[biz-engineer]

I'm trying to coax out of you guys your trade secrets for getting the best sharpness out of your equipment.

Ok I give you my secret:
- use a tripod
- use electronic shutter if the camera has it
- use live view, magnify display
- use digital depth of field preview to stop down aperture in order to correct for lens focus shift
- shoot raw, sharpen and up-sample at raw export to avoid any loss of detail

Beyond that, there is nothing more effective as getting a camera with a higher resolution sensor to get more detailed images effortlessly.

[gatorguy]

... there is nothing more effective as getting a camera with a higher resolution sensor to get more detailed images effortlessly.

Have you followed the shooters in the 6MP thread? A whole lot can be accomplished with a older basic digital camera. There's some great shots in that discussion.
The Six-Megapixel Club - Page 78 - PentaxForums.com

Personally I think anything 16MP and up is all most folks here need. Even as a "shoot now crop later" kind of guy, heavily at times I might add, 23MP has been more than enough. For most of us those 42MP and up photos will be wasted pixels for the most part, never needed for what we do with them and that excess discarded when we finish processing. They suck up computer resources and processing time for little reason.

Yeah there's a tiny segment that might occasionally print larger than an 11x14 and maybe they need all the pixels they can get, but heck I'd guess most of us don't print our images to begin with. Personally maybe 1 in 200 of my processed images actually gets printed. The rest are digitally shared or simply kept on file to look over someday, never put to paper.

I guess that puts me up to 4 cents worth now.

EDIT: I've owned a reasonably successful graphics firm for over 3 decades, with more than two decades now in an in-house large-format commercial print service and outsourcing of grand-format up to 16 feet tall. I do have a bit of experience in the pixels vs. print arena.

[Kerrowdown]

+1 for the use of a good tripod... your photography will thank you for it.

[psoo]

Sorry for not making the WINK emoji a double WINK.

The intended take away is that if you want to increase sharpness on a pan, don't rely on your your own strength and smoothness to support the camera and lens. Of course, that requires that one is set in anticipation of where the birds will be flying and not shooting from the hip. I have a number of friends that shoot birds in flight and very few approach it in a manner similar to street photography. Those that get the shot almost never do. I also know a few that make their living photographing birds and other wildlife; they work exclusively on tripod and usually from a blind or vehicle or from a distance.

That does not mean that one might not get lucky, only that one is not likely to win any prizes for sharpness.

BIF, Gonzo Style




Steve

Not too bad a shot, Steve, the tail feathers are slightly sharp.

[Kobayashi.K]

Yet another obstinate person here.

The problem with using a tripod is that it kills spontaneity. I am already shooting for many decades on film and digital. And I always shoot B&W which is about patterns and structures. So, my brain is programmed to detect those patterns an structures intuitively and I shoot them immediately when encountered without giving it any thought, analysing a scene consciously, or changing position to make it 'better'.

This approach requires quick shooting handheld to maintain spontaneity and in practice it delivers excellent footage which can be tweaked in post. I experience shooting handheld is convenient and more fun.

The camera I use is 16 Mp (see post #47, @gatorguy) with a battery grip attached to make it heavier for more stability, a short lens of 20mm (APS-C) or 28mm (film), and the aperture mostly set to f/8. I also prefer sunny weather which increases sharpness indirectly because you can use a faster shutter time at the same ISO (and it gives sufficient contrast, which is important for B&W). In practice nearly 100% of my photos are sharp, but I don't print so that's an advantage.

[biz-engineer]

Personally I think anything 16MP and up is all most folks here need.

I understand. My point was of the OP want more sharpness out of XYZ sensor, I'm afraid once in focus and no motion blur, there isn't much more sharpness to gain (huge effort deliver negligible improvement of resolution), and if more sharpness is really needed the more effective way is to upgrade the camera. I mean, I don't see how much more effort can give more than 16Mpixels out of the 16Mpixels camera.

[Kobayashi.K]

... I mean, I don't see how much more effort can give more than 16Mpixels out of the 16Mpixels camera.

For more sharpness get a K-70, set Recorded Pixels to 14M and use Pixel Shift?

I guess it depends how Pixel Shift is applied, before or after resampling to 14M what happens. Anyway this is only a thought experiment.

---

Last edited by Kobayashi.K; 04-01-2020 at 10:02 AM.

[StiffLegged]

I’m sure many people hate packing, carrying and using a tripod. I don’t and usually have a big heavy one with me. After that, it’s Live View, zoom in to focus and at least a 2 second delay when shooting. My mileage does vary, landscape is what I like.