[Apet-Sure]

Most tripods are not as stable as a concrete bunker, and can vibrate some. Have you tried using a cable release or the two-second timer?

[fs999]

"What did you say ? This lens is not sharp ?!"
Shot through an old double window...

PENTAX K-1 • Crop Mode • 1/500" • F5.6 • 3200 ISO • HD Pentax DA 560mm F5.6 ED AW
Kenko Pz-AF UniPlus Tube 25

[normhead]

Your image is a little soft and that may be because shot through a window or because it is shot at 5.6 or because of ISO3200 but probably all three.

Which brings up the next issue, what are the expectations. Does your definition of sharp even exist? Part of the Pentax ethic from way back is fur and feathers that don't look like the edges of razor blades, which they shouldn't. but that could be what your interpretation of sharp is. I guess one person's sharp is another persons sharpening artifacts.

---------- Post added 11-02-20 at 08:58 AM ----------

I expect it to be sharp. As I have seen images taken with said lens. The image is soft. The lens is not sharpest at 5.6. Look at the test. Images taken at ISO3200 will be soft compared to ISO100. And shot through a window, it will be softer than no window.

My point is, sharp is subjective. Not to mention "sharpness is a bourgeois concept." I don't really care what you say you've seen. You seem overly critical and I have no way to verify that you've seen anything. To me, unrealistic expectations is still in play based on your criticism of the above photo. I have to go by, you saying it's not sharp, and me looking at it and saying "that's a good image."

IMHO, the images people consider to be sharp are often function of lighting coming in at an angle the creates contrast. It's often not a function of the lens at all. Any decent photographer looks at an image like the above and thinks "soft lighting" not soft lens. You have to be aware of the different aspects of a camera shoot that impact the appearance of sharpness, to understand lens evaluation.

Since you played the "I've seen lots of sharp images from this lens card" as way of supporting a less than obvious evaluation of the image, I feel compelled to play the" I've professionally evaluated thousands of image" card. People can choose, the guy who's evaluated thousands of images (and got paid for it) says "it's a good image" , or the guy who's done, well what is your claim to fame here? You looked at few images? (Looking doesn't mean you know what you're looking at.) So maybe before you try and take bite out of someone else, maybe take good look at whether or not you're the god of photography you seem to think you are.

Long years of posting and reading have taught me, "It's not sharp" is usually the opinion of someone who thinks an image isn' sharp if there are no sharpening artifacts. It's sad, but some people can't appreciate good photography because they attach too much importance to technical criteria. Not sharp is just one of the catch all phrases used to dismiss some really good work.

Nothing gets me going more than someone who challenges someone else's work based on their own extreme prejudices. Sharpness, contrast, saturation, micro-contrast, exposure, black point shadow detail etc, all have to be image appropriate. The issue is not whether or not any one of those things has been maximized, the issue is are they image appropriate? They can be image appropriate without being emphasized off the deep end and pushing the value to it's max.

Hope that helps.

[fs999]

Your image is a little soft and that may be because shot through a window or because it is shot at 5.6 or because of ISO3200 but probably all three.

Did you click on the photo and zoomed in ?

[normhead]

Did you click on the photo and zoomed in ?

Once you decide you don't like an image, after that you are just looking for an excuse as to why not.

Conversely, people that like an image, will one say "its nice and sharp" when what they mean is, the level of sharpness is appropriate to the image. I've received the "That image is really sharp." comment for images that were right on the edge of acceptable sharpness, and that I was very close to just deleting. Way to often, "that's really sharp" is a way of saying "I really like that image."

I have never once seen anyone change their opinion after an "it's not sharp " judgement. It's just a catch phrase for "That's just not the kind of image I like." I think they feel better about being a negative Nelly if they make up some bogus technical criteria.

So don't feel bad if this guy doesn't like your image. It's impossible to anticipate what anyone means by "sharp". Appropriately sharp, ultimate sharpness, hard lighting high contrast sharp, soft lighting pastel sharp, sharp lens sharp, all in focus sharp, sharp focus with a less than ultimate sharpness lens sharp, sharpening artifact sharp, unnatural looking unreal sharp. You can't even tell what an "it's not sharp" comment means unless you know what thier personal concept of sharpness is.

For the things I look at, clarity of whiskers, definition of back lit hair, crisp edges to the highlights in the eyes, your image is appropriately sharp. I have no idea what criteria this uses. Just that he's seen some picture that were better. My advice to him would be, post some of the images you think are sharp, we'll tell you how that look is achieved. The answer will be in , subject angle to the light, camera angle to the light source, shutter speed and or exposure time, tripod or no, contrast and micro contrast in PP, saturation in PP and noise reduction in PP, and oh ya, and in rare cases a comment on the sharpness of the lens.

A good photographer can create the illusion of extreme sharpness with an average lens. A poor one can't even with the sharpest lens. I can't politely comment on the guys who blame the lens.

[MossyRocks]

I've always viewed it as is the image sharp enough. I've found that every lens I own is perfectly capable of sharp enough unless something is wrong (my first M42 S-M-C 28/3.5 was worn out and had a lot of slop in the helicoid). This even includes such stinker of lenses as the SMC FA 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 and teleastanar 400/6.3 that I own. That assumes that the operator is able to hold it steady enough and actually gets the focus correct which are usually the problems I have with not sharp images. The only times I find that absolute sharpness matters is when shooting things in the night sky or when shooting macro.

I wonder if a good portion of the issues that people have with sharpness is that images that some lenses produce lack contrast. I've found that using the dehaze option in Lightroom or RawTherapee solve that issue.

[sculptor666]

test it on something 12 ft away at iso 100. if you're in florida, there should be plenty of things to aim it at and if you want someone else to take a look at it, i'll be down there in a week or so.

Once you decide you don't like an image, after that you are just looking for an excuse as to why not.

Conversely, people that like an image, will one say "its nice and sharp" when what they mean is, the level of sharpness is appropriate to the image. I've received the "That image is really sharp." comment for images that were right on the edge of acceptable sharpness, and that I was very close to just deleting. Way to often, "that's really sharp" is a way of saying "I really like that image."

I have never once seen anyone change their opinion after an "it's not sharp " judgement. It's just a catch phrase for "That's just not the kind of image I like." I think they feel better about being a negative Nelly if they make up some bogus technical criteria.

So don't feel bad if this guy doesn't like your image. It's impossible to anticipate what anyone means by "sharp". Appropriately sharp, ultimate sharpness, hard lighting high contrast sharp, soft lighting pastel sharp, sharp lens sharp, all in focus sharp, sharp focus with a less than ultimate sharpness lens sharp, sharpening artifact sharp, unnatural looking unreal sharp. You can't even tell what an "it's not sharp" comment means unless you know what thier personal concept of sharpness is.

For the things I look at, clarity of whiskers, definition of back lit hair, crisp edges to the highlights in the eyes, your image is appropriately sharp. I have no idea what criteria this uses. Just that he's seen some picture that were better. My advice to him would be, post some of the images you think are sharp, we'll tell you how that look is achieved. The answer will be in , subject angle to the light, camera angle to the light source, shutter speed and or exposure time, tripod or no, contrast and micro contrast in PP, saturation in PP and noise reduction in PP, and oh ya, and in rare cases a comment on the sharpness of the lens.

A good photographer can create the illusion of extreme sharpness with an average lens. A poor one can't even with the sharpest lens. I can't politely comment on the guys who blame the lens.

It has nothing to do with me liking or disliking the image. I am only stating that the image is not a proper advocate for the lens since the image is soft due to earlier stated.

I shoot the 645z with FA120 macro. As sharp as it gets. When I talk about sharpness I talk about the amount of detail you can see. Seeing the fur on the squirrel I know for a fact that the fur has much more detail than what is visible in this image. f/6.3 and one stop higher ISO would probably render more detail in this case.

Take a look at this image and the detail rendered

Portrait in a storm | Thomas Hedlund | Flickr

(Download the full resolution) 645z 50 MP

That is a sharp and detailed image. Your eyes relaxes when whatching it.

The same goes for this image. Canon 5D 12 MP

Magnus och Helena _03 | Thomas Hedlund | Flickr

Or this image K-1 @ISO6400

My little fly catcher | Thomas Hedlund | Flickr

/T

p.s I find your talking down to me to be quite rude. d.s

[BigMackCam]

It has nothing to do with me liking or disliking the image. I am only stating that the image is not a proper advocate for the lens since the image is soft due to earlier stated.

I don't want to insert myself into a disagreement, so I'm going to independently and respectfully disagree with you on this. Even comparing with the photos you linked to - which are indeed sharp and detailed - I find the squirrel shot @fs999 posted also to be plenty sharp and detailed, and by no means soft. The main differences are subject lighting and contrast, and I believe a slight boost in exposure and Lightroom's clarity slider (or the local contrast function in some other raw developers) would address this to some extent. I'd assume that stopping down a little would increase sharpness further still (perhaps increasing contrast as part of that) but at the expense of increased ISO and noise therein (although luminance noise does a fine job of fooling the eye into perceiving sharpness).

I hope my comment's taken constructively in the circumstances...

I don't want to insert myself into a disagreement, so I'm going to independently and respectfully disagree with you on this. Even comparing with the photos you linked to - which are indeed sharp and detailed - I find the squirrel shot @fs999 posted also to be plenty sharp and detailed, and by no means soft. The main difference is contrast, and I believe a slight boost in Lightroom's clarity slider (or the local contrast function in some other raw developers) would address this. I'd assume that stopping down a little would increase sharpness further still (perhaps increasing contrast as part of that) but at the expense of increased ISO and noise therein (although luminance noise does a fine job of fooling the eye into perceiving sharpness).

I hope my comment's taken constructively in the circumstances...

There seems to be some missunderstandingings to what I am trying to say. In short: I am not saying that the squirrel is unsharp and undetailed. I am saying that according to the test made by this forum on the Pentax 560 lens, the lens is sharpest at f/8 to f/16. It is softer at 5.6. By softer I do not say unsharp. Therefor I conclude that stopping down will give you a more detailed image if compared.That is what I was trying to say.

Have a nice week.

[BigMackCam]

There seems to be some missunderstandingings to what I am trying to say. In short: I am not saying that the squirrel is unsharp and undetailed. I am saying that according to the test made by this forum on the Pentax 560 lens, the lens is sharpest at f/8 to f/16. It is softer at 5.6. By softer I do not say unsharp. Therefor I conclude that stopping down will give you a more detailed image if compared.That is what I was trying to say.

Have a nice week.

Ah, OK... thanks for the clarification

I'd agree the lens is sharper at f/8 and smaller, based on reviews and sample photos I've seen... and - as with most lenses - stopping down at least a little would be preferable when the opportunity presents itself. I must admit, though, I'm pleasantly surprised by the wide open performance. It's much better than I'd have expected...

[ZombieArmy]

A lot of the dullness here could be from the rather bad downsampling from the pentax forums website. Could you upload it to something like flickr?

[normhead]

There seems to be some missunderstandingings to what I am trying to say. In short: I am not saying that the squirrel is unsharp and undetailed. I am saying that according to the test made by this forum on the Pentax 560 lens, the lens is sharpest at f/8 to f/16. It is softer at 5.6. By softer I do not say unsharp. Therefor I conclude that stopping down will give you a more detailed image if compared.That is what I was trying to say.

Have a nice week.

It would be really great if you now produced images that demonstrate your point to bring it into the real world. A sharper lens gives you more detail, if an only is there is detail in the image that the less sharp lens can't resolve. In the image posted, squirrel fur is not terribly fine. The worst 1970s lens I own can resolve it. SO it's very unlikely that there will be unresolved detail that a slight difference in lw/phwill detect.

I have many times shown that an ƒ8 image appears to be sharper than a 5.6 image, because the areas in focus are virtually the same, despite a 200 lw/ph test chart difference. But with the ƒ8 image, more of the animal would be in focus, and it would appear to be a much sharper image. This is why guys like me always try for ƒ8 for this kind of image, even though it's technically not sharper. It may be test chart sharper, but it's almost never practically sharper.

So I still disagree. It's the difference between years f experience getting images and a text book approach. The flaw in your approach being that not every measurable difference is a visible difference. You assume because you can measure it you can see it. In my experience that's not the case. You can measure the size of bacteria, but you can't see them. If you do the math, you'll realize, there are bacteria bigger than the difference you're talking about and assume to be visible.

[MegaPower]

you are not close enough to the object.

of course, ISO, monopod, lighting all are related factors

[MJKoski]

Image accelerator and fine detailed animal fur does not compute. ISO800 is used in the original shot and unfortunately it produces gritty results no matter what lens is attached. Image accelerator is activated @ ISO800 and it affects RAW files too.