[johnytrout]

Are some cameras sharper than others?
I have a canon 650D
If for instance I took a shot of a tree stump at 20ft in A/Focus, would there be other cameras that would show a sharper image using the same settings when zoomed to 100% in PP

[johnytrout]

Any advice would be appreciated

[MrB]

It would seem that some cameras are sharper than others, Johny. The only way to find out is by controlled scientific testing, in which all variable factors and conditions are the same. The closest we ordinary mortals are likely to get to that kind of rigour, might be to study the standard test shots produced by the technicians at some of the equipment review web sites, e.g. Imaging Resource -

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

However, there is one possibly significant feature appearing in several current models from different camera manufacturers - it would appear that those cameras that have no AA Filter over their sensors, are capable of producing slightly sharper images than the same models with AA Filters (e.g. Nikon D800e/D800; Pentax K-5IIs/K-5II).

http://www.photographytalk.com/photograp...our-photos

I would guess that, for most modern cameras of similar type and price, factors other than the camera might have a more visible impact on sharpness when images are viewed normally - e.g. quality of lens, photographer's shooting technique, software image processing, etc.

Cheers.
Philip

[Pegger3D]

Hi John,

For What It's Worth:

Disclaimer: I do not purport to be an expert by any means and just recently re-ignited my enthusiasm for photography as a retirement hobby.

I agree with all of the previous post.

15 years ago I had a Canon but went to all Nikon this time. From a cursory look at your Flickr shots it appears to me that the sharper shots were taken in the best of light circumstances-soft natural sunlight.

I went to Nikon because i found my Canon seemed less sharp in lower or unnatural light. I don't have a terrific pension so with limited resources chose the least expensive Nikon that, as said, removed the filter-the D7100, the most expensive DX DSLR.

If I could afford it, I would go for the new D810. As for the lens, to begin with I could only afford one expensive lens and chose the Nikkor AF-S 70-300/F4.6-5.6 Zoom.
It certainly was worth the $500 CA price as it takes unbelievably sharp pix.

I notice one of your lenses is a kit lens and if you go to enough sites you will find they are not recommended because the build and the glass as well are of lower quality.
It stands to reason-lower price, lower costs.

I am not proposing that you sell your Canon gear in favor of Nikon, but do suggest that if you are in or near any good size city that you try out a few of the Sigma lenses. Most cities will have a shop or two that will rent out lenses.

I see that you do some birding, so I also suggest that you see if you can get hold of the new Tamron 150-500mm which is very reasonably priced at $1200 CA but is on back order here because of the demand. Poor man's like me telephoto option.

Question-are all those Flickr shots in RAW?

That's all I shoot now except at very fast speed events. I know the best bird shots are on the fly, so to compensate for the slower processing of RAW, I have spend a bit of cash on the fastest SD cards available. That way i can get 4-5 Raw shots off quickly whereas with the cheaper cards, only 2-3.

IMO, you can't beat RAW to bring out the best in your equipment.

My 2 cents.

PS: Just a perception note. While I like your creativity in some of your Flickr bird shots, you may get a hostile reception on some birding forums if you post those pix with birds holding assault rifles.

Attached file is pic of squirrel taken with my 70-300mm @300mm.
   

[johnytrout]

Thank you for the replies.
I try not to adjust my images if I can help it. Most of them I cropped, maybe a bit too much but I am still learning. I have never used RAW. This is something I have to consider..Also I have just started post processing a bit with Lightroom...Will look into the Tamron theory tyvm

[Pegger3D]

RAW is just that-untouched and uncompressed.

With JPEG your camera's internal firmware will dramatically lower the pixel count for one.

Whatever post production software you use, RAW will offer you at least double the options.

There are many places you can read about RAW vs JPEG.

THIS one uses Canon equipment so it may be easier for you to grasp.

[Pegger3D]

RAW is just that-untouched and uncompressed.

With JPEG your camera's internal firmware will dramatically lower the pixel count for one.

Whatever post production software you use, RAW will offer you at least double the options.

There are many places you can read about RAW vs JPEG.

THIS one uses Canon equipment so it may be easier for you to grasp.



PS: As it says in the article, the only place one may not want to use RAW is exactly the only one I use it-fast moving subjects where you need bursts.

If you have a good camera and lens, you still can get pretty sharp pictures.

   

[MrB]

With JPEG your camera's internal firmware will dramatically lower the pixel count for one.

That is ONLY true if the photographer SELECTS from the camera's options a JPEG format image file with smaller pixel dimensions. E.g. The full-size JPEGs from my DSLR are 4928x3264 pixels; the Raw files are 4928x3264 pixels.

The camera's firmware efficiently processes ALL the captured Raw data, together with the adjustment parameters chosen by the photographer, to generate the photographic image. The amount of data associated with the pixels is then reduced by the camera's JPEG compression. If that is set to the lowest level, whether it has any significant visible impact on the final product for viewing is debatable.

Full-size, low-compression JPEG files from a modern DSLR can readily form the basis of high quality images. They retain huge amounts of data, which can be subjected to quite serious adjustments in image editing software without noticeable loss of image quality, when the images are viewed on a monitor, or on a television, or from a projector, or in photo prints up to at least A3 size.

In my opinion, the case for Raw is usually over-stated, while the characteristics of JPEGs are often greatly exaggerated in the negative direction. With current technology, Raw capture really shouldn't be necessary, unless the image has been poorly exposed and is impossible to re-shoot, or when extreme processing is intended, e.g. for artistic creativity.

My choice and aim will continue to be - to set up the camera's impressive technology (in its hardware and software) to capture JPEG format high quality images close to what was envisaged, which then require no more than a few tweaks in editing software.

If I ever need to save the Raw data, my camera gives that option after each shot, when the captured and recorded JPEG file (and its RGB colour histogram) can be seen on the camera's LCD.

Cheers.
Philip

[Pegger3D]

My point was that with RAW and 16 bit, there are double the options in Photoshop to adjust a shot that is not perfect (and they seldom are).

I have joined several photography forums and talked to several professional photographers.
They all have their favorite formats and ways to shoot subjects. I merely offered a way to an amateur like me to save a not so great shot. It saved one for me just the other day.

To each his/her own.

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

[Pegger3D]

PS: You can transform a RAW file into a JPEG, but not the other way around.

If your camera is saving the RAW information, IMO it is actually taking both formats each shot.

My camera can do that too, but I found that with any moving shots it seriously eats up the buffer, even if I assign one SD card for RAW and the other for JPEG.

I also have one of the fastest SD cards at 95Mbs/sec Write, and still sometimes only 2 shots are possible before it starts to lag.
For stills, saving both formats works fine.

my 2 cents

[MrB]

My point was that with RAW and 16 bit, there are double the options in Photoshop to adjust a shot that is not perfect (and they seldom are)...

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

That statement might be (unintentionally) misleading. In fact, all the editing options available in imaging software can usually be used with 8-bit image files, but it is sometimes the case that some options are not available for 16-bit files, and so the software reverts to 8-bit. However, there is no doubt that 16-bit offers more data, giving more leeway in editing, and enabling finer gradations to be achieved when excessive adjustments are needed.

Again I would suggest that, in almost all real world scenarios (image captured fairly close to the desired outcome, modest adjustments required to achieve the aim, image to be viewed in a normal way), the output produced by editing an 8-bit best quality JPEG is unlikely to be noticeably inferior to that produced from a 16-bit Raw edit.

The linked article is yet another that over-states its case, by using a very extreme example of image adjustment. If the described procedure is followed, but the adjustments are to a more realistic 30/225 rather than 120/140, the output images from 8-bit and 16-bit editing are very close indeed.

However, some people might not know that a Raw file is not a prerequisite of 16-bit editing. An 8-bit JPEG file can be opened, even into PS Elements, as a 16-bit file. Just open it by File - Open As - Camera Raw, and the JPEG will open in Adobe Camera Raw. All the sliders there can be used to adjust the image, and/or the now 16-bit image can be transferred into the PS editor for further adjustments.

That simple procedure was used to convert the small JPEG of the beach ball, downloaded from the linked article, to be a 16-bit image in PSE 10. The extreme editing procedure was then followed exactly as described in that article to produce the following result:

   

Compare that not only with the author's 8-bit JPEG edit, but also more significantly with his 16-bit edit, bearing in mind that he will probably have started the latter from his full Raw file, rather than a small JPEG download. Again, for me, the case for recording Raw for every image seems rather weak, when 16-bit editing from a JPEG file is possible and so effective.

But, as you so rightly quote -

To each his/her own.

For your information regarding this point -

If your camera is saving the RAW information, IMO it is actually taking both formats each shot.

What I wrote in my previous post is correct. My DSLR (a Pentax K-5II) is set up to record only the best quality, maximum pixel size, JPEG files. However, after each shot has been recorded as a JPEG file, the camera gives the option to save the Raw data for that image. So the image and its histogram can first be viewed on the rear screen and then, if deemed necessary, one can choose to save the Raw file in addition to the JPEG. A neat feature, I think!

Cheers.
Philip

[Pegger3D]

Sounds like a feature that may save some time.

My Nikon gives me these options:

RAW/RAW +JPEG (Fine, Med, Std)/JPEG Fine, Med, Std.

6000 x 4000/4496 x 3000/2992 x 2000

DX 24 x 16 or 1/3 more crop at 18 x 12

Two SD Slots: Options SD 1=Primary, SD 2=Overflow OR SD 1=RAW, SD 2=JPEG OR SD 1=JPEG, SD 2=RAW.

I prefer to shoot in the larger file size unless I shoot fast moving subjects.

For that rodeo shot I kept the large file size but shot in JPEG 1/3.

With my fast SD card I can achieve:

RAW + JPEG= 3 FPS
RAW=4-5 FPS
JPEG FINE-No Crop=5-6 FPS
1/3 Crop=6-7 FPS.

That rodeo shot was taken with my newest Nikon 70-300mm zoom @300mm/F8 ISO 280 1/1000 (JPEG FINE/1/3 Crop).

That worked out to a file size of 4800 x 3200.

IMO, it looks almost as sharp as my older 50mm/F 1.8 Prime shots.

But for Landscape and Portraits, I go back to RAW.

Works for me.

[MrB]

Interesting to see the options available on your Nikon.

I think you have captured the rodeo shot competently - good timing, well-composed, good exposure, and sharply focused. The photo also shows the OP (post #1) the benefit of good lenses. If I was to be hyper-picky I might comment - 1. on the busy background and 2. that it would have been nice to see more of the rider's face, but they were both probably beyond your control.

As you might guess, from all I have written in my previous two posts, I would suggest that your rodeo shot presents good evidence to support the case that you really don't need to shoot Raw!

However, if it works for you, then that's great!

Kind regards.
Philip

[Pegger3D]

Thanks for you kind critique.

I took about 300 shots and came out with about 25 really good ones.

I was really happy with the results of my first sports event with my new camera.

I have health concerns that do not allow me to move around easily, so I scoped out the stadium for the best location and with the range of the zoom was able to stay in one spot for all 300 shots.

I call this one 'Dhope!!'

   

[Freeman]

Thanks for you kind critique.

I took about 300 shots and came out with about 25 really good ones

Just love the rodeo shots...I have this year switched from cropped sensor to full frame and from JPEG to Raw and for me that does give an increased range of workable shots. Using SD cards at 95Mbs/sec I don't have a problem at present with buffer filling up, though I tend to shoot in shorter bursts rather than running out the full capacity. Cheers Jeff