K-x with soft images

Eruditass · 12-22-2009, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by bnorikane

Bob,

Your Flickr shots are quite sharp! My Kx w/ 18-55 are not as sharp (jpegs, no PP), even shot on tripod.

Are yours raw? I may have to get serious about raw.

Thanks,

Bruce

Are you stopping down the kit lens?

Marc Sabatella · 12-22-2009, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by bnorikane

Your Flickr shots are quite sharp! My Kx w/ 18-55 are not as sharp (jpegs, no PP), even shot on tripod.

Are yours raw? I may have to get serious about raw.

Shooting RAW doesn't magically make pictures sharper. It does allow for greater flexibility in sharpening should you wish to do take advantage of that in PP, but it should be perfectly possible to get sharp results from JPEG. Sharpness is much more function of shooting technique and lens used than what format you shot or what PP technique you used.

harleynitelite · 12-22-2009, 06:23 PM

Ok, here is an example of my house and a crop.

harleynitelite · 12-22-2009, 06:25 PM

Lets try this again K-x pics of house with crop
Flickr Photo Download: k-x-IMGP0122_crop

Flickr Photo Download: k-x IMGP0122

k20d pics of house with crop....notice the edge on the awning compaired to the k-x.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jr_iron/4207756348/sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jr_iron/4207756290/sizes/l/

Last edited by harleynitelite; 12-22-2009 at 06:31 PM. Reason: Forgot to add all the links

deadwolfbones · 12-22-2009, 06:53 PM

There is definite motion blur on the K-x crop.

Alfisti · 12-22-2009, 07:40 PM

I just LOATHE flickr, the laypout is IMPOSSIBLE to navigate, heaven forbid I find the section that displays the exif. I have NFI why that site is so popular, it's just horrible for viewing images.

I downloaded the photos, something is seriously wrong, the shutter speed is fine so it is not morion blur, you eithe rhave a dud lens or a dud camera, it doesn't even look OOF .... it just looks WRONG.

er1kksen, i kno wit's a big ask this time of year but do you have any back to backs? i.e. same image at 1/120th and one at 1/1000 for e.g. If what you're saying is true, well, bit of a bombshell.

Marc Sabatella · 12-22-2009, 07:40 PM

I agree with deadwolfbones. Despite the relatively high apparent shutter speed, you must have been unusually unsteady in holding the camera, because that's camera shake, pure and simple. You can see the double outlines very clearly on all edges.

deadwolfbones · 12-22-2009, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

I agree with deadwolfbones. Despite the relatively high apparent shutter speed, you must have been unusually unsteady in holding the camera, because that's camera shake, pure and simple. You can see the double outlines very clearly on all edges.

Yep.

Someone in another thread was saying that between like 1/80s and 1/250s the K-x Shake Reduction system sometimes maybe overcompensates for movement, which might be the problem here.

edit: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/854645-post48.html

bnorikane · 12-22-2009, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Eruditass

Are you stopping down the kit lens?

yes, down to f/14 and smaller.

and using a tripod, and using a prime - DA 40mm.

I get some sharp shots with the kit lens, the DA and with a 18-250, but not as sharp as Bob's.

bnorikane · 12-22-2009, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Shooting RAW doesn't magically make pictures sharper. It does allow for greater flexibility in sharpening should you wish to do take advantage of that in PP, but it should be perfectly possible to get sharp results from JPEG. Sharpness is much more function of shooting technique and lens used than what format you shot or what PP technique you used.

I know, and until this camera, I only used raw for critical color problems.

When I needed a crisp shot, I used a tripod, focused carefully, used middle apertures, middle of the zoom range, remote shutter release, set exposure with a grey card and used low ISO.

but several posts here and on DPreview, claim that the Kx jpeg engine does not produce sharp results compared to raw files. I didn't really pursue that line, but after seeing Bob's nice shots, I thought I should compare raw files to jpegs, and see if that makes a difference.

harleynitelite · 12-22-2009, 09:14 PM

As for camera shake in the example pics I can say that even before i took those I thought about it and deliberately ensured I moved as little as possible even to the point of holding my breath. I have 5 different shots all with similar results with various different settings (aperature, iso, zoom, and in different modes) except I never varied the shutter speed as I thought 1/100 and up would be sufficient to prevent camera shake.

I took these with and without the filter and I know the lens is clean b/c these were taken on the second day I owned the camera and closely inspected the lens.

The idea of the sensor antishake overcompensating is an interesting one especially since it seems others are having similar issues.

Marc Sabatella · 12-22-2009, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by bnorikane

yes, down to f/14 and smaller.

Then you passed the point of max sharpness - that would have been back around f/8. It's all downhill after that.

Alfisti · 12-23-2009, 07:55 AM

Camera shake at 1/120 second? Unless he has some sort of disability ... no freakin way. It's not even subtle or just soft, it's an absolute mess.

Something is not right, get the camera up on a tripod with a remote release and see what happens. Also take a few hand held with the SR turned off.

bnorikane · 12-23-2009, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Then you passed the point of max sharpness - that would have been back around f/8. It's all downhill after that.

Thanks Marc. As you can tell, I'm still experimenting and learning. Trying to get a good feel for the new camera and lenses.

I took a series (on tripod to rule out bad holding technique) to see what I could get with different apertures at different focal lengths. I was trying to get a feel for how big the lens sweet spot is, and see the trade off with greater DOF as I stopped down.

I found f/8 is plenty for two people talking (head and shoulders), even if one is a foot or two closer, but f/14 helps if one is back aways.

I'm trying to improve my technique, so my Christmas shots are better than my Thanksgiving ones when I was new to DSLR's.

With all the help here, and practice, I'm hopeful.

audiobomber · 12-23-2009, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by bnorikane

I took a series (on tripod to rule out bad holding technique)

Did you disable SR? It's not compatible with a tripod. A good way to do a test shot on a tripod is to use 2s lockup, because it automatically disables SR and allows the camera to stabilize after you hit the shutter.

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
Question Soft Images	fractal	Site Suggestions and Help	2	07-13-2010 01:15 AM
Getting seemingly soft images.	ManhattanProject	Pentax DSLR Discussion	14	07-05-2010 08:53 AM
The Soft Place: Post Your Soft Focus Images	jeffkpotter	Post Your Photos!	22	04-23-2009 09:04 PM
Soft images in 16-50 lens with new k20d	candgpics	Pentax DSLR Discussion	48	03-08-2009 02:13 AM

12-22-2009, 05:34 PM	#31
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by bnorikane Bob, Your Flickr shots are quite sharp! My Kx w/ 18-55 are not as sharp (jpegs, no PP), even shot on tripod. Are yours raw? I may have to get serious about raw. Thanks, Bruce Are you stopping down the kit lens?

12-22-2009, 05:49 PM	#32
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by bnorikane Your Flickr shots are quite sharp! My Kx w/ 18-55 are not as sharp (jpegs, no PP), even shot on tripod. Are yours raw? I may have to get serious about raw. Shooting RAW doesn't magically make pictures sharper. It does allow for greater flexibility in sharpening should you wish to do take advantage of that in PP, but it should be perfectly possible to get sharp results from JPEG. Sharpness is much more function of shooting technique and lens used than what format you shot or what PP technique you used.

12-22-2009, 06:23 PM	#33
harleynitelite Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Lawrenceburg, IN Photos: Albums Posts: 118 Original Poster	Ok, here is an example of my house and a crop.

12-22-2009, 06:25 PM	#34
harleynitelite Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Lawrenceburg, IN Photos: Albums Posts: 118 Original Poster	Lets try this again K-x pics of house with crop Flickr Photo Download: k-x-IMGP0122_crop Flickr Photo Download: k-x IMGP0122 k20d pics of house with crop....notice the edge on the awning compaired to the k-x. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jr_iron/4207756348/sizes/o/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/jr_iron/4207756290/sizes/l/ Last edited by harleynitelite; 12-22-2009 at 06:31 PM. Reason: Forgot to add all the links

12-22-2009, 06:53 PM	#35
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	There is definite motion blur on the K-x crop.

12-22-2009, 07:40 PM	#36
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	I just LOATHE flickr, the laypout is IMPOSSIBLE to navigate, heaven forbid I find the section that displays the exif. I have NFI why that site is so popular, it's just horrible for viewing images. I downloaded the photos, something is seriously wrong, the shutter speed is fine so it is not morion blur, you eithe rhave a dud lens or a dud camera, it doesn't even look OOF .... it just looks WRONG. er1kksen, i kno wit's a big ask this time of year but do you have any back to backs? i.e. same image at 1/120th and one at 1/1000 for e.g. If what you're saying is true, well, bit of a bombshell.

12-22-2009, 07:40 PM	#37
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	I agree with deadwolfbones. Despite the relatively high apparent shutter speed, you must have been unusually unsteady in holding the camera, because that's camera shake, pure and simple. You can see the double outlines very clearly on all edges.

12-22-2009, 08:07 PM	#38
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella I agree with deadwolfbones. Despite the relatively high apparent shutter speed, you must have been unusually unsteady in holding the camera, because that's camera shake, pure and simple. You can see the double outlines very clearly on all edges. Yep. Someone in another thread was saying that between like 1/80s and 1/250s the K-x Shake Reduction system sometimes maybe overcompensates for movement, which might be the problem here. edit: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/854645-post48.html

12-22-2009, 08:37 PM	#39
bnorikane Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 91	Originally posted by Eruditass Are you stopping down the kit lens? yes, down to f/14 and smaller. and using a tripod, and using a prime - DA 40mm. I get some sharp shots with the kit lens, the DA and with a 18-250, but not as sharp as Bob's.

12-22-2009, 08:55 PM	#40
bnorikane Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 91	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Shooting RAW doesn't magically make pictures sharper. It does allow for greater flexibility in sharpening should you wish to do take advantage of that in PP, but it should be perfectly possible to get sharp results from JPEG. Sharpness is much more function of shooting technique and lens used than what format you shot or what PP technique you used. I know, and until this camera, I only used raw for critical color problems. When I needed a crisp shot, I used a tripod, focused carefully, used middle apertures, middle of the zoom range, remote shutter release, set exposure with a grey card and used low ISO. but several posts here and on DPreview, claim that the Kx jpeg engine does not produce sharp results compared to raw files. I didn't really pursue that line, but after seeing Bob's nice shots, I thought I should compare raw files to jpegs, and see if that makes a difference.

12-22-2009, 09:14 PM	#41
harleynitelite Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Lawrenceburg, IN Photos: Albums Posts: 118 Original Poster	As for camera shake in the example pics I can say that even before i took those I thought about it and deliberately ensured I moved as little as possible even to the point of holding my breath. I have 5 different shots all with similar results with various different settings (aperature, iso, zoom, and in different modes) except I never varied the shutter speed as I thought 1/100 and up would be sufficient to prevent camera shake. I took these with and without the filter and I know the lens is clean b/c these were taken on the second day I owned the camera and closely inspected the lens. The idea of the sensor antishake overcompensating is an interesting one especially since it seems others are having similar issues.

12-22-2009, 09:33 PM	#42
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by bnorikane yes, down to f/14 and smaller. Then you passed the point of max sharpness - that would have been back around f/8. It's all downhill after that.

12-23-2009, 07:55 AM	#43
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Camera shake at 1/120 second? Unless he has some sort of disability ... no freakin way. It's not even subtle or just soft, it's an absolute mess. Something is not right, get the camera up on a tripod with a remote release and see what happens. Also take a few hand held with the SR turned off.

12-23-2009, 08:24 AM	#44
bnorikane Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 91	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Then you passed the point of max sharpness - that would have been back around f/8. It's all downhill after that. Thanks Marc. As you can tell, I'm still experimenting and learning. Trying to get a good feel for the new camera and lenses. I took a series (on tripod to rule out bad holding technique) to see what I could get with different apertures at different focal lengths. I was trying to get a feel for how big the lens sweet spot is, and see the trade off with greater DOF as I stopped down. I found f/8 is plenty for two people talking (head and shoulders), even if one is a foot or two closer, but f/14 helps if one is back aways. I'm trying to improve my technique, so my Christmas shots are better than my Thanksgiving ones when I was new to DSLR's. With all the help here, and practice, I'm hopeful.

12-23-2009, 09:15 AM	#45
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by bnorikane I took a series (on tripod to rule out bad holding technique) Did you disable SR? It's not compatible with a tripod. A good way to do a test shot on a tripod is to use 2s lockup, because it automatically disables SR and allows the camera to stabilize after you hit the shutter.