72

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 ...


37

What you are looking for is large depth of field. This is an optical property, not something applied as a special effect, so it's not something you can turn on or off. The raw image captures the light focused by the lens, and inevitably there will be parts of the scene which are either too far or too close — out of the range where the rays are tightly ...


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,...


27

Stopping down is suggested because many lenses are considerably less sharp when wide open. This does not change on a crop-camera, since it is a property of the lens. There is however for most lenses a difference between center sharpness and corner sharpness. Most of the time, the center sharpness is substantially better than the corner sharpness. The ...


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. ...


18

This looks like the effect of noise reduction at high ISOs. Heavy NR is common in compact cameras with small sensors. Fujifilm cameras of that generation did it very well compared to others of the time, but there's only so much blood you can get from a stone. On most modern high-megapixel point and shoot cameras, you'll see this even at low-ISOs if you ...


18

You've hit the diffraction limit. That link has some amazing answers with a lot of detail, so I won't be redundant, but in short, once the aperture gets to be below certain physical size, diffraction causes inevitable blur. For your camera (and any other camera with an APS-C-sized sensor), the limit is a little beyond f/11. The amount of light let in doesn'...


18

Given that you have explicitly disqualified fungus and dust inside the lens, then the answer is no. A lens will not "naturally" lose sharpness with age. Glass is glass. It is a fixed medium, and assuming a 100 year old lens is in good condition without any extraneous wear and tear like fungus, dust, or a strong enough jolt to misalign one of the internal ...


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

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 ...


17

Sometimes a polarizer helps cut through haze. Otherwise, you can tweak the contrast/brightness in the camera if you want the jpegs to be better, or do it in the RAW program you use. 3rd option is the embrace the smog and make it part of your composition to tell the story. You could make a series to bring attention to problems with pollution and sell them as ...


17

Ironically, I just did the math for this in another thread. Image quality is a convolution of all imaging system factors. The resolution of the lens or the resolution of the sensor are not independent factors...they are factors that convolve to produce the final "system resolution". If we use your two cameras as examples, we can calculate the resolutions of ...


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 ...


16

You ask whether a lens can lose sharpness over time, but then go on to say: Please note, I am not talking about general wear and tear, or dust inside the lenses, nor am I talking about fungus in the lens. Which are exactly the reasons lenses lose sharpness over time. So the answer is no - once you exclude all the factors which causes lenses to lose ...


16

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 ...


15

I think that you can be pleased with the overall result given the equipment that you are using. You are fighting against effects which are unbeatable without cheating and compromise. If you want substantially better you need better equipment or you need to "cheat" or both. There are several apparent affects at work here. As Matt says, there are ...


15

The short answer is that all else being equal FX will give sharper images, at least in the centre of the frame (possibly not in the extreme corners with wide lenses). The long answer is here. The typical argument that gets rolled out against full frame is that lens sharpness falls off toward the corners, so using the same lens on a crop body avoids the ...


15

If anything, the longer the exposure, the less detail you will get, because it gives things more time to move. Even when you're looking at a "still" landscape scene, the tree branches may be moving a bit, water will be rippling, clouds will be slowly scudding across the sky... A few of my all-time favorite photos are technically marred because of this. They'...


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

It certainly is not worth investing in a 35mm film camera for the perceived higher resolution, additional color, or sharpness. To get results you will likely have to either invest in, or at least have access to a drum scanner that gives you the highest resolution possible right now. Otherwise you will likely be scanning on a flatbed that almost certainly ...


14

Firstly I notice your aperture is set at 1.8. This will make DOF very narrow, making focusing very difficult. Also your camera is very good at higher iso, so try using 1600 / 3200 initially. Try setting the following. Use auto focus to focus on something with a defined edge (the tops of the trees?), then switch to manual to keep the focus. Use a higher iso, ...


14

On Sharpness Sharpness is a factor intensely related to viewing context. To use more laymans terms, how sharp a photograph looks greatly depends on how large it is viewed, how closely it is being viewed, how well it is lit (if not on a computer screen), and the visual acuity of the viewer. As such, it is very difficult to judge sharpness without a proper ...


14

There is no answer to your general question. Prime lenses are usually sharper than zooms at the same focal-length and aperture, mostly at wider apertures when the sensor out-resolves the lens. At one point lenses can out-resolve the sensor and then you will see equal sharpness in your images despite a potential difference in lens sharpness. If someone were ...


14

As Guffa said, the red channel is blown. All the RGB values are (255,0,0) In the other red parts of the image, it's more like (190, 35, 40) and all the red, green and blue luminance values fluctuate and there is some texture/detail/noise. Histogram of the blown area: And of the nearby red area:


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