FalconChase Loc: Canton,Ohio, USA

The "Wide" focus setting guesses at the subject, which means it most often will choose an object closest to the lens. Use the center spot or one of the flexible spot options to place the focus where you want it to be.

repleo Loc: Boston

Marlz, as others have said, these images are very good and I don't see any lack of sharpness. In fact, they are very good for a lens that some luke warm reviews described as 'as good as you can expect for a super-zoom lens'. However, if you are still obsessed about sharpness, you should note that the sharpest aperture on this lens (and many others) varies with the zoom length. This article may help, but you should experiment with your own lens to verify.
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/e-18-200mm-f3.5-6.3-oss-le-sel18200le/review/

Also, I have found that a heavy lens like the 18-200 can cause the bottom of the A6000 to twist on a tripod. The A6000 body is plastic and not really strong enough to support a heavy lens. My 90mm F2.0 will cause my A6000 to sag by a full half frame no matter how well I tighten it. The A6300 and A6500 have metal bodies which should be stronger.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Something I haven't seen mentioned yet is in regards to sharpness at a distance, specifically foliage. The problem with foliage as part of the picture is that if there is any air movement, the leaves will rustle, and no matter how sharp your lens is, the foliage will appear to be "fuzzy." Also, if the outside air temperature is very hot,, or there is any haze or dust in the air, you will have sharpness issues. It's just stuff we have no control over, and the best, sharpest camera/lens combination can't fix that, nor can you do much about it in post processing. Otherwise, your images look sharp, with nice color. The A6000 is a very good camera.

As for your lens, it's a very good lens, and one I've been considering for my A6300. Things like barrel distortion are common in long zoom lenses. I wouldn't say that an 18-200 zoom is all that long, but it is long enough to generate something like that. You'd have to spend a lot of money to get a lens that's free of any of those issues.

lowbone

Learn how to get the max out of what you have before going on a gear buying frenzy. The 18-200 is a very good lens. I also have the Sony-Zeiss 16-70 f4 lens and don’t notice a whole lot of difference. You can get some extra sharpness and speed from prime lenses but you said that weight is an issue and you would have to carry a bag full if primes to equal your 18-200 focal length.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

The a6000 is a very good camera. Others have stated good points. General items about any camera and lenses: prime lenses are better in IQ than zooms since they are not a compromise. Zooms that are no more than 3x such as 18-50 vs 18-200 which is 11x will have better IQ. The more the zoom the more compromises it has to make and therefore lower IQ. Also each lens manufacture have several quality versions of a lens. Generally the faster lenses f2.8 vz f4.5 have higher IQ. Better lenses generally cost more$ $$ . F stops have an affect too. Do some testing to see which F stop gives you the best resolution. Then as you may know, wide open f-stops (f2.8) give very shallow DOF. F-16, F-22 give Maximum DOF but with reduced IQ. It is all a compromise. There are other factors too: do you just view you photos on a cel phone or a 27'' iMax Retina, or print at 5x7 or blow up to 20x24 and print on canvas or glossy paper. Your photos looked good to me. I have a a6000, a7s, and a99ii. Their images are all slightly different. Now compare APS-c to FF and to medium format and they will all look good on a cel phone but it's when you blow them up to 20x24 and the differences become obvious. If I could, I would shoot everything in large format 4x5 Sinar, Zeiss lenses, digital back. But I have not won the lottery. You just can't reasonably shoot wildlife and sports with a 4x5. That is what 35mm is for. Each has its own purposes. I still use a 4x5 and a M645. But it is just simply easier to use my a6000 for wildlife and travel, my a7s for low light and MilkyWay shots, and my a99ii for mother nature. There is always room for improvement but you have to be satisfied with what you have. Keep working and keep experimenting. Get to know your equipment.

Marlz

I reveal more of myself when I say that I never print anything. I am in a photography club where we share and show stuff digitally. Many in the club also print and enter in shows etc., but I do not do that. I share with other photographers on Facebook. That is where I see photos that are better than what I can do, but one guy shoots with equipment that I could never afford. The comments that I receive here are widening my horizons. I need to max out my current setup by becoming more knowledgeable on all the factors that affect the final product. Mostly the best thing about photography for me is that it gets me outside seeing things that I never saw before. It becomes a great connection to nature, and that is so life-giving, so it is a healthy activity. Thank you!

Marlz

The info on foliage, air movement, and atmosphere issues are things I have not considered. Very helpful to keep in mind. TX!

gessman Loc: Colorado

I use a tablet that lets me enlarge and your images are very nice. A couple of things come to mind that I'll share with you considering sharpness in landscapes particularly. Google or use wikipedia and look up "hyperfocal distance" and learn about it. Second, notwithstanding possible leaf movement in a breeze, a lack of contrast will rob your images of apparent sharpness. Not using a lens hood, thus allowing extraneous stray light to sneak into the edges of your lens when the sun isn't squarely at your back, will rob your images of contrast and therefore the appearance of sharpness. Your first image shows signs of that, maybe not due to the absence of a lens hood but certainly of sunlight striking the lens from an angle. Another thing that will rob contrast is reflection of the light off of leaves. You can mitigate that somewhat by using a circular polarizer filter to cut reflected glare from any non-metallic surface, glass water, etc., thereby enhancing sharpness. It is possible to shoot while intentionally allowing the sun to hit your lens but that's another subject that requires other technique considerations. Keep shooting - you're on the right track.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

It sounds like it's your expectations that are the problem. One answer to that is to learn how to add crispness in post processing. I deliberately avoided saying "add sharpness", because sharpness is only one aspect of moving a photo away from softness. Increasing vividness by increasing contrast and clarity is one obvious step, increasing Vibrance is another. And find out how to make your sharpening edge-based. Sharpening that's not edge-based will aggravate noise, affect textures in a negative way and if overdone it'll add an unwanted grittiness to the shots. And just in case you aren't aware of it (apologies if you are), all raw files need basic editing because unlike jpegs, raw images get minimal processing in-camera. When a camera produces a jpg file the assumption is that it's more or less a finished image, whereas with a raw file the editing is left to the photographer.

Marlz

More great help!! I often do not use the lens hood. Will start doing so. It just makes the camera stick out farther, so I often leave it behind. Didn't know how important it was ... Thanks.

Marlz

I use LR for editing my RAW files, but I do not know what you mean by making my sharpening edge-based. Is there a LR tutorial for that you could share link to? TX.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Hi Marlz. If you click on | Quote Reply | under the post that you want to reply to, we'll know who you're responding to.

In the sharpening section in Details in LR you'll see a slider called "Masking". If you hold down the Alt key while operating that slider it'll show you where the sharpening is being applied. The further right you go with that slider the more edge-based the sharpening becomes. It also shows what's being excluded from the sharpening process. If there are smooth areas that have noise or texture that you don't want affected you can go right with the Masking slider until those areas are fully excluded.

W9OD Loc: Wisconsin

They do seem out of focus. I am interested in reply’s as well.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Your photos look just fine to me.
Are you pixel peeping or looking at the photos realistically?
What you have should do wonderful sharp shots if looked at at realistic distance for the size.
If at reasonable distances there is a problem it can be many things.
Focus, movement of camera or subject or who knows what.
But these look just fine at realistic viewing distances.
That is the problem with computers is the techno geeks pixel peep and so others think that is what you should be doing.
It is very silly.

Marlz

I don't even know what pixel peeping is!! Oh, my .. another thing to learn? ;)