Lens sharpness.
Posted 27/10/2009 - 15:45 - Helpful Comment
Link
Have you checked accuracy of focus for both lenses?
Maybe a static focus-check (and adjustment) might help.
However, that's just a thought... I can't find much evidence of OOF in the 300mm shot, perhaps a combination of slight motion blur + slight OOF.
I'd also need to go off and check DoF at 300mm, f/4 vs 100mm, f/2.8 ....
Matt
Maybe a static focus-check (and adjustment) might help.
However, that's just a thought... I can't find much evidence of OOF in the 300mm shot, perhaps a combination of slight motion blur + slight OOF.
I'd also need to go off and check DoF at 300mm, f/4 vs 100mm, f/2.8 ....
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 27/10/2009 - 18:21
Link
The photos of Hyram have the same "softness" as that from Oggy.
I believe the close focusing is to blame since with subjects further away it's far sharper.
I believe the close focusing is to blame since with subjects further away it's far sharper.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 27/10/2009 - 18:42 - Helpful Comment
Link
I agree with the contrast theory the macr obviously produces higher contrast images and this is adding to the illusion of clarity because it also tends to show more detail. this is cleary evident if you compare the detail of the nearest facin petal on each shot.
Posted 27/10/2009 - 19:38
Link
Thanks for all the replies.
Me pigeon reckons the 300 can turn in a decent picture -
[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Pigeon.jpg[/IMG]
As to the subject moving, it's in a vase on our mantelpiece and anything stronger than a tiny draught gives Mrs Oggy hypothermia. Prime suspect has to be the tripod.
(Wonders off with some pieces of wood and bags of lead shot:lol
Me pigeon reckons the 300 can turn in a decent picture -
[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Pigeon.jpg[/IMG]
As to the subject moving, it's in a vase on our mantelpiece and anything stronger than a tiny draught gives Mrs Oggy hypothermia. Prime suspect has to be the tripod.
(Wonders off with some pieces of wood and bags of lead shot:lol
Posted 27/10/2009 - 20:35
Link
Ok - next attempt.
I have put the flowers on the floor, collapsed the tripod to it's minimum height and hung my diving belt (16lbs of high hysteresis lead shot) over the barrel of the lens carefully.
F4
[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Flower300-4.jpg[/IMG]
F8
[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Flower300-8.jpg[/IMG]
I have put the flowers on the floor, collapsed the tripod to it's minimum height and hung my diving belt (16lbs of high hysteresis lead shot) over the barrel of the lens carefully.
F4
[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Flower300-4.jpg[/IMG]
F8
[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Flower300-8.jpg[/IMG]
Posted 27/10/2009 - 21:35
Link
While I'm sure contrast plays a part in perceived sharpness, I'm not sure how stabilising the camera increases it.
Posted 27/10/2009 - 21:47
Link
They do look a lot better Oggy.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 27/10/2009 - 22:49
Link
Still prefer the macro one !
Stu - K10D | DFA 100/2.8 Macro | DA 55-300 | AF-360FGZ |
So much to learn... So little time !
Posted 27/10/2009 - 22:56
Link
Me too Stu. It seems more at home at short range than the 300. Great little lens.
(Notice how I avoided describing it as 'cracking' which has always struck me as an unfortunate turn of phrase :roll
(Notice how I avoided describing it as 'cracking' which has always struck me as an unfortunate turn of phrase :roll
Posted 28/10/2009 - 10:13
Link
Oggy wrote:
...(Notice how I avoided describing it as 'cracking' which has always struck me as an unfortunate turn of phrase :roll
Especially with 16lbs of lead hanging off it....(Notice how I avoided describing it as 'cracking' which has always struck me as an unfortunate turn of phrase :roll
K.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
Posted 28/10/2009 - 22:53
Link
womble wrote:
K.
Not quite as brutal as it might sound KrisOggy wrote:
...(Notice how I avoided describing it as 'cracking' which has always struck me as an unfortunate turn of phrase :roll
Especially with 16lbs of lead hanging off it....(Notice how I avoided describing it as 'cracking' which has always struck me as an unfortunate turn of phrase :roll
K.
[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Weight.jpg[/IMG]
(Oh there is the remote control:lol
Posted 28/10/2009 - 23:46
Link
Oggy, I wonder at the widsom of putting that amount of force on the lens mount....it's usual to weigh down the tripod, not the lens.
Best regards, John
Posted 29/10/2009 - 11:44
Link
johnriley wrote:
Oggy, I wonder at the widsom of putting that amount of force on the lens mount....it's usual to weigh down the tripod, not the lens.
Cracking Grommit !!
Oggy, I wonder at the widsom of putting that amount of force on the lens mount....it's usual to weigh down the tripod, not the lens.
Stu - K10D | DFA 100/2.8 Macro | DA 55-300 | AF-360FGZ |
So much to learn... So little time !
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2891 posts
19 years
Wiltshire,
England
but it does help