Ability of the Sony a6000
Nov 1, 2018 17:01:31 #
W9OD
Loc: Wisconsin
1176, maybe that is my problem, I “zoom” in on them and they seem to be out of focus. Thank you for that thought.
Nov 1, 2018 17:10:15 #
Marlz wrote:
I don't even know what pixel peeping is!! Oh, my .. another thing to learn? ;)
That is over magnifying the image.
Frequently here and elsewhere people magnify the image way beyond normal size on the computer looking at minute details with their nose close to the screen. If the magnification was printed full size it might be a 40"x60" print being viewed at from 8" away. Very unrealistic. And some here literally look at the pixels, for some unknown rational reason.
Let's say your screen is 11x14 then sit back with the photo filling the screen and look at it from a normal easy viewing distance. Like you would a print on the wall or an album. How does the photo look at that size at a realistic viewing distance. I bet they will look sharp enough and be very pleasing with the equipment you have unless like I said you had movement or the focus was off for some reason.
Try that and see if you like the "Sharpness" of your photos.
Nov 1, 2018 18:16:25 #
It looks like a focusing issue. But it could be a poor lens. Try using manual focusing and use the focus magnifier. First set the camera to aperture priority and focus with the aperture wide open, then close the aperture down to F8 and see if your images are sharp. Try different focusing points but as a general rule you should focus about one third of the way into your landscape images.
Nov 1, 2018 18:23:36 #
cyclespeed
Loc: Calgary, Alberta Canada
In number 3 in the left side on top of the bluff are 3 people. I'm guessing they are at least 150 plus feet away and I would consider their focus to be good. Can you say what it is that you don't think is good enough in any of these images?
Nov 1, 2018 18:45:29 #
Nov 1, 2018 19:14:49 #
ORpilot wrote:
I agree with all your points, ORpilot! The a6000 is a very good camera. Others have state... (show quote)
I own two Sony a6000s, one converted to Full Spectrum. My zoom E-mount lenses are all OSS and until recently consisted only of the 18-55 mm and seldom used (slowww) 55-210 mm. (I also own two primes.) But I wanted more reach using just a single lens, so I did some research and found, for what it’s worth, that Sony’s newer zoom lens, released January 2018, was rated superior to the other wide-tele zooms, including what the OP has. It’s the 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 and thus far, handheld, I’m very happy with it.
Perhaps all the OP needs to do is get this lens instead or buy two zooms that overlap little or none to get the range he desires?
Nov 1, 2018 19:19:54 #
lev29 wrote:
I agree with all your points, ORpilot! br br I o... (show quote)
Agreed. I'm at that point where I'd just as soon not be bothered with having to switch lenses. And while the 55-210 isn't a bad lens, it is a bit slow, and a bit long on short end. The truth is, I seldom seem to have need for a long lens, and the 18-135 is starting to look better and better. The 18-200 is also a consideration, but I think, for the money spent, the 18-135 is a better value and a better lens. Besides, if I need more reach, there is also the clear image zoom feature.
Nov 1, 2018 19:37:05 #
Nov 1, 2018 22:00:58 #
W9OD wrote:
Wingpilot that is great advice, I am going to check out the 18-135.
👍🏻
But if you feel you still want more reach, and the 18-200 has your attention, you might consider the Tamron 18-200mm zoom for Sony E-mount. I understand it's as good as the Sony lens, and for less money. I believe the Sony 18-135 is a better lens than either of the other two.
Nov 1, 2018 22:37:23 #
Anna M-W
Loc: New York City
I think if you used a fixed focal length lens you would get better results I use a 50 mm Sony F1.9 it is frighteningly sharp it's also expensive. Which is the real lesson
In photography is sharp and fast do not come cheap.
Best regards Anna.
In photography is sharp and fast do not come cheap.
Best regards Anna.
Nov 1, 2018 22:58:33 #
cyclespeed wrote:
In number 3 in the left side on top of the bluff are 3 people. I'm guessing they are at least 150 plus feet away and I would consider their focus to be good. Can you say what it is that you don't think is good enough in any of these images?
Cyclespeed ... hello to Canada, "my home and native land," with a brother living in Edmonton. Love the province of Alberta. OK, it is the 4th photo that bothers me the most. It looks misty, but it was actually clear and crisp. I think I have become obsessed with images I see on Facebook that amaze me with their clarity and detail, and I just don't see it in my own photos. Here is a photo (screenshot, and not as clear as the original post) taken by a photographer friend. I compare my stuff to captures like these, and I want to better my own work. Again, her camera equipment far exceeds mine, so ...
Nov 2, 2018 02:22:21 #
Architect1776 wrote:
......a realistic viewing distance.....
Also referred to as normal viewing distance (or NVD).
Nov 2, 2018 05:43:56 #
R.G. wrote:
Also referred to as normal viewing distance (or NVD).
True, for pixel peepers it is +400% magnification at <6" though is "Normal"
Nov 2, 2018 14:44:30 #
Marlz wrote:
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.
Managed to find this. There's probably more for Lightroom out there somewhere. Stuff for sharpening edges in Photoshop (the how and the why) is easier to find.
http://projectwoman.com/2013/08/lightroom-tip-sharpening-mask-it.html
When you want regular sharpening for specific parts of an image you can use the adjustments brush. For example you may want a texture to be emphasised or roughened.
Edge based sharpening can be used to avoid aggravating noise. When sharpening is limited to the edges you can ramp up the amount, even with a noisy image. And sharpening edges protects them from the softening effect of denoise so you can use more of that too.
Nov 2, 2018 15:29:25 #
Marlz wrote:
I'm new, a hobbyist, and there is much I do not kn... (show quote)
You didn't mention how your view or print your images. That's crucial to determining
what camera you need.
"Sharpness" is subjective and involves both resolution and local constrast.
It is also affected by aperature setting, and may vary from one part of the
image to another.
The bigger the viewing size the more resolution the image needs (at least, when
viewed up close). Probably you view at modest size on a monitor, so probably
you don't need much resolution.
If you are experiencing unsharpness at a modest viewing size, it would be a good
idea to determine why before buying a new camera. There are many possible reasons.
No camera guarantees sharp images, and the sky is the limit. To put the issue of
resolution in perspective, consider sensor size:
The Sony a6000 uses an APS-C size sensor: 23.5 × 15.6 mm = 366.6 sq mm.
In film terms, that is "subminiature format".
Miniature format (now marketed as "full frame") is 35 x 24 mm = 840 sq. mm
About 2.3 times more area than APS-C.
For maximum sharpness, the gold standard is an 8 x 10" view camera
= 254 x 203.2 mm = 51,612.8 sq. mm which is almost 80 square inches --
over 61 times more area (and more resolution) than "full frame".
Probably a APS-C sensor can meet your needs --- but it all depends on what you plan
to do with your images.. But first you need to diagnose why your images are unsharp--
it might be a limitation of the camera--or it might not.
Here's a starting point: Are some images more unsharp than others? If so, what do
those shots have in common? Perhaps you would be willing to post an example or two.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.