A look at lens sharpness

[Overread]

JPEG with standard sharpness and in-camera settings set to neutral values is a good way to measure sharpness in my view. If you want to show raws try turning off sharpening in RAW processing and you'll nearly always get a shock how soft RAWs are without any sharpening at all.

But that's the thing RAWs are all over the place with different settings - standard JPEG is a good measure that; for a layperson test that isn't trying to be highly scientific but to carry a point that is valid. Especially as most lay people can't own every camera body out there (nor even a majority) in order to develop a neutral workflow for RAW processing that is faithful to the quality adjustments being shown.

 

[fmw]

I don't think so but that's kind of moot now since you deleted it. I first responded to another poster who got some kind of point from your post and that raised a red flag for me. I saw this other poster looking at what you presented and saying that it was swaying his possible future purchase decision. That's why I jumped in. I was concerned that he was being potentially misled with potential costly consequence.

He wasn't being misled. Who are you to decide for him what he wants to buy? I've had enough of amateur experts for today.

 

[robbins.photo]

He wasn't being misled. Who are you to decide for him what he wants to buy? I've had enough of amateur experts for today.

So... I guess we'll see you tomorrow then?

 

[Tim Tucker]

I don't think so but that's kind of moot now since you deleted it. I first responded to another poster who got some kind of point from your post and that raised a red flag for me. I saw this other poster looking at what you presented and saying that it was swaying his possible future purchase decision. That's why I jumped in. I was concerned that he was being potentially misled with potential costly consequence.

He wasn't being misled. Who are you to decide for him what he wants to buy? I've had enough of amateur experts for today.

Whoa! I didn't say that, a mis-edit me thinks...

I disagree with you because the most common error I see beginners make is not understanding that there are practical limits to photography. For instance taking photos of 'your' kid's birthday by the light of the candles alone on full auto will test any gear. The problem is not that the lens is soft but that people do not realise that there are limits to which they can achieve sharp photos. Your (deleted) test showed an older, cheaper, zoom at probably it's least capable (close focus) against a lens specifically designed for the purpose. So to the beginner I say that you cannot just point your camera and expect technology to resolve the problems, there are practical limits to the gear you use. Better gear expands those limits but never removes them. I would teach the beginner to understand the limits that their gear performs well in. (Taking outstanding photos with poor and outdated gear is entirely about understanding the limits within which it performs well.)

P.S. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree there are some very useful points raised relevant to beginners, including the contributions by yourself.

 

[gckless]

Awww, I missed the party

TL;DR - sharpness isn't everything?

 

[unpopular]

The D800 really pushed lens quality when it first came out.

This seems kind of like a silly statement. Like when I bought a computer to "do anything I'd ever want to do" only to push what I want to do with it to the maximum capability of my computer to the point that I don't perceive any net performance gain. This is kind of the nature of things, of course, but I kind of doubt to some degree, anyway, that all *that*much has changed, only what we can realistically demand from a lens has.

Ofcourse, at the same time, this isn't film where the size of the medium changes whilst it's resolution stays constant. Film reached it's epoch long ago, and the only approach to improving resolution is to decrease enlargement. As a result, you can get away with much lower lens resolution using large format than you could with small format. Today, we're getting these crazy resolutions at the focal plane that are probably approaching the resolving power of 645, while the film gate remains constant - ever increasing what we demand from the lens.

Interestingly, it may be the physical capabilities and economics of lens design that pushes us forward into larger sensors.

 

[smoke665]

I saw this other poster looking at what you presented and saying that it was swaying his possible future purchase decision. That's why I jumped in. I was concerned that he was being potentially misled with potential costly consequence.

He wasn't being misled. Who are you to decide for him what he wants to buy?

Guys I wasn't misled. I probably should have stated my post differently. I haven't bought anything yet, as it seems that as soon as I save up enough "fun money" to buy, either the price goes up or my sights drift higher. Fred merely reminded me of something I had already read on a zoom vs fixed and some my own experiences.

 

[Ysarex]

I saw this other poster looking at what you presented and saying that it was swaying his possible future purchase decision. That's why I jumped in. I was concerned that he was being potentially misled with potential costly consequence.

He wasn't being misled. Who are you to decide for him what he wants to buy?

Guys I wasn't misled. I probably should have stated my post differently. I haven't bought anything yet, as it seems that as soon as I save up enough "fun money" to buy, either the price goes up or my sights drift higher. Fred merely reminded me of something I had already read on a zoom vs fixed and some my own experiences.

I didn't say you were, I was just being careful -- all good.

Joe