am I doing something wrong? .


yippeephoto

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 10:52
I have a KX and sigma 18-200. i enjoy the ability to compose via viewfinder and low light capacity but i feel many of my shots, mainly tourist, are not as sharp as those from point and shoots (LUmix, nikon). I have used settings other than auto and understand basic concepts. i did some night shots using a tripod and they were great. Is my problem that i mainly hand hold or is the lens holding me back ( I know it is not a brilliant lens but surely it is miles ahead of a P&S zoom!)help

Mike-P

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 11:03
Can you post a picture up that you are not happy with and include the exif settings so we can take a look?

Are you shooting Jpeg or raw?
. My Flickr

johnriley

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 11:16
Point an shoot cameras are generally set up to be sharper from the start as the expectation is that users won't be bothering much with post processing. You can use them to go straight to print.

DSLRs are more sophisticated and users probably sharpen post capture, using Photoshop or some other program.

If you use JPEG capture you can increase the sharpness in-camera by altering the sharpness settings. I use +1 to slightly sharpnen, in line with what fotoLibra will accept in their submission guidelines. Use more if it suits you better.

The lens is probably a pre-digital super-zoom, not ideal really. Try a Pentax 18-135mm or 17-70mm and you'll probably be amazed. Try a prime lens you might be even more amazed, depending on what you shoot.

Camera shake takes the edge off sharpness of course, so try some tripod shots to establish if your current lens is good enough or not.
Best regards, John

Blueforever

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 12:35
Also many pasc are very light,some people shake when taking photo's...
As your tripod is taking great photo as you say, maybe your not holding your camera steady enough.... look at the data your photo's have to see if the shutter speed is fast enough...
johnriley wrote:
Point an shoot cameras are generally set up to be sharper from the start as the expectation is that users won't be bothering much with post processing. You can use them to go straight to print.

DSLRs are more sophisticated and users probably sharpen post capture, using Photoshop

Camera shake takes the edge off sharpness of course, so try some tripod shots to establish if your current lens is good enough or not.

yippeephoto

Link Posted 13/03/2013 - 23:39
Thank you all for that - it is somewhat reassuring.I have been shooting Jpeg and doing a little bit of post work with either Windows or Picasa ( mainly cropping and correcting tilt). the lens was new but was released about 2005 I think from the reviews. I did check various lens reviews at the time and the MTF etc seemed comparable with other lenses. i did not check the pentax 18-135 but the sigma 18-125.. The newer siggy 18-250 is better ( I like the walk around as i take most of my photos on 6-7 week holidays and weight can be an issue. (Last year Norway, russia and France and later this year sicily, Venetto, Prague and Kracow ) . I did a comparison with an older sigma 70-300mm lens i have from my KM film days and it was not conclusive. There are better and later versions of that about but I have decided i do not really need to lump it around for the odd 300mm (soft!)shot. I am currently agonising over buying a sigma 10-22 f4-5.6 for churches etc . it seems a good lens and maybe those shots would be good ( The Aussie dollar is kind to us for now and I can get that on line here for less than $400 (300 pounds or so)here ) .

I have yet to master my old k mount lenses eg 55/1.8 and 135/3.5 but many on the web swear by them. a prime 35mm may be an option depending on the $.


i will try the sharpness setting which i have to confess i was unaware of - despite looking at a Lantern Guide I found for a k20.

stub

Link Posted 14/03/2013 - 10:45
Though a fantastic little gem. It is a little difficult sometimes to know what you are actually focusing on with the K-x. As the viewfinder has no indication point, other than the focus lock indictator. Try using just the centre spot focus point. Make sure the green indictator is a solid disc before you fire the shutter.
K-1Gripped K-1 ungripped K-5ii K7 Various lenses

Stuart..

davidstorm

Link Posted 15/03/2013 - 00:09
I agree with Stub. The K-x is capable of taking fantastic images and with great detail and sharpness, but it's more difficult to focus than say a K-5, especially so with manual focus lenses. I notice you have a SMC K55 F1.8 - this is a gem of a lens and you should give it a try. I've just bought one and tried it on my K-5 - WOW! What a great lens that will yield some fabulous results on your K-x if you can master it.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

yippeephoto

Link Posted 15/03/2013 - 02:05
Thanks David

I will try again with my 55/1.8 as it appears to be in good condition despite being 36 yrs old. If I can manage it it could be good for detail shots in galleries etc where light is low and flash not on.

Mark/yippeephotoo

jeallen01

Link Posted 15/03/2013 - 08:01
stub wrote:
Though a fantastic little gem. It is a little difficult sometimes to know what you are actually focusing on with the K-x. As the viewfinder has no indication point, other than the focus lock indictator. Try using just the centre spot focus point. Make sure the green indictator is a solid disc before you fire the shutter.

That's specifically why I got a s/h K-R, and not a K-X, as a 2nd lighterweight DSLR - I used centre spot focusing a lot on the GX-10 & K-5 and this can make a significant difference in sharpness. Maybe some money spent on a sell and buy might may dividends here?

On other points:
- old superzooms - my old 28-200 Sigma (from film days) was significantly less sharp than my more modern lenses
- the smaller 10-20mm (not 10-22, I think) Sigma is very good indoors (as many have already said in other threads)
K-3 II, K-3 and a K-70 from SRS (having now relegated the K-30 /"K-50" to a backup body), & some Sigma and Pentax lenses (and a lot of old 35mm gear!)

yippeephoto

Link Posted 16/03/2013 - 00:25
jeallen01 wrote:
stub wrote:
Though a fantastic little gem. It is a little difficult sometimes to know what you are actually focusing on with the K-x. As the viewfinder has no indication point, other than the focus lock indictator. Try using just the centre spot focus point. Make sure the green indictator is a solid disc before you fire the shutter.

That's specifically why I got a s/h K-R, and not a K-X, as a 2nd lighterweight DSLR - I used centre spot focusing a lot on the GX-10 & K-5 and this can make a significant difference in sharpness. Maybe some money spent on a sell and buy might may dividends here?

On other points:
- old superzooms - my old 28-200 Sigma (from film days) was significantly less sharp than my more modern lenses
- the smaller 10-20mm (not 10-22, I think) Sigma is very good indoors (as many have already said in other threads)

yippeephoto

Link Posted 16/03/2013 - 00:31
Thanks jeallen01. Sorry about the Sigma 10-22 reference it should have been 10-20. It was slip of the keyboard but I think some other makers have a 10-22. your comments about the old film era lenses being not so great are interesting in that many talk about how great the old prime lenses are. perhaps it is the zoom technology that has imptoved although I read somewhere that digital lenses are designed to have the light enter at 90 deg to sensor, to accommodate the layers, whereas it is not so important for film.

jeallen01

Link Posted 16/03/2013 - 09:59
yippeephoto wrote:
Thanks jeallen01. Sorry about the Sigma 10-22 reference it should have been 10-20. It was slip of the keyboard but I think some other makers have a 10-22. your comments about the old film era lenses being not so great are interesting in that many talk about how great the old prime lenses are. perhaps it is the zoom technology that has imptoved although I read somewhere that digital lenses are designed to have the light enter at 90 deg to sensor, to accommodate the layers, whereas it is not so important for film.

WRT to Sigma 28-200, there is a flat brick wall on the side of a house about 20m down the garden, with a mock stone tile roof above it, and which I use for "lens testing". Comparing this Sigma, my 70-200 F2.8 and 100-300 F4 (bit unfair, I know) Sigmas, 55-300 Pentax and several other longer lenses, showed conclusively that the 28-200 was the poorest of the lot in terms of resolution - which is why it was consigned to the cupboard until I got around to selling it earlier this year.

Also, I bought the Pentax from the old SRS shop (sadly, now closed) in Ruislip a few years ago after a direct comparison there with the cheaper (i.e. non-APO) of the two available Sigma 70-300 lenses - again photoing the tiled roof of the buildings some 30m accross the road. The Pentax was noticeably sharper, and that has been borne out by the results since then. The only downsides to the lens are the focusing speed, as mentioned by others, and the fact that it does not work well with my Kenko 1.4x SHQ teleconverter (and which is no big loss).

The Pentax was also noticeably lighter and smaller than the Sigma and that is very good when I am travelling.

John
K-3 II, K-3 and a K-70 from SRS (having now relegated the K-30 /"K-50" to a backup body), & some Sigma and Pentax lenses (and a lot of old 35mm gear!)
Last Edited by jeallen01 on 16/03/2013 - 10:05
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.