77

Technique is typically at fault with "fuzzy" images 99% of the time with someone new to interchangeable lens cameras (ILC) with only a low-cost kit lens. The lens is not the problem. Low end kit lenses are limited, and they are cheap, and there are much nicer lenses around, but how you use one is more likely to be the fault than what glass is in the lens. ...


51

You've run over the diffraction limit. Light rays passing through a small hole will diverge and interfere with each other and a pattern emerges--a sort of banding where different frequencies/placement can cause separate rays to add up or negate each other. The smaller the opening gets, the larger this divergence/interference becomes. This pattern is called ...


48

As mentioned in the other answers, diffraction has led to unsharpness. To put this to the test, one can attempt to sharpen the image using deconvolution by using the point spread function that corresponds to F/29. For diffraction, we have (up to an overall normalization) P(s) = {J1[ πrs/(λF) ] / [ πrs/(λF) ] }2 where J1 is the Bessel function of the ...


35

There is no reason whatsoever that you need to shoot a static object from a tripod with 1/100s or 1/200s shutter speed. The shutter speed has nothing whatsoever to do with "soft focus": it just has to do with susceptibility to movements of camera and subject. Neither camera nor subject move; in fact, for shooting from a tripod you should disable image ...


34

What makes the difference on partially and fully visible moon? In a word: shadows. I cannot understand why the IQ is extremely diminished when doing the same with an almost fully visible moon. The second image does appear to suffer from lower sharpness and overall quality. However, even if the technical image quality factors were equal, most importantly,...


22

Looking at your samples, the answer seems clear to me: that's not grainy, that is, actually, out of focus. Here's a 1:1 crop of your wide-open image: It seems pretty apparent that the wooden sign is sharp but the dog isn't, and the appearance of the blur looks completely in line with what one would expect from out-of-focus blur, not noise or grain. ...


19

As im researching now it seems to me that to make decent photos i need atleast a $1000 camera. So sayeth the gear collectors. Photographers are out shooting, and say otherwise. Many of us, myself included, still shoot film on vintage rigs. I've also shot with digital since ~2004 and my current digital camera is a 5Dmk2, released in 2008! Here's an image ...


18

Okay, so, looking at the examples in your flickr gallery, including the ones from your parents' point and shoot camera, I see a number of things: You're seeing the effect of a smaller depth of field, which is more apparent with a larger sensor size. In this example, you are shooting at f/5.6 and 26mm, and it looks like you're pretty close to your subjects. ...


18

The difference between sharpness and clarity, is basically that clarity is a sharpness applied with a very large radius, a relatively low amount, and mostly to the midtones. This means that you have to use very much of clarity to get the same sharpening effect as sharpness, which also means that you add a lot of local contrast around details. When the ...


17

There are two issues at work that are causing your results to be a little soft: Diffraction Since you are using an EF-S lens it is safe to assume you are using a Canon APS-C camera. Most of the recent models have pixels pitches that cause diffraction to begin at around f/6.8-6.9. This is the point at which the affects of diffraction begin when viewed at the ...


17

1) Sharpness is complicated. Lens sharpness is just one aspect of the overall resolving power of a camera system. The appearance of crispness is separate from the rendition of detail. And a lens can be sharper in the center but not in the corners, or less sharp overall but consistent across the frame. And that's not even getting into other factors that ...


15

The lighting is from the sides, which you can tell from the highlights on his face, and lack of catchlights in his eyes. The light brushing across the face from the sides creates shadows in all the pores and accentuates them (as opposed to front-on lighting, used in fashion shots, that fills the pores with light, removes shadows and hides them). Another ...


15

Because of diffraction. f/29 is way too much for you to expect a sharp image. Try shooting the same thing at f/8 and you'll see the difference.


15

The first image was shot wide open with what is essentially the lowest cost Canon lens (50mm f/1.8), in demanding low light conditions, and at ISO 1600. I'd say your results are exactly what I would expect. The second image, I don't see anything wrong with. My best guess is that you are overly concerned with the quality of each pixel viewed at 100% to a ...


14

Higher megapixels do not add to lens sharpness. This has been found by many Canon EOS 90D owners. It has 32.5 megapixel APS-C sensor. Its pixel density is the same as 83.2 megapixel full frame camera. For example, Canon has announced a list of recommended lenses for EOS 5DS that is a 50.6 megapixel full frame camera. Interestingly enough, Canon has not ...


13

As to the trees being unsharp: It is very difficult to tell, but I think that the autofocus decided to get the house, not the trees in focus. It really is best to specify a certain AF point (p. 61 in the camera's manual). Or, if shooting from a tripod, use LiveView's freely movable contrast AF (p. 95, 102-106) - or focus manually (p. 98). My second guess, ...


12

The best way to improve image quality? Learn how to get the most out the gear you already have Please don't misunderstand the following as flippant or taking a cheap shot at a budding photographer. It isn't. It is an encouragement to decide to put in the learning and practice to develop the technique and compositional skills that better images truly ...


12

What did the reviewers say about why they chose one lens over the other? They have their own priorities and biases. You should evaluate the information they present and decide for yourself whether you agree with their conclusions. Everyone tests lens sharpness because it's easy. Just photograph a resolution chart and read off the numbers. However, this ...


11

Any photo you're never going to use again is taking up "unnecessary" space, and frankly no matter what happens to image processing technologies in the future, you're probably not going to go back and reprocess some low quality photos from 10 years ago. On the other hand, disk space is cheap (unless you're Google, Amazon, etc). Very roughly, my SLR has a ...


11

In short, No. Be very wary of anything suggesting that you throw money at the problem for the newest and latest gear to solve your photography issues, as while the newest gear makes solving the problem easier, it won't in and of itself solve the core of the problem. Consider this: Have you ever seen a sharp photo taken in the 1950's? It was clearly not ...


11

Not necessarily. Each lens can only produce a certain amount of detail, which means at some point it doesn't make sense anymore to increase pixel count because the given lens is not good enough for it. Higher megapixel sensors are also more vulnerable to camera shake and usually perform worse in low lighting conditions (as the individual pixels are smaller ...


10

It's not you, it's the lens. The kit lens is extremely soft wide open and remains noticeably soft until F/6.3 at least. Around F/8, it gives better results but never gets tack-sharp. Stopping down further only goes so far since you will already pass the diffraction limit at F/13. For this type of work, it is best to get a macro lens which is designed to ...


10

Several focal-length-related factors can influence sharpness: It is usually harder to manufacture long focal lens, so at constant cost, expect a 50 mm to be sharp, a 200 mm to be not-so-sharp, and >300 mm to be really low quality. On a related note, it's hard to make a lens with both a long focal lens and a wide aperture. So, long focal lens often have a ...


10

Does cheap lens filters (UV, ND, CPL) affect on image quality, color reproduction, sharpness and etc.? All filters affect image quality in some way or other. Some effects are desirable, and these are usually the reason for using a filter in the first place, and some are undesirable. Inexpensive filters are usually built to a lower quality standard than more ...


9

Reviewed your photos here are my thoughts: Camera shake. There's an old rule about using a shutter speed "faster" than the lens's focal length. If the lens is zoomed to 125mm the shutter speed should be 1/125 or faster. Setting a shutter speed slower than that results in blurry photos because the camera moves as the shutter is released. Depending on how ...


9

There are a few things going on here: The subject's hand may be considerably closer to the photographer, but not so much to the camera's sensor plane. The image was shot from just above the subject's eye level (looks like about mid-forehead to me), so the camera was tilted down. You can only see the front half of what you're looking at, assuming it's a 3-...


9

The job of the camera lens is to project an image of the outside world on the flat surface of film or digital sensor. What we want is a faithful image. To achieve, the lens projects a minuscule circle of light that corresponds to a tiny point on the subject. Thus the projected image consists of a collection of points of light, each so tiny that they are seen ...


9

I do not think your photos are fuzzy,I think they are noisy. You will get the best quality image by shooting as close to the 'native' ISO as possible. For most modern dSLRS that is typically ISO 100 or 200. By shooting at ISO 1250, you will naturally get noise. Reshooting is the only thing that will significantly reduce the noise. With Lightroom, assuming ...


9

I see very little to no noise in the example provided with the question. What is evident from looking at the example is blurring that can be attributed to the effects of diffraction by using an aperture of f/22. For more about diffraction, please see: What is a "diffraction limit"? Do smaller apertures provide more depth of field past the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible