Need your help! K-3 soft images.

Oldbayrunner · 05-09-2014, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by amoringello

you cannot blatantly ignore the fact that digital display exists and is a major method of displaying one's photos -- and often times with only a small portion/crop of the image being used. So 100% crop view is not an unreasonable method of viewing your photos.

Still and all, computer display or printed, a viewer normally views the photo at a reasonable distance so it is the effect over all viewed from a reasonable distance that matters even with cropped photos.

What!!!! I don't agree that often times only a small portion/crop of the image is used at least not those taken by anyone with reasonable photography experience. Usually photos taken by those with reasonable experience it's just the opposite they know it's better to shoot the photo so it shouldn't have to be cropped a lot and shoot with the proper equipment so it doesn't need to be. The more one has to crop the least likely one will maintained the IQ they would like. If one is needing to crop by that much for the subject and composition then one did not use the correct millimeter lens for the subject distance and composition to begin with or they better have used one high quality lens and the settings perfect. Even with that one wouldn't have the detail that would have been achieved by using a lens that wouldn't have to have that much cropping for the composition and subject matter.

Last edited by Oldbayrunner; 05-09-2014 at 07:50 AM.

amoringello · 05-09-2014, 08:14 AM - **1 Like**

OK then, hopefully we can agree to disagree. :-)

Regardless, it doesn't change what the OP believes to be having issue with, and our opinions don't really matter much for helping that problem (regardless of how real or perceived it might be for us).
Like they say... opinions are like arse-holes. Everyone's got one and they all stink. :-)

Homo_erectus · 05-09-2014, 12:50 PM - **1 Like**

When I moved from Nikon to Pentax (d3100 to 5kii) I went through a period where I was unable to get shots that were sharp and focused correctly. There were two things that made the difference though.

First, Pentax in body stabilization. It takes a fraction of a second for it to kick in after you half depress the shutter to autofocus. If you don't wait that fraction of a second, the stabilization will make your shots blurry. The NIkon in lens stabilization seemed to just do its thing without needing anything from me. The Pentax stabilization takes a bit of finesse.

Second, the autofocus points in the k5ii are absolutely HUGE in comparison to NIkon and Canon and whats worse the actual point may not be in the center of the bracket. You'll have to experiment a bit to learn exactly where the AF point is. I'm guessing that the K3 has a similar issue. It's worth looking into, in any case.

Hopefully this'll help some.

Oldbayrunner · 05-09-2014, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Homo_erectus

When I moved from Nikon to Pentax (d3100 to 5kii)

whats worse the actual point may not be in the center of the bracket. You'll have to experiment a bit to learn exactly where the AF point is. I'm guessing that the K3 has a similar issue. It's worth looking into, in any case.

From what I have found from removing, cleaning and replacing focus screens is what usually causes the appearance of the center point looking as being off is the focus screen is not properly aligned so the superimpose isn't in the center of the marks.

Homo_erectus · 05-09-2014, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Oldbayrunner

From what I have found from removing, cleaning and replacing focus screens is what usually causes the appearance of the center point looking as being off is the focus screen is not properly aligned so the superimpose isn't in the center of the marks.

That's good news because it means I could get my focus screen adjusted and improve, or dare I hope fix?, the alignment. I'm actually going to look into that. Thanks for the info Oldbayrunner.

amoringello · 05-09-2014, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Oldbayrunner

From what I have found from removing, cleaning and replacing focus screens is what usually causes the appearance of the center point looking as being off is the focus screen is not properly aligned so the superimpose isn't in the center of the marks.

Is the red dot part of, or rather is its position related to the focus screen?
I've found with my K7 that the actual focus point was down below the lower left of the center circle on the focus screen, yet the red dot was centered on the screen as expected.

I learned to adjust because I didn't want to send the body away for 6+ weeks for the issue, But I found it odd if not mildly annoying.
I honestly don't know what would cause it, but I didn't think the focus screen would have an effect.

Imageman · 05-09-2014, 07:00 PM

Maybe if we could see some sample images showing the issues with 100% crops, one version from the k3 and another identical version from the canon all with exifs.

It sounds like a combination of lens and camera body differences and there could be many reasons for the problems.

I am personally unhappy with being critical about 100% views its easy to look at 100% crops but they really are meaningless in my opinion.

A 100% view from a k3 is likely to print up at anywhere from A1 to A0, who wants a 5 foot by 3 foot print I sure don't.

Fixing a problem you only see at these magnifications seems counter productive.

My own view is that If I can print out a good 10x8 or even an A3 im more than happy. If I need a 6 x4 foot perfect print I really shouldn't be using tiny sensors like a k3, I should be using a phase1 back and spend 50,000 on my kit.

By all means identify if the kit is underperforming and fix it if it is, but don't lose sight of the fact that for nearly 200 years 10x8 and smaller prints were perfectly adequate. Do we really need monstrously large images and perfect resolution at these huge sizes before were happy.

DSims · 05-10-2014, 03:50 AM

You need to be a bit critical when you first get your equipment to make sure it's right, but once you get going I say if it looks good at 50%, then the image is good enough.

**Rondec** · 05-10-2014, 05:01 AM

Hard to say. The 18-135 is not the best lens at longer focal lengths. It has good center sharpness there, but borders will be kind of weak. Most lenses will do better stopped down a stop. I would seriously consider getting a decent prime -- maybe a 50 or 35 and see if that makes a difference. I just don't know that with a super zoom and 24 megapixels that you are going to get pixel level sharpness. I own a 16-50 f2.8 and I really need to stop down to f5.6 to see pixel level sharpness in the extreme borders. As others have said, you don't need that to have a good image, but if you want it, that's the way to get there.

cps1959 · 01-08-2015, 06:37 AM

I understand that the cause of soft images (particularly in jpeg) is due to the aggressive nature of the high ISO noise reduction setting. If have it set to auto or high it can produce soft images.
Here is the link to photouniverse who found this issue.

You Tube

**csa** · 01-08-2015, 08:02 AM - **1 Like**

"I have ensured my lens and filter"

What filter are you using? Sometimes a filter can affect image quality; depending on the filter's quality.

05-09-2014, 12:50 PM - 1 Like	#18
Homo_erectus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 410	When I moved from Nikon to Pentax (d3100 to 5kii) I went through a period where I was unable to get shots that were sharp and focused correctly. There were two things that made the difference though. First, Pentax in body stabilization. It takes a fraction of a second for it to kick in after you half depress the shutter to autofocus. If you don't wait that fraction of a second, the stabilization will make your shots blurry. The NIkon in lens stabilization seemed to just do its thing without needing anything from me. The Pentax stabilization takes a bit of finesse. Second, the autofocus points in the k5ii are absolutely HUGE in comparison to NIkon and Canon and whats worse the actual point may not be in the center of the bracket. You'll have to experiment a bit to learn exactly where the AF point is. I'm guessing that the K3 has a similar issue. It's worth looking into, in any case. Hopefully this'll help some. Last edited by Homo_erectus; 05-09-2014 at 12:57 PM.

05-10-2014, 03:50 AM	#23
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	You need to be a bit critical when you first get your equipment to make sure it's right, but once you get going I say if it looks good at 50%, then the image is good enough. Last edited by DSims; 05-10-2014 at 01:42 PM. Reason: grammar

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Soft Place: Post Your Soft Focus Images	jeffkpotter	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	64	04-22-2014 05:39 PM
K20D need your help for main board	verarose	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	12-17-2012 09:35 AM
I need your help	graphicgr8s	General Talk	20	08-06-2012 10:29 PM
Help! blurry/soft images with Pentax K-x	suboxes	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	12-24-2010 03:14 PM
The Soft Place: Post Your Soft Focus Images	jeffkpotter	Post Your Photos!	22	04-23-2009 09:04 PM

05-09-2014, 07:45 AM	#16
Oldbayrunner Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by amoringello you cannot blatantly ignore the fact that digital display exists and is a major method of displaying one's photos -- and often times with only a small portion/crop of the image being used. So 100% crop view is not an unreasonable method of viewing your photos. Still and all, computer display or printed, a viewer normally views the photo at a reasonable distance so it is the effect over all viewed from a reasonable distance that matters even with cropped photos. What!!!! I don't agree that often times only a small portion/crop of the image is used at least not those taken by anyone with reasonable photography experience. Usually photos taken by those with reasonable experience it's just the opposite they know it's better to shoot the photo so it shouldn't have to be cropped a lot and shoot with the proper equipment so it doesn't need to be. The more one has to crop the least likely one will maintained the IQ they would like. If one is needing to crop by that much for the subject and composition then one did not use the correct millimeter lens for the subject distance and composition to begin with or they better have used one high quality lens and the settings perfect. Even with that one wouldn't have the detail that would have been achieved by using a lens that wouldn't have to have that much cropping for the composition and subject matter. Last edited by Oldbayrunner; 05-09-2014 at 07:50 AM.

05-09-2014, 08:14 AM - 1 Like	#17
amoringello Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,562	OK then, hopefully we can agree to disagree. :-) Regardless, it doesn't change what the OP believes to be having issue with, and our opinions don't really matter much for helping that problem (regardless of how real or perceived it might be for us). Like they say... opinions are like arse-holes. Everyone's got one and they all stink. :-)

05-09-2014, 04:14 PM	#19
Oldbayrunner Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by Homo_erectus When I moved from Nikon to Pentax (d3100 to 5kii) whats worse the actual point may not be in the center of the bracket. You'll have to experiment a bit to learn exactly where the AF point is. I'm guessing that the K3 has a similar issue. It's worth looking into, in any case. From what I have found from removing, cleaning and replacing focus screens is what usually causes the appearance of the center point looking as being off is the focus screen is not properly aligned so the superimpose isn't in the center of the marks.

05-09-2014, 05:04 PM	#20
Homo_erectus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 410	Originally posted by Oldbayrunner From what I have found from removing, cleaning and replacing focus screens is what usually causes the appearance of the center point looking as being off is the focus screen is not properly aligned so the superimpose isn't in the center of the marks. That's good news because it means I could get my focus screen adjusted and improve, or dare I hope fix?, the alignment. I'm actually going to look into that. Thanks for the info Oldbayrunner.

05-09-2014, 05:23 PM	#21
amoringello Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,562	Originally posted by Oldbayrunner From what I have found from removing, cleaning and replacing focus screens is what usually causes the appearance of the center point looking as being off is the focus screen is not properly aligned so the superimpose isn't in the center of the marks. Is the red dot part of, or rather is its position related to the focus screen? I've found with my K7 that the actual focus point was down below the lower left of the center circle on the focus screen, yet the red dot was centered on the screen as expected. I learned to adjust because I didn't want to send the body away for 6+ weeks for the issue, But I found it odd if not mildly annoying. I honestly don't know what would cause it, but I didn't think the focus screen would have an effect.

05-09-2014, 07:00 PM	#22
Imageman Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Photos: Albums Posts: 461	Maybe if we could see some sample images showing the issues with 100% crops, one version from the k3 and another identical version from the canon all with exifs. It sounds like a combination of lens and camera body differences and there could be many reasons for the problems. I am personally unhappy with being critical about 100% views its easy to look at 100% crops but they really are meaningless in my opinion. A 100% view from a k3 is likely to print up at anywhere from A1 to A0, who wants a 5 foot by 3 foot print I sure don't. Fixing a problem you only see at these magnifications seems counter productive. My own view is that If I can print out a good 10x8 or even an A3 im more than happy. If I need a 6 x4 foot perfect print I really shouldn't be using tiny sensors like a k3, I should be using a phase1 back and spend 50,000 on my kit. By all means identify if the kit is underperforming and fix it if it is, but don't lose sight of the fact that for nearly 200 years 10x8 and smaller prints were perfectly adequate. Do we really need monstrously large images and perfect resolution at these huge sizes before were happy.

05-10-2014, 05:01 AM	#24
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	Hard to say. The 18-135 is not the best lens at longer focal lengths. It has good center sharpness there, but borders will be kind of weak. Most lenses will do better stopped down a stop. I would seriously consider getting a decent prime -- maybe a 50 or 35 and see if that makes a difference. I just don't know that with a super zoom and 24 megapixels that you are going to get pixel level sharpness. I own a 16-50 f2.8 and I really need to stop down to f5.6 to see pixel level sharpness in the extreme borders. As others have said, you don't need that to have a good image, but if you want it, that's the way to get there.

01-08-2015, 08:02 AM - 1 Like	#26
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133	"I have ensured my lens and filter" What filter are you using? Sometimes a filter can affect image quality; depending on the filter's quality.