[Barry Pearson]

My K1 was at the Farnborough airshow yesterday :-)

Those are some very nice shots! I was there on the Saturday afternoon and the conditions were not ideal - lots of overcast which made for some fairly awkward lighting conditions for airborne targets, and an overheating wife and two small children meant I didn't get down to the static display proper (we found a very convenient marquee set up by Brooklands Museum that kept the wife in the shade and the kids entertained).

Nice shots, I was at the FIA earlier in the week, I was walking around the halls and on the Rolls Royce stand, an American came up and asked if I was enjoying my K-1, he had not seen another in the wild!

I've now uploaded to DPReview 73 photos I took with the K-1 at the Farnborough Airshow on Saturday 16th July:

Photos (73 of them) from Farnborough Airshow

[Dan Rentea]

I've now uploaded to DPReview 73 photos I took with the K-1 at the Farnborough Airshow on Saturday 16th July:

Photos (73 of them) from Farnborough Airshow

You had any problems with your camera or lenses? The images are not sharp when you zoom in (not all of them, but there are a few quite bad). Take a look at Tracey Curtis-Taylor portraits.

[Rupert]

The images are not sharp when you zoom in (not all of them, but there are a few quite bad). Take a look at Tracey Curtis-Taylor portraits.

Take another look...the girl is not super sharp but the engine is razor sharp....DOF is most likely the reason....not the lens or camera...you think?

Regards!

[Edgar_in_Indy]

the girl is not super sharp

Now that's just mean!

[Barry Pearson]

You had any problems with your camera or lenses? The images are not sharp when you zoom in (not all of them, but there are a few quite bad). Take a look at Tracey Curtis-Taylor portraits.

I used 2 lenses on the K-1 that day. The D FA 150-450mm and the D FA 28-105mm. All the "in flight" photos, and the "planes on the ground at a distance" photos, were taken with the 150-450mm lens, and appear sharp to me.

The static display and some of the miscellaneous photos were taken with the 28-105mm lens. They too appear to be sharp to me.

That just leaves the 5 photos of Tracey Curtis-Taylor. When I said "They are not my best portraits ..." I was referring to this sharpness problem.

I've checked them with Digital Camera Utility 5, and (as I already knew) those 5 were all shot as single frames, with center-spot AF, and SR was "on". They were taken at 1/200th.

I've checked in Lightroom that the center-spot was on her at the time of exposure. (That may be a little different from the time of AF, of course). The center-cross may have covered a bit of the plane as well, but not much.

Am I getting back-focusing with that camera+lens at close range (a few feet) but not at a distance? I would be grateful for any help.

[Rupert]

Now that's just mean!

No need to reprimand me Edgar.....I already got a dozen complaints from the damn squirrels....but you know what I meant, just like they did. Now they will say "See, Edgar agrees with us so we can't be wrong."

Regards!

[Dan Rentea]

Take another look...the girl is not super sharp but the engine is razor sharp....DOF is most likely the reason....not the lens or camera...you think?

Regards!

Well, if you think that the engine should be sharp when you take a portrait of a lady... It's not like he was shooting at 200mm and f2.8 in order to have a shallow DOF. He took those pictures at f6.3, at a 28 to 105mm focal length.

---------- Post added 07-26-16 at 08:03 AM ----------

I used 2 lenses on the K-1 that day. The D FA 150-450mm and the D FA 28-105mm. All the "in flight" photos, and the "planes on the ground at a distance" photos, were taken with the 150-450mm lens, and appear sharp to me.

The static display and some of the miscellaneous photos were taken with the 28-105mm lens. They too appear to be sharp to me.

That just leaves the 5 photos of Tracey Curtis-Taylor. When I said "They are not my best portraits ..." I was referring to this sharpness problem.

I've checked them with Digital Camera Utility 5, and (as I already knew) those 5 were all shot as single frames, with center-spot AF, and SR was "on". They were taken at 1/200th.

I've checked in Lightroom that the center-spot was on her at the time of exposure. (That may be a little different from the time of AF, of course). The center-cross may have covered a bit of the plane as well, but not much.

Am I getting back-focusing with that camera+lens at close range (a few feet) but not at a distance? I would be grateful for any help.

The image below is not sharp when you zoom in, at least the lady is not sharp. It could be back focus, or camera movement.

free image uploader

See also the image below. Your settings were 150 mm, 1/2000 sec, f/5.6, ISO 200, yet you lose all the details from the plane when you zoom in. It looks like it was taken at ISO 12800.
upload png

And take a look also at this image below. Again, there are no details when you zoom in, despite you used a low ISO (ISO 320).

image upload

That is why I asked you if you had any problems with your camera or lenses. I know that weather conditions (heat generated from the ground in a hot day) can influence the image quality, but here it looks like something went wrong...

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 07-26-2016 at 02:49 AM.

[Kunzite]

The image below is not sharp when you zoom in, at least the lady is not sharp. It could be back focus, or camera movement.

Or subject movement? Looking at the various badges and inscriptions on the uniform, that's my impression (Barry, do you think it's possible?)

[Dan Rentea]

Or subject movement? Looking at the various badges and inscriptions on the uniform, that's my impression (Barry, do you think it's possible?)

I excluded this option because if you look at the other images, the lady hasn't moved from that place.

image hosting over 5mb[/URL]

[Barry Pearson]

The image below is not sharp when you zoom in, at least the lady is not sharp. It could be back focus, or camera movement.

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, it is the Tracey Curtis-Taylor photos that I am puzzled about.

The engine doesn't show much sign of camera movement. (These were 1/200 second with SR on).

See also the image below. Your settings were 150 mm, 1/2000 sec, f/5.6, ISO 200, yet you lose all the details from the plane when you zoom in. It looks like it was taken at ISO 12800.

I was panning with the plane moving from left to right. So I was panning against the plane moving from right to left. My experience is that this makes a massive difference.

Consider the left-to-right plane in the first of the cross-photos. It was about 654 x 351 pixels on the sensor, about 0.2 megapixels. I don't have high expectations of fine detail in an image from such a small part of the sensor in these circumstances.

Also, I've checked in Lightroom where the center of the sensor was. (I was using center-spot focusing). Mostly the center was sky in those photos, so the camera wasn't actually focusing on the planes! (Bad panning on my part. My left arm injury is really causing panning problems).

I think they were doomed not be of competitions quality! I posted them to illustrate that even with the relatively low burst rate of the K-1, it is possible to get several frames with both planes in. (Somewhat to my surprise). Now I've got to get the details right!

And take a look also at this image below. Again, there are no details when you zoom in, despite you used a low ISO (ISO 320).

I think there is more detail just behind the propeller. And the further struts don't appear to be sharper than the nearer struts. So I don't think there a back-focus problem. (I couldn't find any sharp grass).

I suspect 2 problems: I was hand-holding with an injured left-arm at 450mm with maximum aperture. And it was taken at 14:30, which was probably about the hottest part of the day.

But I agree it should have been sharper.

That is why I asked you if you had any problems with your camera or lenses. I know that weather conditions (heat generated from the ground in a hot day) can influence the image quality, but here it looks like something went wrong...

The ones I'm concerned with are the Tracey Curtis-Taylor photos. I can't think of a good reason for those problems. She was only moving significantly in the photo where she is side-on.

[monochrome]

I've had some fleeting doubts about sharpness with my 28-105, (mostly OOF on the left side, as if due entered) but I've so far attributed them to me. Maybe I should test.

[Kunzite]

I excluded this option because if you look at the other images, the lady hasn't moved from that place.

I wouldn't.

She was only moving significantly in the photo where she is side-on.

Though likely, there are other factors, too.

[Barry Pearson]

I was panning with the plane moving from left to right. So I was panning against the plane moving from right to left. My experience is that this makes a massive difference.

Consider the left-to-right plane in the first of the cross-photos. It was about 654 x 351 pixels on the sensor, about 0.2 megapixels. I don't have high expectations of fine detail in an image from such a small part of the sensor in these circumstances.

(Note that all 73 new images in that whole thread were uploaded without downsizing. Hence 1 sensor-pixel = 1 screen-pixel).

I just did some sums. The wingspan of the Boeing Stearman is 981 centimeters. Therefore the pixel-pitch of the K-1 corresponds to about 1.5 centimeters at that distance. I believe the diagonal bracing cables (not the vertical struts) are less than this, perhaps more like 1 centimeter. (Anyone?)

Furthermore, they are metallic, and tend to take on the colour of their surroundings. Here, the sky. So these cables are sub-pixel-pitch and largely sky-blue. I think it is interesting that they are still just about visible in the uploaded photos. Somehow the combination of the 150-450mm lens at f/5.6, K-1 sensor, SR, my panning, Lightroom's raw conversion, and the sharpening I applied, has kept/made them just about visible in the uploaded photos.

I don't what sort of detail could be obtained in theory. But surely it isn't much more than this? Can anyone here say what should be expected?

---------- Post added 26th Jul 2016 at 02:26 PM ----------

I wouldn't.

Though likely, there are other factors, too.

Please elucidate!

[Rupert]

Originally posted by Rupert Quote
Take another look...the girl is not super sharp but the engine is razor sharp....DOF is most likely the reason....not the lens or camera...you think?

Regards!
Well, if you think that the engine should be sharp when you take a portrait of a lady... It's not like he was shooting at 200mm and f2.8 in order to have a shallow DOF. He took those pictures at f6.3, at a 28 to 105mm focal length.

Well, maybe he loves engines more than girls? I know some guys like that, and I can't say they are not better off for it!
Mrs Rupert just came in with a load of new clothes...and a fistful of CC receipts...none of my engines ever do shopping trips and bring me the bills.

I am from the "old granny" school of viewing. A photo sends me a message, the IQ is not the first thing I notice or the most important. Old granny does not pixel peep or do fine art critique, she looks for the message...if there is one.

Now...having said that, I greatly appreciate those that dedicate themselves to perfection.....what I can learn from them is very beneficial...if I wasn't just too damn lazy to apply their knowledge......unfortunately.

For me shooting is fun....if I could combine fun and skill I'd be a fantastic shooter.....but that lazy streak isn't going away I fear.

One of my favorite shots......a good "granny shot" needs a story to go with it....so here goes....

A few weeks ago we had a monumental rainstorm.....6 1/2 inches at my place in two hours. I had been caught in it downtown and the streets were flooded and I was lucky to get home without drowning.
When I went to my home office and looked out the windows it was letting up a little and water was pooled everywhere in my yard....like a lake. It was very dark and the skies were still menacing and as I looked out there were two little Spanish doves...mates for life.....and the male was trying to protect the his little mate from the elements.......

Old granny would love this one...poor quality and all..I guarantee!


Sure I can do better....given the right circumstances and exerting some effort......

The light was right...the settings were right....but old granny would still prefer the one in the storm!

Best Regards!

[SteveD]

I am curious about the SR. The shoulder patch with print on it has a doubling of the letters that is like what I saw when I first used my K 28. Looks like the "Taylor" is exposed twice. I had not set the focal length to 28mm and with it set at 100MM I got that sort of shifting. Probably means nothing but again it looked very similar.