How to achieve such sharpness?

[keen.observer]

Start with a brand name camera....Canon, Fuji, Nikon, etc, which does NOT have an AA filter. Get a brand name Prime (single focal length) lens. Use a tripod. Set a higher number aperture...f/8, f/11, or f/16. Frame. Focus on something of interest...a model's eye, a football held by a runner, etc. Use a fast shutter speed. If action is involved, use a shutter speed of 1/2000 of a second, or so. Set your camera's timer, hit the shutter release, and stop touching the camera until after the shutter operates.

 

[kalgra]

I saw the photo of the year 2017 (2017 Photo of the Year) and I would like to ask the pros out there, how to achieve such sharpness in camera? Does a crop sensor affect sharpness when compared to a 'full frame' sensor? Thank you!

As the person that captured this image I am happy to tell you exactly what I did. To start off Ill list the gear and settings used to best I can remember. Also I am no pro. There are many many things I could pick apart about this image. If you have any follow up questions feel free to ask.

Canon 6D
Zeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar Prime lens (this is a ridiculously sharp lens)
RRS 34L tripod, and pano head
cable release

Settings:
Aperature f/8
shutter around 1/60th (I did bracket one exposure for the highlights and a second for the shadows)
ISO 100

This image is a composite that was composed of 12 frames total. 6 horizontal frames in portrait mode overlapped by about 1/3rd, each frame bracketed for highlights and shadows. The frames selected for the final image were from a selection of about 60-70 frames that were captured over about a 4-5 hour time frame, taking the best parts of the best frames for the entire time period. Hopefully that makes sense.

The frames were stitched into a pano in LR then exported to Photoshop as 4 or 5 separate "smart objects" on separate layers then manually blended with various techniques but primarily using luminosity masking. Additional sharpening was selectively added in certain areas using highpass filters and more masking. I also run a separate macro in PS when exporting the image to be viewed on the web which adds even more sharpening.

A few final thoughts.
As this was a pano with a 100mm telephoto I didn't need to worry about stopping down to get both foreground and background in focus. In this case because everything was so far off in the distance I was able to choose the f/8 - f/11 sweet spot of the lens and pretty much just focus to infinity. This would be very different with a wide angle lens and really a separate discussion altogether. If you want to learn more in this regard, google landscape photography wide angle vs telephoto. Contrary to what most people learn when starting out in photography is that wide angle lens while great for many landscape situations are not always the best choice. Many landscapes are shot with longer lenses.

Some final thoughts that are just my opinion. APC vs FF has nothing to do with sharpness and everything to do with good optics and technique. AA filters are not that big a deal. The 6D I used for this has an AA filter. Yes the absence of AA makes for slightly sharper images but for most people in most situations its just not that big a deal. For Landscape images a good tripod is a must. I personally prefer manually focusing while magnified in live view for landscapes but each to their own. Its just what works for me.

Not withstanding the skill of the individual who produced this beautiful image, I would assume much of it was a result of enhancement in post processing.

Yes, this image was highly processed!

Does anyone know what settings this was shot on? Tripod allows for longer exposure, thus allowing for smaller aperture, not to mention the stability factor. I don't have a tripod, and can never seem to get landscapes this sharp.

Yep see above.

Many of these are achieved by using a tripod to build a panorama composed of lots of sub-images. You're now basically combining the resolution of these individual images in a single ultra-high-resolution result.

Bingo!

 

[mrca]

Kalgra, you started with a lens with incredible sharpness, micro contrast, color rendition, depth, and the classic Zeiss Pop. It gives that Zeiss 3d look. The Leica look wasn't from the film or sensor, it is from the LENS. Most "brand name" lenses lack many of these qualities. Funny, I picked up the zeiss 100 up for less than a lens that supposedly makes "art." There is more to a lens than just sharpness. Multi element, coated lenses tend to give flat, low contrast, low micro contrast images, no matter how sharp. Hey, and using German chemistry in glass making including using lead in the glass and wonder full engineering makes a huge difference as well. I wonder how many folks look at this image and don't see the difference between what expensive modern lenses produce and what was captured here. As for manual focus, I use it for portraits with no problem. It was good enough for me for 25 years before digital and within minutes was nailing focus hand held at 2.o with half an inch dof. If you shoot nikon look in the lower left corner of the view finder and you will see 2 arrows facing each other that will show you which way to focus and a circle or "meatball" appears between them when you nail it. So much for manual focus issues without a viewfinder focusing screen. On tripod for more static subjects a d850 focus peaking in live view outlines in red areas in focus. Google Zeiss 100 mm photos for the difference between it and sigma or manufacturer lenses. It's a stunning difference. It is nice to see someone who recognizes the attributes of these lenses, Kalgra. I also have the 35 2.0 and getting focus with relatively huge dof is a piece of cake. It also has the 3d pop. Can even pre set a zone say 8-10' to infinity and not focus at all. As for no VR/IS on either the zeiss 100 of nikon 135 dc, with the incredible resolution of the d850 I try to hand hold at twice 1/lens length minimum. With Iso these days, it's no problem achieving that shutter speed.

 

[mycognitivecreations]

I saw the photo of the year 2017 (2017 Photo of the Year) and I would like to ask the pros out there, how to achieve such sharpness in camera? Does a crop sensor affect sharpness when compared to a 'full frame' sensor? Thank you!

As the person that captured this image I am happy to tell you exactly what I did. To start off Ill list the gear and settings used to best I can remember. Also I am no pro. There are many many things I could pick apart about this image. If you have any follow up questions feel free to ask.

Canon 6D
Zeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar Prime lens (this is a ridiculously sharp lens)
RRS 34L tripod, and pano head
cable release

Settings:
Aperature f/8
shutter around 1/60th (I did bracket one exposure for the highlights and a second for the shadows)
ISO 100

This image is a composite that was composed of 12 frames total. 6 horizontal frames in portrait mode overlapped by about 1/3rd, each frame bracketed for highlights and shadows. The frames selected for the final image were from a selection of about 60-70 frames that were captured over about a 4-5 hour time frame, taking the best parts of the best frames for the entire time period. Hopefully that makes sense.

The frames were stitched into a pano in LR then exported to Photoshop as 4 or 5 separate "smart objects" on separate layers then manually blended with various techniques but primarily using luminosity masking. Additional sharpening was selectively added in certain areas using highpass filters and more masking. I also run a separate macro in PS when exporting the image to be viewed on the web which adds even more sharpening.

A few final thoughts.
As this was a pano with a 100mm telephoto I didn't need to worry about stopping down to get both foreground and background in focus. In this case because everything was so far off in the distance I was able to choose the f/8 - f/11 sweet spot of the lens and pretty much just focus to infinity. This would be very different with a wide angle lens and really a separate discussion altogether. If you want to learn more in this regard, google landscape photography wide angle vs telephoto. Contrary to what most people learn when starting out in photography is that wide angle lens while great for many landscape situations are not always the best choice. Many landscapes are shot with longer lenses.

Some final thoughts that are just my opinion. APC vs FF has nothing to do with sharpness and everything to do with good optics and technique. AA filters are not that big a deal. The 6D I used for this has an AA filter. Yes the absence of AA makes for slightly sharper images but for most people in most situations its just not that big a deal. For Landscape images a good tripod is a must. I personally prefer manually focusing while magnified in live view for landscapes but each to their own. Its just what works for me.

Not withstanding the skill of the individual who produced this beautiful image, I would assume much of it was a result of enhancement in post processing.

Yes, this image was highly processed!

Does anyone know what settings this was shot on? Tripod allows for longer exposure, thus allowing for smaller aperture, not to mention the stability factor. I don't have a tripod, and can never seem to get landscapes this sharp.

Yep see above.

Many of these are achieved by using a tripod to build a panorama composed of lots of sub-images. You're now basically combining the resolution of these individual images in a single ultra-high-resolution result.

Bingo!

Thank you so much Kalgra, for taking time to explain. I have learned from you, though I need to look up on some terms used
A question I would like to clarify with you when you said "The frames selected for the final image were from a selection of about 60-70 frames that were captured over about a 4-5 hour time frame, taking the best parts of the best frames for the entire time period." That means you took a total of 60-70 images of the same scene before choosing the best? Won't the light conditions change over the time period and affect the photos?