D70 sharpness query

[peter_h1]

Howdy everyone ..

 

I've been trying to refrain myself from posting this Q here, but the

more I look at the images the more I wonder if this is normal or if

there's something not quite right with the camera.

 

I picked up a D70 about 2 months ago and have been using it with a

variety of lenses, however I've been unhappy with the clarity of

photo's taken of subjects beyond about 3 to 4 meters. Close up and

Macro shots are exceptional, and I've been putting a 60mm Micro

through its paces and have been extatic with the results. However

when I mount a 24mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.8 I'm suprised to see a lot of

the photo's without a lot of fine detail or sharpness to them,

especially on objects which are medium to far distances away.

 

I've thought about the 'back focus' problem, but I've done some

testing with the 50mm and 60mm and have been happy with the focusing.

I'm using the Fine setting and Large image size at iso 200, and with

the 24mm and 50mm I've usually got it set to f/4 or f/8.

 

I know the 24mm and 50mm examples that I have can produce great shots

as I've used them repeatedly on film, and have had many blown up and

framed.

 

As this is my first real digital camera (I've borrowed camera's from

work and friends before, but nothing to this level) I'm not sure if I

was just pinning my hopes up to high. Does anyone have any advice or

can post some pictures they have taken (un-altered and un-

sharpened) ??

 

Critisisms accepted :)<div></div>

[vivek iyer]

You may want to try the 24 and 50 at f/11 to f/16. Opening lenses wide with D-70 usually does not help with sharpness (regardless of the DOF).

 

Focussing is not all that easy with the D-70,

compared to a regular SLR. So, you also may want to set the distance at infinity to check the results.

 

It is better to process the RAW capture for optimal results (treat is just like film).

[peter_h1]

Cheers Vivek, I'll give that a go.

I used to use the 24mm like that on film camera's (ie. set the camera to manual, set to f/11 or f/16 and set infinity focus to the DOF marking on the lense).

 

Focusing on the D-70 has been a real problem actually, which I've put down to the prism. Even the cheaper Nikon film camera's I've toyed with have had a better prism then this thing.

 

I've found a picture which better sums up the sharpness issue I've got. Now if this is the normal type of sharpness I should expect from the camera then hey I'll sit back and be happy. Right now I'm just not sure what I should be expecting, it just seems a little too blurred for my liking (I guess if I wanted to be picky though I should have kept saving and bought a D2h).<div></div>

[jim_gifford]

Peter, I'm an emulsion kinda guy rather than a pixel person (so far), so I speak not from personal experience here...

 

I certainly hear lots of people suggesting that in-camera sharpening be turned off (which is what you seem to be doing), and also suggesting that images be sharpened when processed using Photoshop or a similar PC software package (and it is not clear to me that you are doing that).

 

In other words... digital images seem to benefit from software-based sharpening, just not the CAMERA's sharpening technology.

 

If you are already doing that, I'll have to offer sympathy and a shrug and go back to "listen and learn" mode.

 

Be well,

[cappoldt]

Hmm...the only time I've had a problem with my D70 with soft photos past a few meters is when I accidently left the "Soft" mode on after taking a portrait. I've gotten exceptional sharpness with wide landscapes, even using a third-party lens:

[vivek iyer]

Peter,

 

I think you are doing the "right"things. Yes, there is a maximum one can get. The maximum is higher when you shoot in the NEF (Raw) mode.

 

To touch on Jim's thoughts (I am not getting into that F vs D stuff here- whatever suits you, stick with it)-

 

The maximum resolution one might achieve from a CCD sensor like this would be about 60 lp/mm. Lower than the maximum possible from film. However, since the sensor is always perfectly flat (unlike film which is subject to mis alignment, curls, etc), it is very reliable. How many films are out there that would offer such a high resolution at ISO200 speed?

 

From only a resolution point of view (and not DOF), one can safely stop down to meet this requirement. I have tried some very special high resolution lenses (200 lp/mm and up) on D-70. Shooting at f/1 or f/8 does not make any difference at all. This change of aperture (and resolution) is clearly evident when a special film like Kodak Ektar or Techpan is used.

 

Whether the NEF (raw image) is sharpened in the camera or by a program (Nikon view or capture) later, it does not make any difference.

 

Vivek.

[jay_.]

What's a little softness in trade for no film cost, not having to wait an instant to see your shot, and all the other great "advantages" of digital? Remember, its not about sharpness any more, it's about being at the technology forefront and not being a dorky film shooting old f*rt.

[Carl Stone]

" In other words... digital images seem to benefit from software-based sharpening,

just not the CAMERA's sharpening technology. "

 

According to the pros that I have seen comment about this, that is exactly right. They

recommmend turning camera sharpening off. Another cause for softness is

technique, and no I'm not attacking anyone. :o)

[ilkka_nissila]

I've found the auto sharpening on the D70 to work very well for my purposes. I just use it that way all the time and the results seem to be fine. Testing different sharpening settings takes a lot of time and for me this one does fine. I can change it in Capture if needed.

[raymond_chi]

Peter, when you say "No sharpening applied", do you mean sharpness setting is at 0, or 'low"? If you've turned it off completely, then I suggest you turn the in camera sharpness setting to a low setting (but not off) and see how it works for you.

 

The reason digital camera images benefit from software sharpening is because of the way the RGB pixels are layed out on the sensor. Ie, each pixel only captures one color, not all 3. The software on the camera then merges these sensor pixels to produce a single pixel in the image. As a result, you lose a bit of sharpness in the image.

 

For this reason, most consumer level digital camera pictures looks soft at 1:1 ratio. I've had my shares of dealing with them all and I find on most camera, the low sharpness setting works pretty well. It sharpens up the image just a bit and does not introduce any noticeable sharpening artifacts. The normal setting on most camera produces too much sharpening noise for my taste. DSLR has better and more conservative sharpening algorithms, so I recommend using it.

 

A few high end DSLRs produce pictures that looks very sharp even at 1:1 ratio, such as the Nikon D1x, and Canon's equivalent. However, less expensive ones seems to have the same problem to some degree.

 

A really good, but cruel test of digital camera's lack of sharpness is to take a picture of a tree with lots of (small) leaves, such as your example.

 

The Sigma DSLR with the Foveon sensor however produces pretty sharp pictures of tree leaves at 1:1 resolution. This is because each sensor pixel captures all 3 colors. Take a look at this pic:

 

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/sigmasd9_samples/originals/img01333.jpg

 

I don't have a D70, so I cannot comment on if what you are seeing is normal or not. Try the low camera sharpness setting, see if it helps...

[walterh]

@Raymond and Peter - the reason why ANY sharpening by camera and following software MUST be switched off when searching for problems and when discussing sharpness issues is the following. if sharpening is not turned off - even if we know at what step- it is impossible to find 1. the original degree of "sharpness" , resolution, contrast, color fringing .. etc.. 2. to compare different results obtained by different people or different hardware such as bodies or lenses or tripods ... etc. or any combinations of people and equipment. exactly this is the point of threads like this one.

 

the reason is that we will keep more comparing different ways of sharpening images than comparing images of different sharpness. we can discuss these images and the different degrees of sharpness but we will never be able to discuss on the same grounds. to make the point more clear: an "originally" sharp, unprocessed image may in comparison look less sharp than a poor image after in camera sharpening and further processing in PS.

after discussing and solving all problems one still can then switch on all desired and "absolutely" necessary sharpening tools in as many steps as one desires when going back to "normal" operation.

 

cheers walter

PS and BTW: sharpening tools are not really sharpening tools but tools that make non-sharp images look sharp. but this may be too subtle.

[peter_h1]

Cheers everyone for your responces ..

 

So far I haven't been using the camera's sharpening, but have been relying on software sharpening. However I've found using sharpening filters on images with lots of leaves often bleeds a lot of 'white' into the leaf edges, creating an image that looks a bit too bright.

The only 'in camera' sharpening I've tried thus far with the D70 was the basic 'image -> sharpen' setting, which pretty much did the same thing as the software filter.

 

I'll try turning the camera's sharpening setting to 'low' and see what I get. To be honest I hadn't played around with too many of those settings as I thought most of them could be mimiked by software filters anyway. In hindsightI think I should have re-worded my initial query to ask whether most shots require some sort of sharpening (especially wide angle) to bring out the detail.

 

With film I'm used to the shot being pretty much right 'out of the box' as far as sharpness goes, but colour saturation was what needed to be manipulated in developing. However on the D70 I've found the colours to be very good, but the sharpness tends to be lacking. If most people find that they need to sharpen their images then this is something I'll need to factor in and learn. I just wanted to know if I was heading down the right path :)

[jay_.]

Has the whole world gone completely insane? Giving up film that delivers exquisite resolution and paying thousands of dollars for cameras whose images *must* be "sharpened" by a computer program that fills in gaps with sampled data?

[Carl Stone]

Geez Jay, are you finding yourself left in the dust, behind the times, out of touch? The

world is moving on, whether you keep up or not. See ya..........................

[brandonhamilton]

People like Jay crack me up. They complain about a camera that costs 1000 or 1500, but they will gladly buy endless rolls of film till the end of time. Not only that, but time lost to driving to/from labs, gas, storage space for negs/prints/slides. I bet he still listens to 8track tapes too. :)

[ilkka_nissila]

Resolution is invisible in prints, but contrast at moderate frequencies is very evident in them. That, along with colour accuracy, is why digital sometimes looks better in prints. It produces a more accurate record of what was there when the shot was taken.

 

Who says we're giving up film? Mass hysteria. I'm about to experiment with some improvements to my scanner and shoot film, but a lot of it has to do with certain issues with the specific camera I'm using and not to do with digital itself. The digital part is fine.

[Jim_Tardio]

I dunno...I'm pretty happy with the sharpness of the images made with this camera. Here's a rather large image file taken with the 24-85/3.5-4.5. In-camera sharpening was off, and I've done no post-processing.

[rustys pics]

You really have to understand something intrinsic about digital vs film to get at the root of

this. First off, you can't ever decide anything useful about a camera or lens from a JPEG!

Did you know that every major program (Fireworks, Photoshop, Paintshop Pro) uses a

slightly different JPEG algorythm? That means you camera too.

 

The main difference though, is that digital is always a screened image. By that I mean it is

always represented by an ordered series of dots, or pixels. Get close enough and it falls

apart. Film, is continuous tone. It can be magnified much more before our eyes or brain

becomes aware of the random pattern of grain. If you scan it, then you're back to the

screen thing again. The sharpest film camera is a 35mm. That's right, not a Hasselblad or

a Sinar, or whatever. 35mm lenses have higher resolution than any other lenses.

 

So... stop shooting JPEG, (or just accept the quality loss), stop trying to stare at digital

images magnified 8000X on a monitor, and stop worrying. Just get out and shoot while

concentrating on the composition and subject.

 

We've all got the best of both worlds right now with film and digital. Gentlemen, choose

your weapon, walk 30 paces to your favorite photo target and start shoot'n!

[Jim_Tardio]

Also...the file I posted above was cut in half. I'd be happy to email the original NEF file if anyone wants to see the settings, or view the full size image.

[mike.dickerson]

I can support Ilkka's answer: auto sharpening (default) works fine for me. Had my D70 for just two weeks now, and have had only a few soft shots. I believe each resulted from poor technique rather than any inherent limitation of the camera. I had about the same proportion of soft shots with my old Nikon film cameras. Understandable because I've always shot a lot of handheld, having cut my teeth a seemingly eons ago as a photojournalist. I'm still loath to use a tripod unless shooting landscapes or closeups. Tripod or no tripod, every digital image I've ever shot benefited from post-capture sharpening in the computer. The trick is not to overdo it.

[nino]

I have recently compared my much loved D70 with a friends fuji finepix s2Pro. The Fuji's images (all same parameters in setup, same lens etc..) are quite a lot sharper than the D70's. With the Fuji able to resolve finer detail in distant objects. I have also noted that the D70 blows highlights much easier than the Fuji. I love the S2 but i hate the battery system.

[nino]

In response to your posting about testing lenses and viewing them in jpg format. Russ i think in this case your opinion is un-substansiated. It is very easy to check lens resolving power in jpg fine format, all you need to do is shoot a proper lens sharpness chart, failing that just print out a series of lines in several blocks, each block with the lines closer together than the previous. The sharper lens will instantly be recognisable. The same can be said for ccd or cmos capturing devices. Side-by-side comparisons of jpgs will clearly show superiority

[raoul_.]

I had similar results with Nikon's 50mm 1.4 and Sigma's 24 mm 2.8. Sharpness obtained using any opening larger than 5.6 is imho not acceptable (yes, even using a tripod). f8-11 seems to be the sharpest option for both lenses. Reading the comments on current sensor structure , i.e. without microlenses etc, it seems obvious that even very good film lenses produce resuts far below expectations - compared to the results achieved on film under similar conditions.

 

Pity is that I bought the camera to continue using my 24, 50 and 180 mm prime lenses... I'm still on the learning curve regarding the capabilities of a digital SLR...

 

Results have been consistent wether using jpg fine or raw, converted using the program 'dcraw', followed by usm or selective usm.

 

I'm curious to check out a zoom designed and built for digital sensors, just to check out the hype...

 

I understand as well why Leica prefers to stay out of this game, they state that their lens design is not really suited for current sensors... at least they will go bankrupt in style.

 

At the end of the day I presume it's about learning the caracteristics of the new tools, then forgetting about them and just take good pics...