rosario_turrisi

<p>Hi Alan, <br> let's put it like that: if I try to find where the focus is, I'm never sure. When I identify I have the impression (really strong impression, say I'm pretty sure) that pictures taken with the 55-200 fuji are better looking. Of course it is a different focal length, but if I magnify to 2-300% I can see the pixels, but the image looks sharp, in the sense that details are there. The same I can't tell about my pictures. And shoots taken with the same lens (same kind, not properly mine) with other cameras have a completely different feeling concerning sharpness. Again, a serious test should be with the same lens and different cameras with similar sensors, and looking at 100% crops from raw files, what up to now I had not the chance/time to do. What I can tell is that pictures taken by a friend of mine in the same situation with the nikon 400 2.8 on a D4 (the 16.2 MP) are way better than my best pictures...</p>

<p>Hi Don, <br> I think it is downsampling which causes a loss of detail. Still, I love your shoot... :)</p>

<p>Hi Don,<br> I love the picture, while I find it a bit soft, but one cannot really draw conclusions on a jpeg 1024 pixel wide. My camera issues 4896x3264 files, should put side by side 100% crops...<br> I had on my monitor pictures taken with the 500 f/4 af-s Nikon, and already from the jpegs you guess it's a beast. Of course cannot compare such a lens with my 400, but I cannot believe the quality I get is closer to that of a mirror lens...<br> Again, congrats for the picture, imagine was not obvious to spot the subject...and, wow, Velvia, reminds me of the ol' good times :)</p>

<p>Thanks a lot everybody for the answers. I can perform a few tests to exclude simple issues, but clearly is not obvious to quantify all the factors building up the result. <br> What is clear, is that I have to find a better solution to have a decent telephoto of about 600mm, until Fuji puts on the market the 100-400.</p>