Not sharp

Here's another example:


This does not look particularly sharp (didn't apply any USM after resizing).

And here's the 100% crop:



This example I didn't post on any WEB sites as I really don't like loosing the details in the brick work due to resizing. I am amazed, though, by the detail you can see at 100%. But then, I was used to 6MP from the *istD...

Prieni

Dan thanks for your help

I will try and emal you a couple of photos

I am in sunny Cornwall, well not today, wet and windy Cornwall

You're welcome.

I shall look out for them.

Lucky you! I'm in Essex, wet and windy too, but I'd rather be in a wet and windy Cornwall.

Dan

And a thank you from wet and windy Northumberland!........Ha,Ha!.......Ken

Okay Ken, here are your pics!



K20D, 90mm, f/8, ISO200 (according to partial EXIF data, no shutter speed)



Above pic resized to possibly be about the same amount of resizing applied to the sharp shot below.



*istDS, 90mm (EXIF not present - Ken?)

My first impressions are that there may be 2 or 3 reasons for softness. For a start, I think there is a plane of sharpness, running slightly forward of the droplet. However, this isn't as sharp as it might be (thinking of my own droplet shots with the K10D and Sigma 105mm), and I would put that down to a modicum of camera/subject movement. The light levels look very low, and I wonder what the shutter speed was.

If the focus point was supposed to have been on the yellow part of the flower, then it's a case of front focusing, which should be able to be remedied in the menu of the camera.

On the resized shot of the flower, I added a little USM. Ken, had you sharpened the original at all? In camera, or afterwards?

Any other thoughts anyone?

Dan

Oh, look out, I've got an 18Mb file coming my way.

Dan

Actually 4 pics from capabilities. Strangely, no shutter speeds showing (under file info in P.S. Elements) with these either.

Back in a minute or two.

Dan

Dan

Sorry about the file size, I was not sure what to send

Not a problem at all, they're fine. Just doing an email back, and then will post something here.

Dan

EDIT: Shutter speeds do show in the full EXIF data (advanced), but not on the summary (Camera Data 1) window. :

The shutter speed was 1/125th!....Data for the poppy head was the same shutter speed @F11........and the sharpening was done in camera..plus 1................both taken with tripod!

Were you focusing on the droplets or the yellow part of the flower? Was the poppy head indoors?

1/125s sounds fine for a 90mm lens, but bear in mind that:

a) The reciprocal rule doesn't hold quite true with DSLRs - the crop factor means that a 90mm lens would need a shutter speed of 1/135s to 'guarantee' a sharp shot, handheld (I know you were using a tripod, but bear with me)

b) The reciprocal rule also only really applies to 'normal' focusing distances, macro work generally requires a higher shutter speed still.

c) You're in 'wet and windy' northumberland, how still was that flower?

Just thoughts that could have a bearing. Ideally, a like for like test would be carried out.

Dan

So it could be any manner of things!....just a matter of fiddling about with the K20!......I'll try a like for like at the weekend.....thanks for your trouble Dan!....................Ken

Ooh, a question's just popped into my head - what were you focusing on, the droplets or the yellow part?

If it was the flower, the lens has focused way too far in front, if it was the droplet, it was pretty much okay.

Dan

Okay, Capabilities shots. He sent me 4, I'm posting a section from 2 of them. Here's the first, taken from the far left hand side of an outdoor shot, just above centre, certainly not the extreme corner:



18mm, f/6.7, 1/250s, ISO100

This to me looks like excessive CA, but having neither this camera or this lens, I can't say that it's normal or not, but I wouldn't be happy with it. Wide open possibly, but not stopped down to f/6.7. The other shot sent through wasn't anywhere near as bad, but was at a midrange focal length, and was also cropped slightly.



24mm, f/4, 1/45s, ISO200, flash

I thought this was going to be ISO1600 until I saw the EXIF data. Focusing is off, it's too far forward, I suspect it may be the camera on auto selecting the nearest point which was the bear, but there's camera shake too, which obviously doesn't help. Another similar shot was sharp, but again mis-focused. However, that noise looks bad for ISO200 - any ideas?

Dan

I'm afraid it was the yellow part!............flaming duff camera!.........