FA43 sharpness test

**rparmar** · 09-01-2010, 06:23 AM

Thanks everyone for the comments.

Originally posted by GeneV

I prefer a detail that doesn't move, like a brick. Here it is hard to find a day with no breeze.

I agree. Leaves are so notoriously fickle.

Originally posted by GeneV

That's one way to look at it, but there is not much of an image to "corrupt" until all the digital processing puts the pixels together into an image.

My point was perhaps largely rhetorical. Or of interest to information theory aficionados.

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

That's a really effective demonstration of the effect of testing methods and in particular PP can have on test results, and why comparing results obtained by different photographers using different methods is close to worthless.

Thanks Marc for emphasising this point, which I believe is the main conclusion to take away from this exercise. We all want to believe in objective tests, but ultimately he question is always "Is this lens appropriate / good enough for me?"

**rparmar** · 09-01-2010, 06:28 AM

I have run some tests on an object in the distance, just closer than infinity according to the lens scale. I will note here that the "in focus" confirmation came on at infinity and also for a small but discernible distance closer. Focus on these cameras is not as precise as I like, which is why I do manually focus for accuracy. Even my bad eyes are better than the camera!

This time I used the K20D, to aid in manual focus, and to eliminate any concerns over mirror slap. I used the long timer so any vibration on the tripod would have time to settle.

These are again 100% crops of the FA43 at f/1.9. I have not bothered with stopping down. First up is the "null" processed image and then my usual processing, more or less. If you see artefacts, remind yourself of the magnification here. I would say that even more sharpening could be safely done, depending on the size of the final print / image. And depending on one's taste, of course. Personally, I wouldn't be printing a test shot of the neighbour's house in any case! Nor would I be shooting it wide open.

no processing

my usual processing

These shots do nothing but reinforce the conclusions already drawn from this exercise.

**rparmar** · 09-01-2010, 07:19 AM

And finally, I stepped outside to grab a shot of a friendly spider, wide open for no reason other than it can be done. ISO 100, hand-held, with polarising filter. I could have done better and no doubt would prefer a different lens -- a macro! Even at the distance I had to stand, the spider is only about one-quarter in focus. The web shows how fine detail can be. This is a centre crop, maybe half the original area.

swimming in the blue

09-01-2010, 06:28 AM	#17
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819 Original Poster	I have run some tests on an object in the distance, just closer than infinity according to the lens scale. I will note here that the "in focus" confirmation came on at infinity and also for a small but discernible distance closer. Focus on these cameras is not as precise as I like, which is why I do manually focus for accuracy. Even my bad eyes are better than the camera! This time I used the K20D, to aid in manual focus, and to eliminate any concerns over mirror slap. I used the long timer so any vibration on the tripod would have time to settle. These are again 100% crops of the FA43 at f/1.9. I have not bothered with stopping down. First up is the "null" processed image and then my usual processing, more or less. If you see artefacts, remind yourself of the magnification here. I would say that even more sharpening could be safely done, depending on the size of the final print / image. And depending on one's taste, of course. Personally, I wouldn't be printing a test shot of the neighbour's house in any case! Nor would I be shooting it wide open. no processing my usual processing These shots do nothing but reinforce the conclusions already drawn from this exercise. Last edited by rparmar; 09-01-2010 at 06:33 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Takumar 1:3.5/28 Sharpness test	eccs19	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	04-10-2009 12:22 PM
Takumar 1:4/100 sharpness test	eccs19	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	04-10-2009 09:18 AM
Sharpness vs Fine Sharpness on K20D	morfic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	11-02-2008 10:13 AM
Fine sharpness and sharpness move together on K20D 1.01	morfic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	07-11-2008 09:18 PM
Sharpness test, 70-300mm vs 55-300mm	audiobomber	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	07-11-2008 09:28 AM

09-01-2010, 06:23 AM	#16
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819 Original Poster	Thanks everyone for the comments. Originally posted by GeneV I prefer a detail that doesn't move, like a brick. Here it is hard to find a day with no breeze. I agree. Leaves are so notoriously fickle. Originally posted by GeneV That's one way to look at it, but there is not much of an image to "corrupt" until all the digital processing puts the pixels together into an image. My point was perhaps largely rhetorical. Or of interest to information theory aficionados. Originally posted by Marc Sabatella That's a really effective demonstration of the effect of testing methods and in particular PP can have on test results, and why comparing results obtained by different photographers using different methods is close to worthless. Thanks Marc for emphasising this point, which I believe is the main conclusion to take away from this exercise. We all want to believe in objective tests, but ultimately he question is always "Is this lens appropriate / good enough for me?"

09-01-2010, 07:19 AM	#18
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819 Original Poster	And finally, I stepped outside to grab a shot of a friendly spider, wide open for no reason other than it can be done. ISO 100, hand-held, with polarising filter. I could have done better and no doubt would prefer a different lens -- a macro! Even at the distance I had to stand, the spider is only about one-quarter in focus. The web shows how fine detail can be. This is a centre crop, maybe half the original area. swimming in the blue