DSLRUsers.com

Hi there,

I'm just interested in some comparisons and examples of 'sharp' imags. I'm doing this so I can see exactly what I should strive towards.

Can people post examples of UNSHARPENED (either in-camera or post processing) 100% crops of images? Emphasis placed on the UNSHARPENED because I don't want to see what the camera/people can do in post processing.

My preference would be for images of birds and wildlife as that is mainly what I shoot. But anything with fine detail would be fine.

Also if you could post the lens used that would be great.

Thanks very much
Paul

EDIT: some wording

I may be wrong here, but isn't sharpness totally dependent on the lens rather then the body?

Yeah I think you are right... will change my post to make what I want a little more clear...

I know that the filter over the CCD (antialias filter??) can affect sharpness. What I'm really after is just sharp images to see what I should be aiming for. (apparently the 500 f4, 100-300 f4 and 180 f3.5 I own all should be capable of extremely sharp images but I think I am lacking somewhere).

Although it's not really a fair fight here is a 100% crop taken with a D2X..

Ouch...

That is a very high benchmark!

Probably an obvious question.... but is the D2X a whole heap sharper than the D70 at 100%?

NikonUser wrote:Ouch...

That is a very high benchmark!

Probably an obvious question.... but is the D2X a whole heap sharper than the D70 at 100%?

Yep! Full size at 12MP or after cropped.

Anyone with a D70 shot?

....Or a spare $7k or so they can give me to get a D2X?

1/80th sec, 18mm, f/5.6 , Nikkor 18-70 DX


1/500th sec, 30mm, f/5.6, Nikkor 17-55 DX


1/1600th sec, 200mm, f/5.6, Nikkor 70-200 VR


1/1000th sec, 175mm, f/5.6, Nikkor 70-200 VR

Click the previews to see 100% crops

All taken on a D70

Common settings,
Sharpening: None
Tone compensation: Normal
Saturation: Normal
Colour space: AdobeRGB
Exif data got stripped somehow

edit: VR was probably set to normal on the 70-200 shots or maybe off considering shutter speed..

Thank you.

RAW, auto everything. Set to no sharpening in NC, imported to PS as 16 bit. Converted to sRGB, set to 8bit, saved as JPG.

Original (light sharpening)


80-200 f/2.8 with Tamron MC7 (2x TC) 100% crops, not sure of EXIF data, but I recall basically it was pretty much wide open. UNSHARPENED!



70-200 VR, from about 6 ft, +1 EV, SB800, 1/60th, f/5.6, no sharpening, resized (bicubic) jpeg qual 10


100% crop, jpeg qual 10

Few 100% crops here.
Nikon D70 + Sigma 105 DG EX
No PP, just converted to JPEG.

Cheers.

NikonUser wrote:Probably an obvious question.... but is the D2X a whole heap sharper than the D70 at 100%?

No, it's not "sharper"... It just takes much higher resolution images and can therefore provide more detail...

leek wrote:

NikonUser wrote:Probably an obvious question.... but is the D2X a whole heap sharper than the D70 at 100%?

No, it's not "sharper"... It just takes much higher resolution images and can therefore provide more detail...

Its not just the megapixels either. Its got that higher resolution on the same size sensor as the D70, thus each photosite is a lot smaller. This can lead to more noise etc (though they seem to have this at least under control), but increases the amount of fine detail the sensor can pick up.

Look who's the pixel peeper

100% crop, without on camera or post sharpen

D2X with the 50mm 1.4 shot at f1.4, subject was 1 metre away
under excellent halogen lighting

I think the lens has more to do with sharpness as 12 megapixels is only as good as the quality of lens you are using

Given my present investigation of which way to bounce in the acquisition of a DSLR, I have to say that the only two images here that appear anywhere near sharp to me are the two D2x offerings. The rest look far from sharp at this end and, sadly, unacceptable to my standards.

Sheetshooter wrote:Given my present investigation of which way to bounce in the acquisition of a DSLR, I have to say that the only two images here that appear anywhere near sharp to me are the two D2x offerings. The rest look far from sharp at this end and, sadly, unacceptable to my standards.

The first D2x crop is highly sharpened to appear as it is. In my opinion, with the D2x and D70 crops at 100%, IF SHOWING THE SAME AMOUNT OF PIXELS, should look very similar, with the D70 perhaps taking the lead for its bigger pixel size and light AA filter.

The D2x crams twice the pixels into the same space. Think about it. Don't jump to any conclusions until you do controlled tests with scientific methods.

To me, 100% crops are only worth looking at if:

A: you have to crop into an image to the extreme, esp. if printing in a magazine.
B: you have to print a D70 image on a large banner.

To me, most of my images appear in magazines. The D70 at 300dpi needs to be at about 120% to be A4 (with 3mm bleed), while the D2x needs to be at about 120% to be at A3 (with 3mm bleed).

The D70 appears very very good at A4. I have seen a 6MP shot at A3 in a magazine and it was fine too, but it would have been upsampled 2x to work at 300dpi.

The relationship between glass acuity and vision acuity, coupled with the photosites interpreting the scene is an individualistic situation.

An example of this would be banners. Many banners are printed at 72/96/100dpi simply because at the distance viewed they will be pin sharp due to the fact that we do not have binocular vision I can verify this as I have produced a few

I have produced designs using shots taken with a 2.7 mega pixel Nikon D1 that have been used on the front covers of corporate magazines and brochures at a size of A4. So, to me it is not so much how many pixels I have but more what I can do with them.

In sheetshooters, case I can understand fully the concern as I have used a Nikkor PC lens and found that it was sadly lacking on digital compared to full frame film.

wendellt wrote:100% crop, without on camera or post sharpen
D2X with the 50mm 1.4 shot at f1.4, subject was 1 metre away
under excellent halogen lighting
I think the lens has more to do with sharpness as 12 megapixels is only as good as the quality of lens you are using

Fully agree with you Wendell. If the lens doesnt have the resolution to support the sensor, then you are pushing it uphill.
I also believe that lighting and subject matter have a huge amount of input into how sharp something appears, as well as DOF of course

Sheetshooter wrote:Given my present investigation of which way to bounce in the acquisition of a DSLR, I have to say that the only two images here that appear anywhere near sharp to me are the two D2x offerings. The rest look far from sharp at this end and, sadly, unacceptable to my standards.

You have me curious now. Hows about some 100% crops from MF scans??

As far as detail goes, and if you have nikon capture, it may well be worth checking out this picture at the link below. You can download a RAW file and convert it using Nikon Capture or equivalent programs.

It is a D2x picture that has been taken through a Hasselblad lens. This is well and truly all the detail that a D2x can handle, because moire artefacts are very noticeable. I find it an interesting way to see the most the camera can put out if tested at its absolute limit.

http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=4993&forum=DCForumID71&viewmode=threaded

This is of course, an absolutely POINTLESS way to compare sharpness.

You'd be better off emailing the complete files to the gentleman concerned. Then he'll be able to judge himself.
Of course only people with recognised "sharp" lenses should do this...

Where's that canned worm supply..?

whiz wrote:This is of course, an absolutely POINTLESS way to compare sharpness.

You'd be better off emailing the complete files to the gentleman concerned. Then he'll be able to judge himself.
Of course only people with recognised "sharp" lenses should do this...

Where's that canned worm supply..?

Yes, it's me and johndec took this picture of me on my D2x, it's sharp as it's with cropped

Birddog114 wrote:

whiz wrote:This is of course, an absolutely POINTLESS way to compare sharpness.

You'd be better off emailing the complete files to the gentleman concerned. Then he'll be able to judge himself.
Of course only people with recognised "sharp" lenses should do this...

Where's that canned worm supply..?

Yes, it's me and johndec took this picture of me on my D2x, it's sharp as it's with cropped

Yep, I took it, but as Birdy says it was with his camera and I have no idea what his in camera settings are although I would assume that they would be fairly neutral. It was just sitting on the table looking for a CF card The posted image has not been overly worked over on my part, although some USM was applied (like every other image I PP ).

I can't remember the exact settings but I wouldn't have spent more than 2 or 3 minutes on it, therefore I consider it representitive of what the D2X can acheive with minimal effort....

Sheetshooter wrote:Given my present investigation of which way to bounce in the acquisition of a DSLR, I have to say that the only two images here that appear anywhere near sharp to me are the two D2x offerings. The rest look far from sharp at this end and, sadly, unacceptable to my standards.

You might like to have a look at these then. D70, 80-400 VR ...