How sharp can be ?

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

I was wondering how sharp could be the pictures taken with a 30D and L series

zooms (up to 105 mm)?

 

I've tried several configurations - ambient light / flash - hand held and tripod

- and found that at equivalent glasses (ED) my D200 gives better results.

 

The preferred mode is M or Av.

 

Is this somehing ... normal?

 

PS:

 

The 30D is taken with a 24-105 f4 L IS + 580EX

 

The D200 is taken with the 18-200 VRII + SB800<div></div>

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

...<div></div>

[steve torelli]

I don't know about sharpness, what I see is a differance in white balance, lighting, exposure. The bottom pic is better in those respects. I don't know how that speaks to "sharpness". Good luck.

[ronaldo_r]

Well, it doesn't look like you used a flash on the top image ("30D"). Provide correct examples before asking such questions.

[patrick_wong2]

Comparing these two pics, i dont think they were tested fairly? Maybe you should have same light and settings? You should post the infos of the pics also?

 

 

Patrick

[mars c]

Canon bodies are always under exposed, I park my EC on +2/3 on my xt. and built in FEC to +1.

 

Your canon image is under exposed when I looked at the histogram, You just have to increase the FEC to level it with the nikon image. And the white balance are different, I think the canon needs adjustment.

 

For the sharpness, Canon in camera sharpening is very mild even at max setting. I've sharpened your canon image, I think its very sharp now.<div></div>

[mars c]

Did you use Av mode in the canon?

 

I think it was set to "slow sync", AS the shadow of her hair is from the ambient light source above, not solely from the flash.

 

Try using manual mode F8 1/100 sec. ISO 100, auto white balance and adjust the Flash EC in the 30d.

[andrew robertson]

You are shooting RAW and applying sharpening in post aren't you?

 

Otherwise this is hardly a useful test, other than perhaps helping you realize that the Canon

has its default sharpening parameters set lower than the Nikon.

[keith_van_hulle1]

First, don't use flash. Secondly, try to at least come up with more equivalent lenses. Third, use a tripod. Fourth, use the same lighting conditions. Fifth, use the same exposure settings. Sixth, set all other camera settings as close as possible. Seventh, use RAW. Eighth, use a standard test pattern sheet for the subject.

 

When you've done all that, then post equivalent crops and we'll have a more accurate idea of what's what. Everything else is just piddling in the wind. Making a claim based on the OP info and one single pic doesn't seem a very common sense approach.

[dave chew]

And 9th, don't photograph a subject that can move if you are trying to evaluate sharpness.

 

Actually, I'm not sure I agree about the test target. I think using a newspaper as a subject can give you some meaningful information for your own lens-to-lens sharpness comparisons, but you won't be able to compare it to other on-line reports.

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

Wow,

 

Thanks for all your posts.

 

Hum ...

This wasn't meant to be a review or what so ever. It was just that I found the 30D performs not as well as the D200.

 

What I've done so far:

 

Exif for both: 1/60 f5.6 ISO160 M mode

 

See the small dot in her eye? That's the flash (soft box for all) use for both shots. i-TTL for D200 with SB800 and E-TTL II for 30D with 580EX

 

Both shot in RAW and converted to JPEG with RSE no PP added.

 

The D200 has been cropped to 3504x2336 to meet the 30D image size in pixels.

 

Both are cropped to 511 pixels wide to meet PN requirements

 

 

Mars,

Thanks for the tips of EC and FEC

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

Would you have another tip for how to shoot a bloody sharp portrait?

 

That''ll really help me out. Thanks.

[mars c]

You're welcome.

[ronaldo_r]

"...how to shoot a bloody sharp portrait..."

 

Do you really want a sharp portrait? I guarantee that your model is not going to be thrilled to see all the skin imprefections, dark spots and pimples. A bit of blurriness could be good sometimes.

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

Sure thing Ronaldo.

 

But isn't it easier to take off some details rather then add them in?

[ronaldo_r]

Point taken. I'm just trying to say that "sharpness" isn't everything. Some of Cartier-Bresson's most famous portraits are not that sharp.

[keith_van_hulle1]

You didn't ask how to "shoot a bloody sharp portrait." You asked about what is considered normal in comparing two shots from two different cameras with a myriad number of variables and can't undestand why the photos aren't exactly the same (that SEEMS to be your exptectation). The Nikon works better for you. Great. No prob. Yeah, they probably do have better flash algorithms if nothing else. But to make a blanket statement that one camera is obviously better than the other in all respects sounds very foolish to some of us.

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

Well,

 

I noticed some difference between similar settings and my question was (with a missing 't'):

 

Is this something normal ?

 

If you say Yes because A and B reasons, that's fine. Then you know something that I don't and thanks for sharing.

 

If you say NO because X and Y reasons, that's fine. Then you know something that I don't and thanks for sharing too.

 

This was in no way a review or test (I repeat) and I really didn't buy a camera to shoot walls on a tripod or some apples in a tray (some do and that's fine with me as well)