What are some targeted camera exercises / homework for better technique?

[IDontSpeakMonkey]

What are some targeted camera exercises / homework for better technique?

Most of the advice I read is "practice more". Fine, I agree with that.

But to me that is sort of like "exercise more". It does not give me specific advice. Should I be running, or doing push ups, or crunches?

The answer is, "It depends on your goals"? Fine, I agree with that as well.

I've read (well skimmed really) some photography books and watched some online courses. Most of the books talk about composure, which of course is very important for memorable shots. Many of the training videos are very generalized and are usually more about the instructor telling you how smart and published he is and to buy his/her books on this amazon link below. They are OK as a primer, what is A/P/S/M etc.

But if I don't know how to take a steady shot, or focus properly, or expose properly, it does not matter how well composed the scene is, ..... yet.

On the technical side, I'm more of a "learn by doing" guy. I have done my best to read the 900 page camera manual, but after a while it all blurs together. 20 pages on which memory chip supports which speed / format of movies is not that interesting or relevant.

Especially in my case, I have problems with camera shake (either my age, caffeine intake, impatience or technique I don't know). I am generally holding the camera correctly based upon what I read / viewed. I have a wrist strap / grip that locks the camera to my hand. Maybe that is a problem? IDK.

Is there something I can concentrate on that would help refine my overall technical skills?

If I can master "flower photography" or "insects" or "moving waves" then that skill would carry over into the rest of my photography.

Sort of a "Wax on / Wax off" type of question from the original Karate Kid movie.

• Show me "focus on bee"
• Show me "moving butterfly"
• now combine the two and you have "birds in flight".

Should I turn off Auto Focus and only use Manual focus. Like learning to drive on a manual transmission instead of automatic? My MF's seem to better than my AF's. I think partly because it forces me to slow down and concentrate on Focus instead of pointing at a subject, pushing a button and walking away.

I can't / don't want to carry around a tripod and remote control for every situation. I've tried bean bags on safari and that was great for that use case. I want to be able to be out on the pontoon when an eagle flies over (circling) , grab my camera and get a decent shot. But, the pontoon is moving, the bird is moving, I am moving.

What are some tips or practice topic / homework that you can think of to achieve a particular goal and help build that muscle memory?

I'm looking for something like....

• Take 100 pictures per day of X under conditions 1 until you can achieve this goal.
• Do is again, this time condition 2 (harder, lower light, whatever)
• This time, condition 3 (standing on your head making rocks float)

I really don't care what the subject is I want to work on technique / skills / muscle memory. I live by a lake, I have 2 active dogs, we have lots of trails nearby. But I would be fine with a bowl of fruit as well.

I have plenty of gear to experiment with.

G9M2

• 12 mm f1.4
• 25 mm f1.4
• 12-40mm f2.8 (plan to sell it)
• 10-35mm f1.7 (plan to sell it)
• 35-100 f2.8
• 100-400 f4-6.3
• Several MF lenses and vintage converted 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 135mm f2.5

Thanks in advance.

 

[IDontSpeakMonkey]

I appreciate all the tips. I am reading them all even though I don't have time to respond to them all.

My main skill issue is focus and handheld shooting.

My practice then is to pick a lens and a subject for the day and do all I can to get various parts in focus at different exposure etc.

I am usually grabbing a prime or vintage lens then using manual focus.

I also configured the g9m2 for back button focus and half button press for shutter release.

Back button help me decouple focus and shutter locking in focus then recomposing.

Half button press helps me with bashing the shutter button.

Once I can consistently take an in focus picture I'll start to work on many of the wonderful suggestions here.

Thanks again

 

[BudgetTraveller]

What are some targeted camera exercises / homework for better technique?

I used to be a running coach and had coached a number of successful runners and made them faster runners. The approach is not to dissimilar to photography really if you want to improve.

First, you need to create a base. In running, you first need to establish your sense of endurance and stamina without getting yourself hurt. Meaning, running long distances at a very slow pace to develop your stamina and endurance. In photography, you choose specific topics you like to shoot. I myself love to shoot wildlife, then macro (flowers and mushrooms), some street while I travel and some landscape. There really isn't an order of importance, but rather you keep shooting year round. Don't focus on noise, sharpness, dynamic range etc.. Just go out and shoot more. This is to build your endurance and stamina carrying the gear for longer periods of time, but also to build your muscle memory. Too often, people I see keep switching gear all the time and they struggle with their new gear, because the layout is totally different. But muscle memory is important in capturing that particular moment. Eventually, you'll recognize that you have a particular shooting style that you like and it shows in almost all the different photographic topics you shoot after shooting for awhile.

Do not chase for "likes" like so many other photographers you see today that shoot for likes. Basically, the viewers control the photographers and you usually end up keeping up with the Joneses. You see others having much nicer gear and you think, in order to win more likes or maintain more likes, you also need to have nicer gear. And this or that. Sometimes, to be a better photographer, you have to chase the images that you like to shoot and that may mean sharing the images online where a few people may like them. And this is where you would create camera exercises to produce better and better images of your own images that you like, in the hopes others will understand your images and gravitate towards them.

You can choose instant gratification by doing what others are doing and chasing gear to keep up with image IQ. Or you shoot what you like and create better and better images by improving your skills to make your own images shine. Only you know, because many of the current techniques you see today are for images that everyone are doing to get more likes. But more likes is fleeting and not enduring. When the fad ends, your images will no longer get the likes and then you have to start over with something new.

Improving your techniques and skillset are for your images that has that sense of endurance. It's not fleeting nor temporary. Your images will outlast all other images that seem to get a lot of likes today, but will be forgotten in the future.

Take a look at Vivian Maier's work. During her time, no one cared about her images. No one gave a crap about her work. Other photographers during her time made more headlines, and perhaps more likes than she did! But what made her works great? Her works have endurance even to this day and if you look at her works, she kept experimenting to make her images better that last the endurance of time, but she had a focus on the topics she liked the most. And that made her images endure the test of time. What happened to other photographers during her time? All forgotten, except her and a few others.

When I coached my runners in the past, I emphasized on running stamina and endurance as a good foundational base for all running disciplines, so my runners can outlast all other runners. Track and field, 10k, 15k, half marathon and full marathon. But you need a really good base first, and then you choose the distance you are the strongest at. And yet, too many runners I saw all chose speed or glory or fame and all too often, most of them crash and burn. They had their glory, but quickly fade into the lime light. Not so with runners with excellent endurance base, where you can extend your running time into the masters without loosing much speed.

You need to form a good foundational base of what photography topics you like to shoot first and develop that base. And from that base, you improve your quality of your works by improving your skills and techniques and that will help you outlast many other photographers who might get the likes today, but will surely fade off into the lime light like all the other photographers in the history books.

Who is the best warrior in a war? The one that stayed alive long enough in the battlefield and get to live and tell the tales and to enjoy old age.

 

[Mike Davis]

I very much admire your intelligent, humble and enthusiastic request for advice.

You may not find this exercise appealing, but given that you have easy access to some trails near a body of water, if you have any interest in shooting "landscapes" that include Infinity subjects within the frame, you might find it fun to try using the following settings with your 12mm prime:

Set the aperture at f/7.1

Lock the focus, as accurately as you can, at exactly 4.00m (13ft 1.5in.)

Avoid compositions where the Nearest subject in the frame is any closer than 2.00m (6ft 6.7 in).

Maintaining that hyperfocal distance, using a 12mm lens on your G9 II's 17.3 x 13.0mm sensor, you can produce uncropped prints as large as 16x24 in, at a 26.4x enlargement factor (having an unresampled image file density of 200 ppi), delivering subject detail at 4.0 lp/mm, which will be found more than "acceptably sharp" by most people, even when viewing the print as closely as 25cm (9.84in) - as closely as healthy human eyes can focus.

This is right at the limit of what can be accomplished with the G9 II sensor, in terms of final image resolution vs. maximizing enlargement factor and minimizing viewing distance, while securing 200 ppi worth of uncropped, unresampled subject detail throughout the frame - while also avoiding whole-image "softening" caused by diffraction (were you to use a larger f-Number - smaller aperture - at this combination of enlargement factor and viewing distance).

I cannot exaggerate how important it is to accurately lock the focus at the calculated hyperfocal distance of 4.0m, for this 12mm scenario. Likewise, keeping the Nearest subjects no closer than 2.0m is equally critical. Again, these distance are appropriate only for your 12mm lens, under the criteria stated, above.

For my landscape photography, I use the small and lightweight, affordable, "Bosch GLM-165 40 Blaze" laser distance measure (available at Amazon and elsewhere), in combination with Back Button Auto-Focus, to set and lock the focus at my calculated hyperfocal distance (which varies with FL) - whenever shooting scenes that include subjects at infinity.

Otherwise, for shallower subject spaces, I still use the laser distance measure, supplying a DoF app with a very accurate Near distance, focusing accurately at twice that Near distance, but using a (wider?) aperture, as recommended by (your choice of) a DoF app that permits direct user entry of a carefully selected Maximum Permissible Circle of Confusion Diameter, that will satisfy my expecatations for a Desired Final Image Resolution, at my Maximum Anticipated Enlargement Factor and Minimum Anticipated Viewing Distance (at which I want the print to survive scrutiny).

For the G9 II's sensor specifications, I recommend that all DoF and/or Hyperfocal Distance calculations be performed having specified a Max. CoC Diameter of 0.0048mm (or 0.005mm), if the app requires selection of the CoC diameter from a hard-coded list.

Feel free to ask questions here or via PM and have fun!

 

[Mike Davis]

Let me add that I realize this level of precision is not practical outside of landscape or architectural photography, for example, nor is it found appealing to the majority of people shooting scenes where the time can be spent to exercise such discipline.

But... It typically takes me less than a minute, using the laser distance measure and Back Button Auto-Focus, to setup for each shot, atop a tripod. That can turn into a two- or three-minute effort, only when a suitable target on which to auto-focus (at the calculated distance) cannot be found in the framed composition, or requires temporarily removing the camera from the tripod, to lock the focus on a suitable nearby target, found with the laser measure, before returning to the tripod to proceed.

I've been using laser measures with DoF calculations for over twenty years, previously with Mamiya 7ii bodies and lenses to produce 6x7cm chromes.

It is very fast and easy to do, requiring very little practice to perfect.

Anyone who can open MS-Excel Workbooks can download the following file from my Tools page. Note that my aging web site is pretty much hand-coded, and does not yet support htmls, so your browser might warn that it is not SSL-encrypted, but that's OK, given that the entire site is read-only, never requesting any information from visitors.

http://accessz.com/tools/CoC_and_Inverted_Hyperfocal_Distance_Calculator.xlsx

This Workbook will "blow your mind" if you lack sufficient interest and/or hate to read, but it facilitates calculation of a customized Max. CoC Diameter that you can use in any DoF or Hyperfocal Distance app that permits direct user-entry of a CoC, instead of forcing users (as most DoF apps do) to supply only your camera make and model - which makes THREE egregious assumptions, regarding YOUR individual needs and expectations, thus pretty much perpetuating the MYTH that DoF and Hyperfocal Distance calculations cannot be trusted.

I recommend use of Don Fleming's free DoFMaster software, which allows selection of an externally calculated CoC that is actually relevant for YOUR needs, from the bottom of a drop list that begins with (useless) camera makes and models.

https://dofmaster.com/custom.html

https://dofmaster.com/mobile/index.html

https://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

--
Mike Davis
http://www.accessz.com

 

[IDontSpeakMonkey]

Thanks for all the tips.

I had some success this weekend with Back Button / Manual Focus and 12mm.

I also just received a few hours ago an old 90mm MF Macro from eBay, and did some quick shots in the back yard. I think this was the level of sharpness I was hoping for.

The 12mm sometimes still seem soft to me, but I'll keep practicing.

 

[Bobapingu]

I was a big fan of focus re-compose with back button focus, till I started doing action shots and it didn't really work. So I went back to half-press press. Muscle memory doesn't allow one to easily switch from one to the other.

 

[Mike Davis]

I was a big fan of focus re-compose with back button focus, till I started doing action shots and it didn't really work. So I went back to half-press press. Muscle memory doesn't allow one to easily switch from one to the other.

Each method is far better than the other, varying with the need for urgency. I agree,however, that it takes a bit of effort to mentally shift when changing from the slower pace and precision afforded by relatively static, deep focus scenes (E.g.: landscapes, using Back Button AF, with short FLs), to need-for-speed, selective focus subjects.

But even for street photograghy - at least with wide to ultra-wide FLs, you can work very quickly by zone focusing, having used a laser distance measure and back-button AF just once in advance of many exposures, to lock in a hyperfocal distance + aperture that are properly calculated and personally relevant (for your anticipated enlargement factor and viewing distance, to reliably satisfy your quantified expectation for the final image resolution) - where you're only concern is to keep the nearest subjects in the frame, no cliser than half the locked hypergocal distance.

Normal to long FLs are, of course, best served with "half-press" AF, even with static subjects, abandoning the use of a laser distance measure, with a mindset of desiring selective focus.

 

[ahaslett]

I was a big fan of focus re-compose with back button focus, till I started doing action shots and it didn't really work. So I went back to half-press press. Muscle memory doesn't allow one to easily switch from one to the other.

Each method is far better than the other, varying with the need for urgency. I agree,however, that it takes a bit of effort to mentally shift when changing from the slower pace and precision afforded by relatively static, deep focus scenes (E.g.: landscapes, using Back Button AF, with short FLs), to need-for-speed, selective focus subjects.

But even for street photograghy - at least with wide to ultra-wide FLs, you can work very quickly by zone focusing, having used a laser distance measure and back-button AF just once in advance of many exposures, to lock in a hyperfocal distance + aperture that are properly calculated and personally relevant (for your anticipated enlargement factor and viewing distance, to reliably satisfy your quantified expectation for the final image resolution) - where you're only concern is to keep the nearest subjects in the frame, no cliser than half the locked hypergocal distance.

Normal to long FLs are, of course, best served with "half-press" AF, even with static subjects, abandoning the use of a laser distance measure, with a mindset of desiring selective focus.

As I moved to bodies with good tracking and then subject detection, my AF handheld transitioned to CAF-Tr with subject detection small target. Lock target on subject with half-press, recompose and then shoot when ready. PreCapture with appropriate burst rate adds another dimension.

I still use SAF and my OM1 has the level set to switch from CAF-Tr square target to SAF single point target.

When your DoF is a few mm, you can't keep up with a hopping bird that twitches its head from side to side without assistance.

When shooting landscape, it's great to be able to track people or objects moving through the scene, so you capture them in critical focus at the right position, or when they have the right expression (in burst mode).

Shooting wide aperture wide to normal FL scenes is also easier if you can focus and recompose using CAF-Tr. Occasionally SAF works better.

My favourite is still MF, but that needs a tripod and a static main subject or good timing in the wind.

A

 

[Satyaa]

Thanks for all the tips.

I had some success this weekend with Back Button / Manual Focus and 12mm.

I also just received a few hours ago an old 90mm MF Macro from eBay, and did some quick shots in the back yard. I think this was the level of sharpness I was hoping for.

I liked the photos. Well done.

The 12mm sometimes still seem soft to me, but I'll keep practicing.

In general, I have been dissatisfied with m43 wide to standard lenses, at wide open apertures. I have the PL12-60 and for some time also had the Olympus 12-40/2.8. I have not used the 12mm prime.

The only images I like are from PL15mm prime. I used to like the results from Sigma 18-35/1.8 a lot but couldn't live with its weight and AF-S via an adapter. Beyond 15mm, I have primes and zooms from 42.5mm to 400mm. I love the output from all of them.

I see good reviews and feedback on Panasonic f/1.7 zooms, but they are too expensive for me.

 

[Mike Davis]

Thanks for all the tips.

I had some success this weekend with Back Button / Manual Focus and 12mm.

Via the EXIF data, I see you are using an auto-focus capable 12mm Summilux - offering much greater precision with BBAF, to lock the focus at a calculated hyperfocal distance, than trying to manual focus with so short a FL, where even the use of focus peaking can be misleading.

I also just received a few hours ago an old 90mm MF Macro from eBay, and did some quick shots in the back yard. I think this was the level of sharpness I was hoping for.

The 12mm sometimes still seem soft to me, but I'll keep practicing.

Regarding perceived sharpness at the Near and Far limits of the framed subject space, please keep in mind that it's self-defeating to examine images at 100% scaling on a 27- or 32-inch screen, for example, at a close viewing disrance, unless you actually expect your "audience" to experience the same extremes of enlargement factor and viewing distance.

Even if the combined blur circle of defocus (circles of confusion) and diffraction (Airy disks) were optimized to be no larger than the pixel pitch of your sensor - forcing the capture of shallower subject spaces with any given sensor size and FL - all assessments of final image resolution should be performed at the anticipated enlargement factor and viewing distance.

My earlier suggestion to use f/7.1 with a laser-measured and locked hyperfocal distance of 4.00m, was not arbitrary, but did require my making several assumptions on your behalf, regarding YOUR maximum anticipated enlargement factor, YOUR minimum anticipated viewing distance and YOUR (very subjective) desired final image redolution. I documented the choices I had made in my earlier post.

So... If you are disappointed with the results, I have to ask a cascade of questions:

1) Are you carefully measuring (tape measure or laser measure) before locking the focus at 4.00m with BBAF?

2) If so, are you ensuring that your Nearest framed subjects are no closer than 2.00m?

3) If so, are you examining your resulting images at the enlargement factor and viewing distance, I documented above?

Quoting myself:

*****

Maintaining that hyperfocal distance, using a 12mm lens on your G9 II's 17.3 x 13.0mm sensor, you can produce uncropped prints as large as 16x24 in, at a 26.4x enlargement factor (having an unresampled image file density of 200 ppi), delivering subject detail at 4.0 lp/mm, which will be found more than "acceptably sharp" by most people, even when viewing the print as closely as 25cm (9.84in) - as closely as healthy human eyes can focus.

*****

If and only if all of the above are true, we can try increasing your (subjective) Desired Final Image Resolution, from 4.0 lp/mm (an unresampled image file density of 200 ppi) for a 25 cm viewing distance, to 5.0 lp/mm (250 ppi) - forcing the capture of shallower subject spaces, while maintaining the same enlargement factor and viewing distance... or... decrease the anticipated enlargement factor... and/or... increase the anticipated viewing distance.

The choice is yours, but there's no escaping these proportional relationships if you want everything in the frame to be "acceptably sharp."

All that said, it's obvious, by looking at the photos you shared, that you "paid your dues" long ago. I'm tickled that you're willing to revisit hyperfocal technique for landscapes, only fearing that you might not exercise enough precision with focusing and/or with viewing at a realistic enlargement factor.

In the end, quick use of a laser measure and BBAF can translate to consistently satisfying results, had with the widest possible apertures (shortest possible exposures and lowest possible ISO settings) for your desired final image resolution, at your anticipated enlargement factor and viewing distance.

Referencing my post, above:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68420641

Thanks!

--
Mike Davis
http://www.accessz.com

 

[IDontSpeakMonkey]

Thanks

Besides my technique I think I have to redefine my thinking as to what it acceptable sharpness to me and the gear that I've chosen to use / carry.

People rave that the 12-40 is razor sharp, I just don't see it under most circumstances. It is "acceptably sharp" but I'm not blown away under most conditions.

I know that every lens and system has a sweet spot and that may vary from copy to copy, but if a zoom is only razor sharp within a very narrow range of parameters, then why use it over a prime? I'm making this up, but if the 12-40 is "best" at 25-30, F6, it sort of defeats the purpose of a zoom.

I shot the whole weekend at 12mm and I did not feel cheated in any way. One time my wife said "what is that bird can you zoom in?" Nope. Move on.

Next, I'll practice more city style (people and objects) with the 12mm f1.4 and maybe the 25mm f1.4 and see how that goes vs the mostly landscapes above.

 

[IDontSpeakMonkey]

Thanks for all the tips.

I had some success this weekend with Back Button / Manual Focus and 12mm.

Via the EXIF data, I see you are using an auto-focus capable 12mm Summilux - offering much greater precision with BBAF, to lock the focus at a calculated hyperfocal distance, than trying to manual focus with so short a FL, where even the use of focus peaking can be misleading.

I also just received a few hours ago an old 90mm MF Macro from eBay, and did some quick shots in the back yard. I think this was the level of sharpness I was hoping for.

The 12mm sometimes still seem soft to me, but I'll keep practicing.

Regarding perceived sharpness at the Near and Far limits of the framed subject space, please keep in mind that it's self-defeating to examine images at 100% scaling on a 27- or 32-inch screen, for example, at a close viewing disrance, unless you actually expect your "audience" to experience the same extremes of enlargement factor and viewing distance.

Even if the combined blur circle of defocus (circles of confusion) and diffraction (Airy disks) were optimized to be no larger than the pixel pitch of your sensor - forcing the capture of shallower subject spaces with any given sensor size and FL - all assessments of final image resolution should be performed at the anticipated enlargement factor and viewing distance.

My earlier suggestion to use f/7.1 with a laser-measured and locked hyperfocal distance of 4.00m, was not arbitrary, but did require my making several assumptions on your behalf, regarding YOUR maximum anticipated enlargement factor, YOUR minimum anticipated viewing distance and YOUR (very subjective) desired final image redolution. I documented the choices I had made in my earlier post.

So... If you are disappointed with the results, I have to ask a cascade of questions:

1) Are you carefully measuring (tape measure or laser measure) before locking the focus at 4.00m with BBAF?

2) If so, are you ensuring that your Nearest framed subjects are no closer than 2.00m?

3) If so, are you examining your resulting images at the enlargement factor and viewing distance, I documented above?

Quoting myself:

*****

Maintaining that hyperfocal distance, using a 12mm lens on your G9 II's 17.3 x 13.0mm sensor, you can produce uncropped prints as large as 16x24 in, at a 26.4x enlargement factor (having an unresampled image file density of 200 ppi), delivering subject detail at 4.0 lp/mm, which will be found more than "acceptably sharp" by most people, even when viewing the print as closely as 25cm (9.84in) - as closely as healthy human eyes can focus.

*****

If and only if all of the above are true, we can try increasing your (subjective) Desired Final Image Resolution, from 4.0 lp/mm (an unresampled image file density of 200 ppi) for a 25 cm viewing distance, to 5.0 lp/mm (250 ppi) - forcing the capture of shallower subject spaces, while maintaining the same enlargement factor and viewing distance... or... decrease the anticipated enlargement factor... and/or... increase the anticipated viewing distance.

The choice is yours, but there's no escaping these proportional relationships if you want everything in the frame to be "acceptably sharp."

All that said, it's obvious, by looking at the photos you shared, that you "paid your dues" long ago. I'm tickled that you're willing to revisit hyperfocal technique for landscapes, only fearing that you might not exercise enough precision with focusing and/or with viewing at a realistic enlargement factor.

In the end, quick use of a laser measure and BBAF can translate to consistently satisfying results, had with the widest possible apertures (shortest possible exposures and lowest possible ISO settings) for your desired final image resolution, at your anticipated enlargement factor and viewing distance.

Referencing my post, above:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68420641

Thanks!

Thanks for all the tips. Many are over my head just now, but I definitely will bookmark and revisit. 99% of my travel is family vacation oriented. I just don't have the time while in vacation mode to do all you suggest. However, I appreciate the need to build some muscle memory at other times.

I agree there are plenty of times where I BAF then tweak based on focus peaking only to not have focus exactly where I expected. In this field scene I tried to get the focus plain to line up with the bush on center right. But I don't know where it landed.

I still assume 80% of that is my technique and how (or not) steady I can hand hold. When I played with the 90mm macro for a few shows, I could not believe how much I was moving around based on the zoomed in focus PIP window.

 

[AshleyMC]

People rave that the 12-40 is razor sharp, I just don't see it under most circumstances. It is "acceptably sharp" but I'm not blown away under most conditions.

The rendition (by camera) and the perception (by viewer) of image sharpness do not depend on the optical design of the lens alone.

You might not immediately relate to this, but the quality and direction of light have direct impact on image sharpness.

Finally, critical focus — solid focus on the strategic spot of an image — contributes to the perception of enjoyable sharpness although most of the image outside the strategic spot may be intentionally blurry and soft.

~~~~~~~~~

Manual focusing is difficult. Hand-held manual focusing is very difficult. Hand-held manual focusing in a hurry while family members are waiting around is extremely difficult.

Please have patience as it will take (quite long) time to develop and sustain the skill.

Your compositions are mostly great, by the way.

~~~~~~~~~

I am too old to be hurting my right eye, left-hand fingers and back doing manual focusing.

These days, when using a camera with excellent AF-C with Tracking, I take full advantage of such capability to ensure critical focus. Also, I never capture only one exposure — I always capture between 3 and 5 exposures of a scene. My motto: One frame means zero choices.

 

[ahaslett]

Thanks

Besides my technique I think I have to redefine my thinking as to what it acceptable sharpness to me and the gear that I've chosen to use / carry.

People rave that the 12-40 is razor sharp, I just don't see it under most circumstances. It is "acceptably sharp" but I'm not blown away under most conditions.

I know that every lens and system has a sweet spot and that may vary from copy to copy, but if a zoom is only razor sharp within a very narrow range of parameters, then why use it over a prime? I'm making this up, but if the 12-40 is "best" at 25-30, F6, it sort of defeats the purpose of a zoom.

I shot the whole weekend at 12mm and I did not feel cheated in any way. One time my wife said "what is that bird can you zoom in?" Nope. Move on.

Next, I'll practice more city style (people and objects) with the 12mm f1.4 and maybe the 25mm f1.4 and see how that goes vs the mostly landscapes above.

I’d not pay much attention to people who use phrases like “razor sharp” and “bag of primes”. Saying that a teleconverter doesn’t impact sharpness is a clue to some combination of viewing size, visual acuity and personal standards.

Copy variation is a real thing - it pays to look at multiple tests, reviews and sample images.

You have the 12-40mm dead to rights. It’s a good general purpose lens especially for shooting people reasonably close up. Olympus chose to optimise the 12-40mm at 12mm and the 40-150/2.8 at 150mm.

https://www.lenstip.com/392.4-Lens_...l_12-40_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/479.4-Lens_..._40-150_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Image_resolution.html

Maybe your copy is not quite as good as the one Lenstip tested. There are certainly different results out there, although I find Lenstip reasonably consistent with my lenses.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/...mm-f-2-8-pro-ii-lens-review-36458/performance

I prefer my 12-45/4 at 40mm f5.6 to my 12-40/2.8 mk i at the same settings. Maybe manufacturing and materials have improved over the last 8 years or maybe the new coatings have improved contrast. Of course my 12-40mm comes out whenever I need the bigger shooting envelope or I’m not sure what I’m going to be shooting. I must have hundreds of keepers from it.

Roger Cicala found that MFT lenses in general have high copy variation and the PL25/1.4 mk i had the highest in his test of 25mm MFT lenses. I’m pretty happy with my copy (bought used). I wouldn’t say it’s very sharp but it’s sharp enough and it has very balanced rendering - maybe a bit more LoCA than desirable but less than the (ouch) OM 20/1.4.

If you want to see copy variation in action look at HicHic comparing images from his 12-45mm to mine, which had him swapping to a copy that performs much better.

The impression of IQ depends on a lot of things, but shooting at base ISO, exposing to the right (or left) and learning to use and process RAW can all help. Composition and technique are very important to the perception of sharpness.

Various photographers have said that sharpness is over rated. I agree it shouldn’t be the top priority in photography, which must be why my other camera is a 61Mpix FF one with a heavy tripod and some decent lenses, including primes.

I have lots of images taken with 16Mpix and 20Mpix MFT bodies, including with a 12-32mm, which is definitely not as “sharp” as the 12-40mm. Sadly my first copy failed and the second isn’t as good. Maybe I’ll roll the dice and buy a third.

I’d advise against going down the rabbit hole of buying primes until you know why. I used to only have primes for FF landscape until my tutor shook me and told me to stop being silly and get some zooms. Shooting at landscape depth of field is a great leveller of lenses - look at the MTF curves for some.

TLR You should be able to get decent results with a 12-40/2.8. Swapping to primes could be an exercise in disappointment unless you understand how to parse reviews and test results and you know why the primes will be better for your uses.

Great to see you having fun with photography.

Andrew

 

[Mike Davis]

Thanks for all the tips.

I had some success this weekend with Back Button / Manual Focus and 12mm.

[snip]

[snip]

The 12mm sometimes still seem soft to me, but I'll keep practicing.

[snip]

So... If you are disappointed with the results, I have to ask a cascade of questions:

1) Are you carefully measuring (tape measure or laser measure) before locking the focus at 4.00m with BBAF?

2) If so, are you ensuring that your Nearest framed subjects are no closer than 2.00m?

3) If so, are you examining your resulting images at the enlargement factor and viewing distance, I documented above?

[snip]

If and only if all of the above are true, we can try increasing your (subjective) Desired Final Image Resolution, from 4.0 lp/mm (an unresampled image file density of 200 ppi) for a 25 cm viewing distance, to 5.0 lp/mm (250 ppi) - forcing the capture of shallower subject spaces, while maintaining the same enlargement factor and viewing distance... or... decrease the anticipated enlargement factor... and/or... increase the anticipated viewing distance.

The choice is yours, but there's no escaping these proportional relationships if you want everything in the frame to be "acceptably sharp."

[snip]

Referencing my post, above:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68420641

Thanks!

Thanks for all the tips. Many are over my head just now, but I definitely will bookmark and revisit. 99% of my travel is family vacation oriented. I just don't have the time while in vacation mode to do all you suggest.

Quoting myself again, from the link provided in my last post:

****

It typically takes me less than a minute, using the laser distance measure and Back Button Auto-Focus, to setup for each shot, atop a tripod.

[snip]

It is very fast and easy to do, requiring very little practice to perfect.

*****

However, I appreciate the need to build some muscle memory at other times.

I agree there are plenty of times where I BAF then tweak based on focus peaking only to not have focus exactly where I expected. In this field scene I tried to get the focus plain to line up with the bush on center right. But I don't know where it landed.

If I may critique the image you humbly posted as an obvious failure...

Wind speed, an excessively close Near subject, an insufficient shutter speed, even though at 1/1000s, insufficient DoF at f/4, and a haphazard/arbitrary choice of focus distance, all combined to capture disappointing results.

This was a challenging space to shoot, but if you had wanted both the Nearest subjects and the Infinity subjects to be "acceptably sharp," you would had to first "do your homework" well in advance of finding yourself at that location...

... to calculate a personally relevant Maximum Permissible CoC Diameter for use in your choice of DoF app that permits direct entry of a custom CoC diameter (one that takes into consideration YOUR intended enlargement factor and viewing distance, plus YOUR subjective, yet well-quantified choice of Final Image Redolution (your personal definition of "acceptable sharpness.") This personally relevant CoC diameter, once calculated, can be used with any lens you mount on your camera.

NONE of that (in the paragraph immediately above) needs to be done more than once, and again, can be done while at home. It doesn't have to be done thereafter, while on vacation, for example, and it's not done repeatedly, at the time of each exposure. That's why I call it, "homework."

Using a properly "scaled" DoF app in the field, it would have been obvious that you needed to 1) increase the distance to the Nearest subjects in the frame, enough to fit the DoF provided at f/7.1 (for your 12mm lens on an M43 sensor), while 2) increasing the ISO setting (to 800 or even 1200, instead of 100), to 3) increase the shutter speed enough to arrest the subject motion.

I still assume 80% of that is my technique and how (or not) steady I can hand hold.

[snip]

If you enjoy "rolling the dice" with every landscape photo; if you can be genuinely content with "hit-or-miss" results spawned from simply guessing where to focus and guessing which aperture is needed for sufficient DoF to satisfy YOUR expectations while also yielding the shortest possible exposures at the lowest possible ISO settings, then please proclaim your apathy - not to me or to anyone else, but to yourself, to reinforce your contentment.

Otherwise, please accept my invitation to do all of the one-time arithmetic for you, not making assumptions on your behalf, as I did earlier, but rather, coming up with a customized Maximum Permissible CoC Diameter that suits YOUR maximum anticipated enlargement factor, YOUR minimum anticipated viewing distance, and YOUR well-quantified expectation of "acceptable sharpness" in a final image, within the limits imposed by your camera's sensor dimensions and pixel count.

And, at your request, I can even create a printable table (like the one I've created for MY needs, as seen in the following photo), that you can affix to the battery compartment door of a Bosch GLM-65 40 laser distance measure (less than $100), if you are willing to buy one and learn to use it.



No pressure.

I realize that some people enjoy "rolling the dice." Some people can be truly content with unintentional selective focus in their landscape photos. They just want to "have fun," using a no-thinking-required, "point-and-shoot," full-auto-everything approach (even with very capable and expensive kits), or at most, with using various unreliable, but oh-so-convenient rules of thumb, that sometimes get the job done, just by happenstance, but more often than not, foster disappointment.

I admit that I am "strange" in wanting to quickly and accurately take control of the handful of variables affecting final image resolution in landscapes. I am not trying to force my methods on anyone. I am only trying to equip INTERESTED readers with tools and techniques that can eliminate disappointment, if and only if the reader wants to PURSUE consistently "acceptable sharpness," throughout the frame, in every landscape composition.

That's not everyone's goal, not even among landscape shooters. And that's OK.

--
Mike Davis
http://www.accessz.com