Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

rawr · 10-20-2010, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by slowdive101

what would be the best way to show an image?

No need to post a RAW file.

Just select a problem image, resize and post it here so we get an overview of the whole pic. Then copy into separate images some areas of the main image that illustrate your problem, then resize them and post those images here too. Try and keep the EXIF attached as well at least to the main image.

You can either upload the images to somewhere like tinypic.com (or into your own album space here on PentaxForums), and then just link the images directly into your post.

Lots of people do this all the time here.

stl09 · 10-20-2010, 07:52 AM

If I may ask why are you turning SR off? The only time I turn it off is when it's on a tripod. What's the point of having that feature if your not going to use it when hand holding the camera?

slowdive101 · 10-20-2010, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by stl09

If I may ask why are you turning SR off? The only time I turn it off is when it's on a tripod. What's the point of having that feature if your not going to use it when hand holding the camera?

I had been using it, but recently stopped, as I figured it might be the reason for the soft images (based on reading some of the threads on SR). But for a 1/125 shot, there really would't be any reason to use SR.

Wheatfield · 10-20-2010, 08:44 AM

I'm seeing what might be a little bit of chromatic aberration and what is definitely a little bit of out of focus.
Perhaps your lens isn't good enough for the higher res sensor.

slowdive101 · 10-20-2010, 08:48 AM

I'm going to try to do some very controlled testing (tripod/without, SR/without) when I find some time. Thanks, all, for your replies... I will post the results in this thread.

SpecialK · 10-20-2010, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by slowdive101

Hmmm, not sure why the JPEG did not maintain the EXIF data. Can I just attach a RAW image? If not, what would be the best way to show an image?

Probably "Saved for web" in your editor, which removes exif.

No, you can not attach RAW files. All RAW files must be processed to be viewable.

slowdive101 · 10-20-2010, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by SpecialK

Probably "Saved for web" in your editor, which removes exif.

Actually, all I did was open RAW image into Photoshop, crop, and save as jpeg. I have absolutely no idea why EXIF data was lost.

**mike.hiran** · 10-20-2010, 03:52 PM

How about posting what the settings were and what hardware was used.... or maybe post another picture that has a clear focal point. Help us help you!

slowdive101 · 10-20-2010, 05:50 PM

Okay, here's another image. This one was shot at 1/60--again never a problem in the past to obtain a clear shot at this speed. I KNOW that the focus was fine, because this was part of a bracketed sequence, and the following shot (shot at 1/160) came out blur-free.

Here's the photo:

And here's a detail:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/slowdive101-albums-k-7-blur-pictu...836-detail.jpg

Again, I would say that this is more of a "double image" than a blur.

Not sure if my EXIF data stuck, so here it is:

shutter: 1/60 sec
exposure program: aperture priority
f-stop: f/6.3
iso: 200
focal length: 19mm
lens: sigma 17-70

Chwisch87 · 10-20-2010, 07:48 PM

I am not entirely sure i am seeing the issue here..

I mean it looks slightly under exposed.. but that is about all i see.

Kirivon · 10-20-2010, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by slowdive101

Okay, here's another image. This one was shot at 1/60--again never a problem in the past to obtain a clear shot at this speed. I KNOW that the focus was fine, because this was part of a bracketed sequence, and the following shot (shot at 1/160) came out blur-free.

Why not show the blur-free shot so we can see the difference? I'm not seeing any problem here.

twitch · 10-20-2010, 08:10 PM

Has the Sigma 17-70 been dropped ? Just asking, because the left side looks soft. It could just be the lighting in the photo playing tricks with my eyes though....

rawr · 10-20-2010, 08:37 PM

I'm a not bad image but with some softness due to motion blur from camera and subject movement (eg the tree branches) and some chromatic aberration, IMHO, but no double images etc.

Look at the detail of the line here: the camera has successfully recorded a nice solid, very fine line and is pulling in quite a bit of detail.

If you look at some of the lens reviews for the Sigma 17-70, you will note that it does feature pronounced CA at wide apertures, which one would notice in the tree branches - eg Photozone says:
The Sigma manages to keep lateral chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) comparatively well controlled for a zoom lens. That said the problem is still fairly pronounced at 17mm @ f/2.8-4 with an average width of ~1.5px at the image borders.

FocusMagic also reports motion blur of 4 pixel width at 0 degrees in the detail picture. When you run it through FM, it comes out looking somewhat tighter, like this:

Also this is all very pixel-peeperish. I bet even the original image looks fine when printed out.

Chwisch87 · 10-20-2010, 09:00 PM

Also remember you went from a k10d to a k-7. Thats a 50% jump in sensor resolution.. anything that is wrong with the lens.. something like CA's, are probably going to be more pronounced in the k-7 as its producing larger images.

It may be time to upgrade your lenses.

kittykat46 · 10-20-2010, 09:30 PM

Actually an 18% jump in linear resolution from the K10D to K-7 - SquareRoot(14/10).
But the statement still holds true - a 14MP camera will be more unforgiving of any lens flaws than a 10MP one.

Just an aside - those thinking of the 16MP K-5 will need to take a hard look at their lens situation as well. I'm sure the DA* and DA/FA Limiteds will do just fine, but some of the "average" lenses won't sit well with the sheer resolution of the camera.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Getting Frustrated	Hey Elwood	General Talk	19	01-17-2009 05:08 PM
Frustrated	offertonhatter	Pentax DSLR Discussion	53	05-07-2008 10:36 AM
A little frustrated...	Oceanic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	38	01-30-2008 09:22 AM
Getting Frustrated....	cruiserlan2000	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	01-11-2008 06:59 AM
Frustrated.....Help!!!	chookfarmer	Post Your Photos!	27	12-19-2007 03:24 PM

10-20-2010, 07:12 AM	#16
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by slowdive101 what would be the best way to show an image? No need to post a RAW file. Just select a problem image, resize and post it here so we get an overview of the whole pic. Then copy into separate images some areas of the main image that illustrate your problem, then resize them and post those images here too. Try and keep the EXIF attached as well at least to the main image. You can either upload the images to somewhere like tinypic.com (or into your own album space here on PentaxForums), and then just link the images directly into your post. Lots of people do this all the time here.

10-20-2010, 07:52 AM	#17
stl09 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: St. Louis, MO Photos: Gallery Posts: 487	If I may ask why are you turning SR off? The only time I turn it off is when it's on a tripod. What's the point of having that feature if your not going to use it when hand holding the camera?

10-20-2010, 08:12 AM	#18
slowdive101 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: winnipeg, mb Photos: Albums Posts: 48 Original Poster	Originally posted by stl09 If I may ask why are you turning SR off? The only time I turn it off is when it's on a tripod. What's the point of having that feature if your not going to use it when hand holding the camera? I had been using it, but recently stopped, as I figured it might be the reason for the soft images (based on reading some of the threads on SR). But for a 1/125 shot, there really would't be any reason to use SR.

10-20-2010, 08:44 AM	#19
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,991	I'm seeing what might be a little bit of chromatic aberration and what is definitely a little bit of out of focus. Perhaps your lens isn't good enough for the higher res sensor.

10-20-2010, 08:48 AM	#20
slowdive101 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: winnipeg, mb Photos: Albums Posts: 48 Original Poster	I'm going to try to do some very controlled testing (tripod/without, SR/without) when I find some time. Thanks, all, for your replies... I will post the results in this thread.

10-20-2010, 08:53 AM	#21
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,482	Originally posted by slowdive101 Hmmm, not sure why the JPEG did not maintain the EXIF data. Can I just attach a RAW image? If not, what would be the best way to show an image? Probably "Saved for web" in your editor, which removes exif. No, you can not attach RAW files. All RAW files must be processed to be viewable.

10-20-2010, 09:01 AM	#22
slowdive101 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: winnipeg, mb Photos: Albums Posts: 48 Original Poster	Originally posted by SpecialK Probably "Saved for web" in your editor, which removes exif. Actually, all I did was open RAW image into Photoshop, crop, and save as jpeg. I have absolutely no idea why EXIF data was lost.

10-20-2010, 03:52 PM	#23
mike.hiran Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: portland Photos: Albums Posts: 1,491	How about posting what the settings were and what hardware was used.... or maybe post another picture that has a clear focal point. Help us help you!

10-20-2010, 05:50 PM	#24
slowdive101 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: winnipeg, mb Photos: Albums Posts: 48 Original Poster	Okay, here's another image. This one was shot at 1/60--again never a problem in the past to obtain a clear shot at this speed. I KNOW that the focus was fine, because this was part of a bracketed sequence, and the following shot (shot at 1/160) came out blur-free. Here's the photo: And here's a detail: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/slowdive101-albums-k-7-blur-pictu...836-detail.jpg Again, I would say that this is more of a "double image" than a blur. Not sure if my EXIF data stuck, so here it is: shutter: 1/60 sec exposure program: aperture priority f-stop: f/6.3 iso: 200 focal length: 19mm lens: sigma 17-70

10-20-2010, 07:48 PM	#25
Chwisch87 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Atlanta, GA Photos: Gallery Posts: 317	I am not entirely sure i am seeing the issue here.. I mean it looks slightly under exposed.. but that is about all i see.

10-20-2010, 08:06 PM	#26
Kirivon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 173	Originally posted by slowdive101 Okay, here's another image. This one was shot at 1/60--again never a problem in the past to obtain a clear shot at this speed. I KNOW that the focus was fine, because this was part of a bracketed sequence, and the following shot (shot at 1/160) came out blur-free. Why not show the blur-free shot so we can see the difference? I'm not seeing any problem here.

10-20-2010, 08:10 PM	#27
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Has the Sigma 17-70 been dropped ? Just asking, because the left side looks soft. It could just be the lighting in the photo playing tricks with my eyes though....

10-20-2010, 08:37 PM	#28
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	I'm a not bad image but with some softness due to motion blur from camera and subject movement (eg the tree branches) and some chromatic aberration, IMHO, but no double images etc. Look at the detail of the line here: the camera has successfully recorded a nice solid, very fine line and is pulling in quite a bit of detail. If you look at some of the lens reviews for the Sigma 17-70, you will note that it does feature pronounced CA at wide apertures, which one would notice in the tree branches - eg Photozone says: The Sigma manages to keep lateral chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) comparatively well controlled for a zoom lens. That said the problem is still fairly pronounced at 17mm @ f/2.8-4 with an average width of ~1.5px at the image borders. FocusMagic also reports motion blur of 4 pixel width at 0 degrees in the detail picture. When you run it through FM, it comes out looking somewhat tighter, like this: Also this is all very pixel-peeperish. I bet even the original image looks fine when printed out.

10-20-2010, 09:00 PM	#29
Chwisch87 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Atlanta, GA Photos: Gallery Posts: 317	Also remember you went from a k10d to a k-7. Thats a 50% jump in sensor resolution.. anything that is wrong with the lens.. something like CA's, are probably going to be more pronounced in the k-7 as its producing larger images. It may be time to upgrade your lenses.

10-20-2010, 09:30 PM	#30
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	Actually an 18% jump in linear resolution from the K10D to K-7 - SquareRoot(14/10). But the statement still holds true - a 14MP camera will be more unforgiving of any lens flaws than a 10MP one. Just an aside - those thinking of the 16MP K-5 will need to take a hard look at their lens situation as well. I'm sure the DA* and DA/FA Limiteds will do just fine, but some of the "average" lenses won't sit well with the sheer resolution of the camera.

Frustrated With My K-7 (Blurry Muck)

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!