Just not tack sharp (Page 2): Ken makes a remark in a lot of his posts about folks being over concerned with sharpness and not concerned enough about shooting technique. Which, has...

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

rafikiphoto wrote:

I haven't seen his remarks. Is he suggesting that professional photographers are not concerned about sharpness?

Ken makes a remark in a lot of his posts about folks being over concerned with sharpness and not concerned enough about shooting technique. Which, has some truth. I love the guys and gals who return their COPY of a lens because there's was not sharp. It is a lot like two people with a new set of ping golf clubs, one is a pro and the other an armature , the armature continues to golf badly, blames the clubs (they got a bad copy) and returns them, the pro goes on to win the US Open. Case closed.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The Nikon 300mm lens is a very good lens. Let me remind you that sharpness depends a lot on us not necessarily the lens.
It is impossible to judge sharpness without having the original. It is impossible to judge sharpness at the size you have presented to us. Reducing the size of a photograph for the Internet usually takes its toll.
Precise sharpening in post is very important and it should be done without oversharpening which creates artifacts.
As I said, the original should give us a better idea if indeed the lens lacks sharpness.

katastrofa Loc: London, UK

If you suspect that AF in the lens is back- or front-focusing, do a proper test using a focus chart.

rafikiphoto Loc: Spain

billnikon wrote:

Ken makes a remark in a lot of his posts about folks being over concerned with sharpness and not concerned enough about shooting technique. Which, has some truth. I love the guys and gals who return their COPY of a lens because there's was not sharp. It is a lot like two people with a new set of ping golf clubs, one is a pro and the other an armature , the armature continues to golf badly, blames the clubs (they got a bad copy) and returns them, the pro goes on to win the US Open. Case closed.

Well, we agree on one thing I suppose, we are not fans of Ken Rockwell. The example you quote is not relevant to the OPs query. He was asking for advice not whether he should return his lens...

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Well - the surroundings are not sharp either. Can you magnify image when manual focusing? It does seem a pity, with such great equipment, but as Bob says, we do need to resort to digitally sharpening RAWs. I find the same with my G5 - RAW or JPG. I think it is down to the pixels.

katastrofa Loc: London, UK

How far were you from the subject? What was the weather?

I found that e.g. pictures taken over water in hot weather can be terrible even if I focus on the subject, because the air movement destroys the image.

hrblaine

Is he suggesting that professional photographers are not concerned about sharpness?"

IIRC, I believe he is suggesting that there are many other things to worry about that are equally (or more) important. I mostly print 8x10s so sharpness is one thing I don't worry much about. I shoot a 5Dc with a variety of Canon lens and with my 86 yo eyes, sharpness has never been a problem. When I shot concert dance back in the day with a Nikon F and an 80mm lens, any lack of sharpness was due to movement too fast to be captured by my favorite setting of 1/125. I would push Tri X to 800 and 1/125 let me use a more satisfactory aperture than 1/250 or faster. 1/125 would freeze jumps but a rapidly swinging hand or foot was just too much for it. In any case, I was good with the tradeoff. YMMV

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

katastrofa wrote:

Didn't they have a small aperture and focus fixed at infinity?

Right. F/8 sounds familiar.

EDIT: Wow! "...approximately F/14.5-16" for the Hawkeye.
http://kurtmunger.com/kodak_brownie_hawkeyeid149.html

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

jerryc41 wrote:

Remember the Kodak Brownie? Those cameras took millions of pictures, and no one ever focused a shot.

And most of those photos were as sharp as a butter knife.

RicknJude Loc: Quebec, Canada

Hard to tell from this thumbnail. Upload again and check "store original"

ddub wrote:

I feel I am continually not getting tack sharp photos with this lens. The attached photo was taken with a tripod and wlimberly head. This was taken with a Nikon D500 and a Nikon prime 300mm lens. Shot at F4 at 1/800 sec

In my opinion it should be sharper. Any advice would be appreciated.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

rafikiphoto wrote:

Well, we agree on one thing I suppose, we are not fans of Ken Rockwell. The example you quote is not relevant to the OPs query. He was asking for advice not whether he should return his lens...

You are incorrect, he asked, and I quote him "In my opinion it should be sharper. Any advice would be appreciated". And, as you can see by my post, I gave him suggestions on how to improve the shot, did you ?You may want to go back and see his quote in his original post if you wish. Maybe a second cup of coffee is needed this morning.

rafikiphoto Loc: Spain

billnikon wrote:

You are incorrect, he asked, and I quote him "In my opinion it should be sharper. Any advice would be appreciated". And, as you can see by my post, I gave him suggestions on how to improve the shot, did you ?You may want to go back and see his quote in his original post if you wish. Maybe a second cup of coffee is needed this morning.

I asked him to allow us to see the download so a better judgement might be made. I'd prefer to see a higher res image before making any comment on the image. Enjoy your coffee.

VisualMusing Loc: Carrollton, TX

if the lens has VR, make sure it is turned off when using a tripod.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

camerapapi wrote:

The Nikon 300mm lens is a very good lens. Let me r... (show quote)

Yep, pretty much spot on. Impossible to tell much without the original to examine.

HeyYou Loc: SE Michigan

burkphoto wrote:

...If raw, did you sharpen? ALL raw images need sharpening.

Question 1: Is this always true ?
Or does the basic processing of RAW images in a modern dSLR include some degree of sharpening ?

Question 2: If the camera does not have a low pass filter, does this still apply?