Photo sharpness, am I imagining things?

[The_Traveler]

Look at DOFmaster.com and you can actually calculate the aperture you need for a specific DOF.
And lookup hyperfocal distance.
Since sharpness is really discerning edges and the difference in tones then light has a lot to do with sharpness.
My guess is that KMH will come along with a bunch of great links for you to read.

I have to go cook supper but help is on the way.

 

[dennybeall]

You are certainly correct in that those are not sharp. With the shutter speeds listed I would want a very good tripod and a remote shutter release. Trying to handhold those speeds is not reasonable. I'd try some test shots with faster speeds to see if it's the lens.

 

[japvdk]

I was reading online and on this forum and found that my standard camera settings have in camera sharpness at 3/7. Do you guys think it would be a good idea to increase that number?

@dennybeall Im a bit confused, I thought 1/mm so 1/50 for 50mm etc was a good rule of thumb for handheld shots. So is 1/100 really not handholdable for mm<30 ?

 

[Braineack]

@Braineack, what do you mean? That there is something wrong with the lens? Would you recommend going back to the store?

Looking at the pictures again... Do you have a filter on the lens?

I refuse to believe that your shots are result of hand holding a long lens, the IQ is just horrendous. It appears you shot through plastic.

 

[table1349]

@Braineack, what do you mean? That there is something wrong with the lens? Would you recommend going back to the store?
@gryphonslair99 I am aware of the setbacks of super zooms, it was a difficult decission, but do you really think that the image quality would this bad? When I was researching the lens I got the impression the differences in image quality between lenses where differences that could only be seen by trained eyes, and mostly at the extremes of camera settings, certainly not at apertures of f10. But I might be wrong of course.

Actually yes. People look at photographs made by competent photographers with top of the line glass ($$$$) and then go out and buy consumer grade super zooms for convenience and wonder why their results aren't the same. And yes some of the comments made by others here in regards to shutter speed, hand holding etc. are quite relevant to the situation. The fact remains that the compromise in super zooms is generally noticeable due to the huge range covered and the quality of the materials and construction.

 

[japvdk]

@Braineack Yes I have a skylight filter on my lens, mostly for protection.

 

[astroNikon]

@Braineack Yes I have a skylight filter on my lens, mostly for protection.

take it off
you may find you have a sudden improvement in IQ

I was going to mention before that you photos seem to have a lot of haze to them. This degrades in the overall quality.

many professionals will stake out time, weather, lighting and everything else possible (after a rainfall which clears the sky etc) to get a nice clear photo of a scene. Not just a quick snapshot. they may visit a place dozens of times just waiting for the best photo.

 

[Braineack]

@Braineack Yes I have a skylight filter on my lens, mostly for protection.

You misspelled: blurry filter


You will find when you remove the cheap piece of plastic form in front of your lens, it will stop looking like youre shooting through a cheap piece of plastic.

 

[japvdk]

@Braineack Wow that should be a relatively easy thing to fix haha, I have a Kenko skylight 1a on my lens, which I found in my dad's old photogear. Would you recommend buying a newer an better filter or leaving it off all together?

@astroNikon I realize that proffesional photographers invest way more time and energy in their photos than I do. It is of course tempting to compare my photos to those photos, but its something I try not to do. This was my first vacation with which I took almost no autoset pictures, and tried to go to places when the lighting conditions were optimal. I think that made the dissapointment in seeing somewhat unsharp images appear on my laptop afterwords a little bigger. But I'm really happy with all you guys responses, which gave a lot of different possible causes. Now I can try and avoid this dissapointment in the future !

 

[Braineack]

#nofilters

 

[astroNikon]

leave the filter off altogether, unless you really want that in front of your lens, then invest in a really good filter that won't cause any IQ loss .. of which you may choke on the price of good ones and decide not to anyways.

 

[weepete]

Yup, first off get the UV filter off and bin it (or use it as a coaster if you really can't bear to throw it out). But even for a superzoom those are off. To me it certianly looks like there's some camera shake in there, but I'd have still expected these to be sharper.

So time for a test. First off get outside when there is good light, get a tripod or a stable platform, enable mirror lockup (or live view) and put your camera on timer. Set the camera to f11 and focus 1/3rd of the way into the image using a single point AF and focusing on a contrasty area. Then take a shot, and you should have a sharp image. If the image still isn't sharp there's an issue probably with the lens, if it is sharp it's your technique.

 

[Dave442]

I also agree, take that old Skylight 1A filter off and put it back with the old photo equipment. I think the Traveler mentioned the Hyperfocal distance and I think you need to consider that for these types of landscape shots.

 

[thereyougo!]

Your sensor could also do with a clean I suspect. Two good chucks of dust there...

Edited to add:
Or else they might be on the inside of the filter...

 

[japvdk]

Thanks guys! I tried it without the filter, and I think that did the trick. There are still some images that aren't very sharp, but I think I can explain why they would be my own fault.
Just to check:

This image was shot at (I guess) something like 50-60mm with an aperture of 7.1 and a shutterspeed of 1/250. If I use DOFmaster, I find that this will only give sharpness from 20-50 meters away from me, which is why the cliffs are unsharp. I should have used a smaller aperture, like f12. Correct?How low of an aperture can I go before diffraction makes my images noticably unsharper?

But most of the images are sharp like this one, which is probably what I should expect right?: