[justDIY]

just throwing it out there, but have you tried printing the image, maybe a 4x6 or 5x7? print has better resolution than your monitor, and better color (assuming a good printer / lab)

images of mine that look soft on screen, taken with the 18-55, look fantastic printed, even borderless 8x10's (printed at the lab)

[flippedgazelle]

I think this might be a factor in some of my pics.
I will try again tomorrow.

Thanks for all the advice.
I dont know why but i feel the K-x is not performing well in any of the scene modes compared to all the other dslr that i have tried.
I know dslr is not just about scene modes but my previous olympus e600 and panasonic GF-1 the pictures just popped out of the camera.
Maybe the default settings for jpeg are just to soft compared to ther cameras.
I did not expect to have to go to so much effort to get a half decent picture with this Camera.
I am also now paranoid becuase i have a white one and all this mirror slap stuff is now making me think the camera is screwed.

You can always change the default jpg settings, so there's no reason to consider that to be "so much effort".

At 1/160s @ 18mm, you should not need to wait for the little "shake reduction hand" to appear. That's a fast shutter. I'm not quite sure people are referring to it as "slow".

There's virtually no additional diffraction @ f/11 compared with f/8 with the kit lens.

Perhaps your copy of the kit lens just isn't that good. It happens.

I think you should consider ditching the K-x in favor of another camera. You really sound like you want to do that, and even if things improve somewhat with the K-x, you'll always be suspicious of it.

[matth]

This shoot doesn't look blurry at all. I guess that lens just didn't manage to take out full resolution from camera sensor. Scale it to 10 or 8MPx and it will look better. Actually even my photos from very sharp tammy 17-50 doesn't look razor sharp on 14MPx when looked at 100% (it was better on K10D). I really don't know why people watch their photos at 100%. How often do you print photos on a large format where it really starts to matter? While watching them on full screen even with very big LCD's they all look nice

[flippedgazelle]

This shoot doesn't look blurry at all. I guess that lens just didn't manage to take out full resolution from camera sensor. Scale it to 10 or 8MPx and it will look better. Actually even my photos from very sharp tammy 17-50 doesn't look razor sharp on 14MPx when looked at 100% (it was better on K10D). I really don't know why people watch their photos at 100%. How often do you print photos on a large format where it really starts to matter? While watching them on full screen even with very big LCD's they all look nice

If you are making a PC background for use on large monitors, once a little cropping is done, you are nearly at 100%.

I know this doesn't happen a lot, but it has happened on occasion for me.

[Ira]

At 1/160s @ 18mm, you should not need to wait for the little "shake reduction hand" to appear. That's a fast shutter. I'm not quite sure people are referring to it as "slow".

First, 160 ain't very fast for handheld, taking into account the FL used.

More importantly, there's a reason you have to TURN OFF shake reduction on a tripod, and trust me:

Shake reduction is NOT active until you see that icon, and hitting the shutter before you see it can make things worse.

But I also agree with above post that this shot is fine without the 100% crop.

[matth]

flippedgazelle, what is the resolution of these large monitors? I don't think that it is any way close to even 6MPx Full HD large TV panels have just a little over 2MPx and 30' Eizo pro LCD gets to 4MPX - still three time less than K-X sensor can give you And as justDIY said it all looks a lot better on good prints anyway

[Ira]

flippedgazelle, what is the resolution of these large monitors? I don't think that it is any way close to even 6MPx Full HD large TV panels have just a little over 2MPx and 30' Eizo pro LCD gets to 4MPX - still three time less than K-X sensor can give you And as justDIY said it all looks a lot better on good prints anyway

The typical monitor is only 72dpi, which means even for a 20 inch monitor, all you would actually need is 1440.

So you're right, and that's the simple math behind it.

[flippedgazelle]

flippedgazelle, what is the resolution of these large monitors? I don't think that it is any way close to even 6MPx Full HD large TV panels have just a little over 2MPx and 30' Eizo pro LCD gets to 4MPX - still three time less than K-X sensor can give you And as justDIY said it all looks a lot better on good prints anyway

2560 px horizontal, 30" monitors.

[flippedgazelle]

The typical monitor is only 72dpi, which means even for a 20 inch monitor, all you would actually need is 1440.

So you're right, and that's the simple math behind it.

20" monitor refers to the diagonal measurement, not the horizontal. My 20" LCD monitor has a ~17" wide viewing area, and a resolution of 1680x1050. So my monitor is ~ 96ppi.

[twitch]

I’d suggest your problem is nothing to do with shooting at f11, it is not camera shake/mirror slap, and it is not a slow shutter speed. Your 1/160 & f11 ISO200 are fine, perhaps f8 would be a tiny bit better but that’s not the “problem” here.

Here’s my view on the potential “problems” with the photo you posted
1) Light. You’re shooting in very harsh light. Light matters a great deal.

2) Composition. Your wife is awkwardly posed, dead centre in the frame, and you haven’t filled enough of the frame with her. If your wife was meant to be the primary subject then maybe you would have shot in portrait orientation and zoomed in more and moved her out of the centre of the frame.

3) You are pixel peeping. Your image sharpness is actually not too bad, most would be satisfied with it.

4) You are shooting at one extreme of the focal length range. Whatever the zoom you are using, the sweet spot for sharpness is towards the middle, and usually shooting at the extreme ends results in either softness, or distortion, or both. I can see distortion clearly in your image and some softness.

5) This is a bit more controversial and I imagine I’m going to get jumped on for saying it, but the 18-55 kit lens is NOT a good lens, in fact it’s the worst lens available from Pentax. It’s also the cheapest, and as they say, you get what you pay for. I have a Sigma 17-70 which by all accounts is a good step up from the kit lens, and still I don’t use it much because it simply cannot touch the quality I get out of my 2 limiteds; DA 40 and DA70. The DA* zooms are in the same class of optical quality. This class of lens produce the quality I’m completely satisfied with, in my view they produce stunning results (when I allow them too LOL). There are others for whom the DA limited still aren’t good enough and will only shoot with FA limiteds, luckily for me & my wallet I’m not one of them. I suspect you might need to step up in lens at least one level before you’ll be satisfied.

Hope that helps.....

[matth]

2560 px horizontal, 30" monitors.

Its a little under 5MPx. So watching pictures full screen from K-X is less than 50% magnification - they all look really good this way

I have a portrait of my friends little son which I have taken on their wedding. Shoot was made with wide open tammy at 50mm (it's the worst what you can get from this lens). At 100% it looks similar to the picture from this topic . I printed it at 8x12' glossy paper. It looks really grate

[flippedgazelle]

Its a little under 5MPx. So watching pictures full screen from K-X is less than 50% magnification - they all look really good this way

I have a portrait of my friends little son which I taken on their wedding. Shoot was made with wide open tammy at 50mm (it's the worst what you can get from this lens). At 100% it looks similar to the picture from this topic . I printed it at 8x12' glossy paper. It looks really grate

We're calculating things differently.

I look at it this way: 2560 is about 60% of the width of the K-x frame (4352). The vertical resolution of the monitors is 1600px, which is 57% of the height of the K-x image (2868px). So while the surface area of the monitor is less than 50% of the total image from the K-x, the linear dimensions - more important for this work - is greater than 50%. And, once some cropping is done...

I've only had to do the a few times, so it's a pretty rare case.

[rparmar]

The typical monitor is only 72dpi, which means even for a 20 inch monitor, all you would actually need is 1440.

A small correction: most run at 96dpi. I am sure even Macs have caught up, though that was a solid reason to use Windows for a long time. (And not one many people knew about.)

[matth]

We're calculating things differently.

I look at it this way: 2560 is about 60% of the width of the K-x frame (4352). The vertical resolution of the monitors is 1600px, which is 57% of the height of the K-x image (2868px). So while the surface area of the monitor is less than 50% of the total image from the K-x, the linear dimensions - more important for this work - is greater than 50%. And, once some cropping is done...

I've only had to do the a few times, so it's a pretty rare case.

Right But still.. I think that there is some space between you and the monitor. 30' is a quite big screen to watch and it needs a distance. Just like prints. To have a look at whole big print you need to stand away from it to see it all without moving your head around The bigger print or screen the bigger distance is needed and the bigger distance makes pictures look better.

Sure it's nice to have razor sharp images, but without pixelpeeping it all looks better

[Oldphoto678]

I think twitch hit the nail square on the head. I would say that the problem (If there really is one) Is about 1/3 lens and 2/3 photographer. I mean no insult, but consider that you have used the least desirable settings with a lens thats not known for it's steller performance. Plus the harsh light. I won't comment on the composition because I can only guess at your intention.

Bottom line, with the lens you had, the settings you used, and the lighting conditions...I think you did about as well as could be expected.

Rodney...