Do you think this is sharp?

uplander · May 21, 2008

I know I'm due for an eye checkup but is this a pretty sharp pic?
The next thing on my equiptment list is a really good monitor so a little input here would be nice.

Yellow Warbler
100% crop from original.
Shot with a Canon 40D and a Canon EF 400 f/2.8 lens from a monopod.

goodoneian · May 21, 2008

it looks pretty good to me

MarcusM · May 21, 2008

It doesn't seem as sharp as it should be to me. There just isn't much detail in the feathers.

Especially for an L lens, I guess I would expect a little more detail. That is an L right? - Lol, nevermind, I just looked at your sig.

Alfred D. · May 21, 2008

Its eye, beak, throat feathers, and feet seem to be well in focus from where I sit. But it looks like a very shallow DoF: it's frontmost shoulder and it's tail seem well out of focus already. Then again, I could be wrong: feathers are, well... feathery by nature of course...
Plus I haven't ever had a formal eye sight check up since the army in 1972 and I'm looking at this through plastic reading glasses from the supermarket!
Like all too many of us, I'm betting!

uplander · May 21, 2008

Is this better ?

Alfred D. · May 21, 2008

Beautiful, Up!

Still, an 800x600 viewed over the web by some unknown quantity is not really a useful yardstick, is it?

Jon0807 · May 21, 2008

Now THAT is awesome. I agree with Marcus on the first one. Doesn't look as sharp as could be. Maybe some post processing sharpness would help.

Garbz · May 21, 2008

Looks slightly oversharpened to me. The bottom of the tree branch on the top is starting to halo slightly.

Second one looks tac sharp.

MarcusM said:
It doesn't seem as sharp as it should be to me. There just isn't much detail in the feathers.

From a 100% crop are you kidding? Maybe a 1D that wouldn't be considered sharp, but that is damn sharp for full crop.

MarcusM · May 21, 2008

Garbz said:
Looks slightly oversharpened to me. The bottom of the tree branch on the top is starting to halo slightly.

Second one looks tac sharp.

From a 100% crop are you kidding? Maybe a 1D that wouldn't be considered sharp, but that is damn sharp for full crop.

True, good point. I guess I was just looking at the image posted and not thinking about the fact that it was a 100% crop even though I read that. I would be curious to see what the entire shot looked like to see how small the bird was in the frame.

uplander · May 22, 2008

I should have posted the full sized frame also so here it is .
Thanks for the input everyone. It's not as sharp as I would like.

LateModelSedan · May 22, 2008

Garbz said:
From a 100% crop are you kidding? Maybe a 1D that wouldn't be considered sharp, but that is damn sharp for full crop.

ditto.

Village Idiot · May 22, 2008

What are you shooting at? 2.8 is wide open and will be a bit soft. Step down to 5.6 or 8 and try that.

Joves · May 22, 2008

Village Idiot said:
What are you shooting at? 2.8 is wide open and will be a bit soft. Step down to 5.6 or 8 and try that.

I agree shooting wide open will soften it up quite a bit.

KristinaS · May 22, 2008

Looks good on my screen. The second you posted is REALLY sharp. The detail in the duck's feathers is really defined.

tim.bennett · May 22, 2008

Looks pretty sharp to me(if i close my left eye seeing as that one doesn't work as well as the other one). Seeing it's a 100% crop.
Second one hits the spot though