Photos The Full Resolution Picture Thread

linky no worky

 

Try again, just republished it am trying out picturepush as its free hires uploads.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/GRZATpOCz2C_s4mfK5aLStMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0

 

Working now.

I can't see why that would be banned.

 

Changed the link to Picassa, free hi res uploading sites are really hard to find.

Kids an all that.

 

two i took today, most i took are with some elements of depth of field because i think that's how human eye work, photos isn't about maximum sharpness.

these two were taken stepped down for larger depth of field. they are probably the sharpest this 24-105mm could offer, i looked at a few 24mm shots and they have slight CA near the edges. all taken: 5D mk2, 24-105mm f4, ISO100.

40mm f/8 1/250s
_MG_0505.jpg


47mm f/8 1/400s
_MG_0518.jpg


ops, forgot to turn off watermark. they had no sharpening or any other post processing, pretty much straight export from raw.

 

I think this thread is though. Still... looks pretty sharp. Nice dynamic range from the 5DII

 

i know, i'm just saying quite a lot of my shot isn't sharp everywhere, it's usually focused on foreground and background is blurred. these 2 are the only 2 that qualify for this thread.

 

Snip

 

Yep this thread is about MEGA sharpness - if you have a good camera + good glass then you should be getting mega sharp results from a full size image.

Edit: found a wide open sample Anybody else got some wide open sharpness?

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, wide open @ 155mm

 

@ MDK, I think she forgot to do her pants up dude

 

Looks soft that. I don't think focus is correctly on her face. The tops of her jeans look a little sharper. Also, if this was flash, why f2.8? Stopping down to 5.6 or so will yield a lot more from that lens and the background would still be soft enough. Bit noisy too... what was the ISO?

No one likes to post up raws, as there's always something to be done post shoot, (so long as it's not exposure!) but this thread is not about critique of the image, but as a technical showcase for what each camera lens is capable of, so it's all about posting up the sharpest images possible.

 

Well said Pook - people shouldn't worry about the quality of the images in terms of composition or artistic excellence... as long as they are sharp, share them!

On the subject of wide open sharpness, here's one that will make your eyes bleed with the chromatic aberration, but the sharpness is IMO astounding at f/1.4 - all hail the SIGMALUX

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG, shot wide open

 

Focus point I think is at the tip of her nose, my 70-200 is a little soft at its widest end, ISO 400 f2.8 so that I could A get some nice bokeh & B because it was around 7:30 and the sun had pretty much set so to get some light in the BG I had to stop down and up the ISO then use the flash as a Key.

I'm not entirely sure what the idea of this thread is to be frank, because taking the shot is only half of the final image. In a perfect world getting everything right as you take the shot would be perfect but that's just not how the real world works, in my opinion obviously.

[Edit] If this a showcase for the sharpness of a lens then technically you should be fine posting anything as long as there is no Sharpness layer in your editing? [/edit]

 

There are certain things you cannot alter after the shot, the biggy being focus, so it goes without saying that a correctly focused image is a must in this thread. Golden rule of portrait photography is that the eyes are in focus.

There are differing opinions regarding what quality of image should come from the camera (Pook and I disagree on this ) but as I say above, focus is non-negotiable.

 

Yes but it's far simpler to just convert a RAW to JPEG 12 and upload it; prettying up an image is arguably an artistic adjustment; this thread is not about artistry but technology!!

 

Pookey would you ever touch the Sigma 50mm f/1.4? Of all the lenses I used nothing ticked as many boxes as my Sigmalux... it was like a stropped razor at f/8

Canon EOS 5D, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG, shot at f/8

 

D7000 and Nikon 50mm 1.8D










D7000 and Sigma 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO DG OS

 

Why do that? On a portrait, especially one with a longer lens shot wide open, focus should be on the eyes.

maybe, maybe not.. however, in this thread, the only thing that matters is supreme sharpness to show off the sensor. It will be useful long terms as people can evaluate various lenses and cameras. Anything else about the image is irrelevant in this thread.... just sharpness. - hence posting up completely unaltered RAW images.

Not really because any other editing can effect how the image is perceived, Altering levels and curves or changing the histogram can effect how aliasing at contrast edges are rendered for example. this thread is about what comes off the camera and nothing else.

The thread is about being a technical showcase of quality from a range of sensors and lenses so far as I'm aware, so we're not critiquing photographs (her pose is wrong etc), but merely the technicalities of the image with respect to squeezing the last drop of sharpness and detail from a sensor. So - focus and exposure are crucial - anything else is irrelevant. If you have trouble with focus or exposure, then the quality of your sensor is the least of your problems Save that for other threads We want RAWs.

Killer lens! Looks like it's doing a nice job extracting the last bit of res from the D7000! I've never used it with the 7000, as I tend to use the 35 instead, but that proves my point nicely. That 50 1.8 is just about teh best 50 you can buy. Stop it down to 5.6 and it gets better!


That Singma looks pretty good too! About time we had some 3rd party lenses in this thread!

 

Yes the 50mm resolves detail beautifully. As you say, the focal length of the 35 is more usable on the crop sensor cameras. I keep meaning to pick one up, however, there are a couple of other lenses on my shopping list atm.

The Sigma is a decent lens, although I found there was a bit of a learning curve and it can be slightly hit or miss. Not bad optical quality once you get the hang of it though and the 400mm reach is very handy, though it does become slightly softer beyond 320mm

The pictures above (with the 50mm) were all taken at F4. Here are a couple I took in the garden this afternoon at F5.6 with the same lens....

 

I've nothing against 3rd party lenses per se... I just tend to find there's usually a Nikkor that seems to fit the bill, and outperform the competition. That 50 1.4 looks pretty damned good though! I wish I could test that on the D800. If anything looks like it has a chance of beating the Nikkor 50 1.8 it may be that! I'll see if I can find a technical review.


[edit]

Close (except wide open... and edges)... but no cigar.

Sigma 50 1.4

Nikkor 50 1.8D

The Sigma is good, but the Nikkor 50 1.8 is in a class of it's own... and still even cheaper than the Sigma. The Sigma seems horrible wide open!

The Nikkor 50mm 1.4s are pretty much as sharp as the 1.8, but where the 1.8 scores is pretty much zero distortion to boot whereas the 1.4s do suffer in that respect quite a bit. The Nikkor 1.4 is sharper wide open though as well... but that's what you're paying for I suppose. All in all, I don't think the extra 2/3rd of a stop is worth paying for the 1.4 Nikkors, or even the Sigma. At least the Nikkors are good performers wide open, but with the Sigma, you pay a premium for a 1.4 aperture, but the actual performance is quite poor wide open. As a result, if I do start to feel the need to gain an extra 2/3rd stop, I'll get the 1.4G Nikkor I think.

Another option is the Nikkor 1.8G. This seems as sharp as the 1.8D stopped down, but also retains some of the wide open sharpness of the 1.4G. Like the 1.4G however, it also suffers more from distortion. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

The way I see it is this. If you're bothered about low light shooting, you'll probably want to skip a 1.8 or f2 prime anyway, and those that don't need low light performance will be stopping down a prime for max sharpness. So the 1.8 is ideal for this kind of shooter. If you want to shoot low light, but can't afford the big 1.4 Nikkors, then the best compromise is probably the 1.8G... but you gain distortion, so I'd sacrifice wide open performance for total distortion free images any day. Factor in cost, and it's a no brainer... it has to be the 1.8D. If you absolutely MUST shoot wide open, just save the extra cash... work that little harder, and get the Nikkor 50mm 1.4G.


[edit of edit]

I've just realised the Sigma is the same price as the Nikkor 50mm 1.4G!! That's the very definition of a "no brainer" right there. Why would anyone pay the same amount of cash for a lens that only performs half as well? That Sigma can deliver the goods in the centre (see Lenny's photo), especially stopped down, but full aperture and edge performance is just not worth the cash if you ask me.