be?

I didn't realise I could post a 20 mb file but I will try. I can assure that the full size files are just as soft. Yes I could sharpen them PP or in the camera in JPEG even but that's not really the point is it?

In the meantime perhaps you'd like to look at my Flickr photostream or I'll post some of my wildlife awards pics?

Dave C

Explore Dave C’s 1,815 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Dave C 150]

Tried full size ARW file - get message "You can't send this file type" and frankly most web sites won't allow 20mb raw files!

 

[Bill Borne]

Dave:

You posted a 1.7MP image. The camera is capable of a 20MP image. Either you cropped the crap out of it or reduced the size.

Post the full-size image. Otherwise, we can't tell what you did, and what camera settings you used.

I also suggest you go to CREATIVE STYLE (Page 10) in the menu. Set it to Standard or Vivid (your choice. I like Vivid myself) and set sharpening to +1

Set High ISO NR to low.

Post a full shot so we can see what you did.

I agree

--
Bill
"Life's Too Short to Worry about the BS!"
So I Choose my Battles
Click for Wild Man's Photos
Using Rx10 IV at Present

 

[Digital Nigel]

It would be useful if you could share some of the original raw files.

And don't worry about posting little 20mp JPEGs — I've pasted lots of 40+mp files without problems.

 

[Digital Nigel]

Tried full size ARW file - get message "You can't send this file type" and frankly most web sites won't allow 20mb raw files!

Most web sites can only post image files like JPEGs, not data files like raw files. You can post 60+mp JPEGs if you have any. But you need to share raw files using something like Dropbox or Google Drive.

 

[Dave C 150]

Tried full size ARW file - get message "You can't send this file type" and frankly most web sites won't allow 20mb raw files!

Most web sites can only post image files like JPEGs, not data files like raw files. You can post 60+mp JPEGs if you have any. But you need to share raw files using something like Dropbox or Google Drive.

Yes, I could have put in my Dropbox account I suppose. Do you mean 60 mb jpegs? 60 mp would be the resolution not the file size. Have you got a Medium Format camera? Never seen a 60+ mb jpeg file. Defeats the object it a bit as it is a file compression format. You can produce fairly small size (in terms of mb) and retain the same visual quality when viewed on a PC monitor especially in terms of sharpness.