Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

I'm getting extremly chromatic aberration when I shot an object with the sky in the background. Look at the tree, it become green and red.

I don't know if its a sensor problem, maybe the lens(Sony 50mm 1.8) or just a problem with all the Sony A7rii, but its pretty scary.

The picture I'm talking about:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aygvesze1ohvqqi/Tree.jpg?dl=0

I would be really thankful if someone knows anything.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

These issues tend to be a feature of a particular lens. Most lenses will have some form of chromatic aberration that's why there are lens profiles in software like Lightroom to remove it. I use A7RII bodies and have seen this problem when using some (cheaper) lenses. Only by using expensive lenses do I find that the problem no longer exists. Basically, cheaper made lenses tend to suffer from image issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of other points to consider -- other than cheap glass.  First, all lenses suffer from some degree of chromatic aberration.  Faster lenses have more of it.  For example, a 50mm f2.0 will have less than a 50mm f1.2.  This can be reduced by stopping down the lens two or three f-stops.  Even inexpensive lenses usually produce good results if stopped down.

Also, magnification, magnifies the problem. A 50mm on a full frame camera will show less than on an AP-C camera, since the image is magnified on the non-full-frame camera.  Likewise, if you crop the image (post exposure), the abberation will appear more pronounced.

Third, always use a lens shade, and good quality filters.

Try these out before blaming the lens or the camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, paulowen_2000 said:

These issues tend to be a feature of a particular lens. Most lenses will have some form of chromatic aberration that's why there are lens profiles in software like Lightroom to remove it. I use A7RII bodies and have seen this problem when using some (cheaper) lenses. Only by using expensive lenses do I find that the problem no longer exists. Basically, cheaper made lenses tend to suffer from image issues.

Thanks fo the answer! I tried to correct the chromatic aberration with lightroom, and it didn't work. Maybe its too much..

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XKAES said:

A couple of other points to consider -- other than cheap glass.  First, all lenses suffer from some degree of chromatic aberration.  Faster lenses have more of it.  For example, a 50mm f2.0 will have less than a 50mm f1.2.  This can be reduced by stopping down the lens two or three f-stops.  Even inexpensive lenses usually produce good results if stopped down.

Also, magnification, magnifies the problem. A 50mm on a full frame camera will show less than on an AP-C camera, since the image is magnified on the non-full-frame camera.  Likewise, if you crop the image (post exposure), the abberation will appear more pronounced.

Third, always use a lens shade, and good quality filters.

Try these out before blaming the lens or the camera.

Thank you very much for the answe! I'll try with a lens shade and a good filter. I was pretty scared it could be something about the sensor..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding using a hood and filter, the hood will prevent flare or colours washing out to some  degree but I cannot see how adding a filter will reduce chromatic aberration? My understanding is that this issues is a feature of the physical design and construction of the lens and its inability to focus all wavelengths of light at a given spot? Adding another piece of glass (filter) to the design will have little or no effect on correcting this issue? Please don't hold me to this! Just my thoughts!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I wasn't more clear.  I wasn't suggesting that a filter could correct CA, I was suggesting it can cause it.  To potentially solve this problem, it's best to use a high quality filter -- or none at all. 

As to the hood, since the sun is in the scene, a hood would not help in this instance, but it can when it is outside of the picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
    • If you're only publishing small-sized photo's or viewing on a phone / computer screen, 12-ish MP should be more than enough for your needs. Since with JPEG, the ability to 'fix' stuff on the computer is very limited anyway, you're not giving up much except the ability to crop/recompose after taking the shot. If you tend to crop often or might print large, shoot fine quality instead as JPEGs don't take up a lot of space anyway. I tend to shoot RAW+JPEG. After a trip/shoot, I download my photos to my computer and quickly scan through my JPEGs to select my keepers. The JPEGs are fine for 90% of my needs but at times there are one or two 'WOW'-shots that I might one day print large. I'll edit the RAW of these photos to my hearts content, generate a JPEG, then delete all RAWs to clear up space.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...