Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I recently purchased a Sony A7c mainly for street photography and I have been testing a 7Artisans 35mm fixed aperture F5.6 pancake lens for its suitability. I have been finding the images unsuitably soft, then I made an interesting discovery that has left me baffled.

I set up some photographs at a harbourside, chosen as iot had a lot of mid distance and long distance detail. Although the day was bright I mounted the camera on my sturdy Manfrotto tripod for good measure. I then checked the focus on some lettering in the distance using the focus magnifier and took my first photograph. I realised the camera was still set on multiple shot at ISO 200 from the previous day. So I changed the shutter mode to single shot and the sensitivity to 100 ISO and proceded to take a series of photos of the harbour. When I returned to view the photographs, all the images shot at 100 ISO were soft despite focusing with the focus magnifier, using a shutter speed of 1/320 s or faster and a sturdy tripod. Then I noticed the burst of 4 images I sook at the start on 200 ISO were a lot sharper.

I am now really confused how can 100 ISO images be much softer than 200 ISO despite the exact same setup? and is the issue of softness down to the camera or the lens or me?

I have compared the image properties in Sony viewer, the only difference between the two images are ISO, shutter speed (obviously), and long exposure NR which is off for the 200 ISO image but on for the 100 ISO image. This also confuses me because I did not enter the menu to change this.

I have attached a close up from each of the two images, these have been opened up in Affinity Photo 2, developed without making and changes , cropped and then exported as 95% quality jpg images. No other changes have been made.

Any thoughts appreciated.

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

12 minutes ago, Zedster said:

Although the day was bright I mounted the camera on my sturdy Manfrotto tripod for good measure.

...

the only difference between the two images are ISO, shutter speed (obviously)

Did you disable image stabilization? On a tripod it should be disabled otherwise the camera will try to compensate for motion that isn't there. Could be the ISO 200 shot has such a fast shutter speed that it negates the IBIS mechanism.

Edited by Pieter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pieter thanks for your reply. That is interesting, this the first camera I have had with a steady shot feature and I did have it switched on, I hadn't realised it should be switched off. I will wait for the right day and then go and try it again, I hope you are right. It would certainly explain why the images are not sharp anywhere! I had even pre focused the manual lens to 8m (the hyperfocal distance is about 7.3m) and left a sticker on the focus ring so I could shoot at 8m and should have got everything from 4m to infinity with an acceptable amount of sharpness.

I am also curious though why the 200 ISO show "long exposure NR" to OFF and the 100 ISO show "long exposure NR" to ON but I never made any changes to this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to get that shot without a tripod. If you really want to test the lens, do as Pieter says, but also shoot handheld as fast a shutter as possible. 

Are you sure Auto ISO isn't turned on?

If everything else were equal, then the only difference would be the sensor's sensitivity due to ISO. Reviews for that lens say it's a bit shy on color and contrast, could be that what we're seeing is better contrast due to the change in ISO? 

Lastly, on the weird things like NR on and off, did you purchase the camera used? If so, did you start by doing a reset to factory defaults? That should always be the first step with a used camera, a previous owner could have programmed odd settings that are affecting your own.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zedster said:

I am also curious though why the 200 ISO show "long exposure NR" to OFF and the 100 ISO show "long exposure NR" to ON but I never made any changes to this.

No idea, but it shouldn't affect images with a shutter time shorter than 1 sec anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cameratose, I kept my original explantion simple. In reality I was doing back to back tests of the 7A vs an existing 35mm lens. I used a tripod so I could: compose; take shot with one lens; switch lens; take it with the other and have the same scene for both lenses. I can confirm the lens is shy on contrast colour and contrast and that is what prompted me to do the back to back tests. The previous day I had taken the lens out for the first time on a casual shot and I was dissapointed with the lack of impact of the raw images, they appeared flat and soft compared to what I am used to from Sony and Samyang primes. So I thought I would do a back to back. I think I will repeat the comparison using my A7 and see how the lenses compare, then try again on the A7c making sure i have image stabilistion off.

It is a strange lens, on the one hand it is quite a practical as a street lens, compact, light and F5.6 gives a hyperfocal distance of around 7m so prefocusing to 8m means in theory everything from 4m to infinity should be sharp enough. On the other hand when you do need to focus, it is very fiddly, the lens is so short that the grip gets in the way of the focus ring and the focus itself has way too much sensitivity (it came with a stick on lever for the focus ring, so this must be recognised). The difference between infinity to 8m is only around 1mm of radial turn, so when you do need to focus on something specific it is easy to end up with focus overshoot in both directions.

I bought the camera new, but have only just started using it, so still getting used to the differences from my A7. I don't find Sony manuals to ve a very easy read, so tend to rely on the internet. I missed the point about switching off stabilisation on a tripod.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually, the advice to switch of IS when using a tripod is in the lens manual. I have also noted that once your shutter gets above 1/1000 or so, IS is not only useless but can be detrimental. Some lenses also provide that advice. I think my Tamron 50-400 says to turn it off when the shutter is over 1500. 

Sony has online user manuals that are searchable and can be very helpful once you sort out how to use them, they change the format over time (thanks, Sony) so they will probably have a different layout between your two cameras.

Have you seen Viltrox has released a 28/4.5 pancake with AF? Early reviews are promising for that kind of a lens, looks to be plenty sharp in the center. It's selling for $99 US, so maybe worth a shot.  

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

    • Wow, we have two distinctly different trains of thought. I'm not sure how valuable my advice will be, just consider this something to toss around in the back of your mind. First off, I hate rangefinder style bodies, never could get on with them. The decision of whether to go with a full-size body wasn't even in play. The difference when looking at size comparison photos is considerable, the difference in practical use is minor. About the only time I can think of that it may be beneficial is street if you want to conceal yourself a bit.  Lenses: Size and weight don't bother me near as much as inconvenience. Who in the heck wants to be changing lenses all the time? I take a short zoom, a long zoom, and a medium-wide fast prime for indoors. That's it. I am hoping Sigma's 20-200 set to be released tomorrow isn't a turd, if it's decent it will replace my 24-105.  If I were to go on a trip today, my setup would be: A1 70-200/2.8 GM II 24-105 Samyang 24/1.8.  If I was feeling it, I might add the 2X TC for the GM II, but I doubt it'd even get used.  An alternative to the 70-200 + TC would be the Tamron 50-400.  BOTH of these setups fit nicely in my Tenba Solstice 10L Sling.  So, I would say yes. Trade up to the A7R V. Definitely get the 24-70, or maybe the 24-105 for more range. You don't need 2.8 for your described subject matter.  As an aside, I never, ever, ever shoot in crop mode. Why? Well, I can do the exact same thing in post on my computer. They're both just electronic crops. I end up with a lot more information that way, and who knows, if I'm going to crop anyway, maybe there's a better composition hidden in the full frame image that I didn't see when I made the shot? Much easier to remove content than to add it.  
    • Hi all, For about the last 1.5 years I've been using the Sony a7CR combined with the 24-50mm f2.8 G lens as one of the lenses that basically lives on my camera. Besides this I have the following lenses as well: Sony 16-25mm f2.8 G Sony 14mm f1.8 GM Sony 40mm f2.5 G Sigma 85mm f1.4 On my last travel I took the above mentioned lenses with me + the 24-50 G. Would have most likely taken the Sony 14mm f1.8 GM but I didn't own this yet at the time. For my next travel I do want to take this as well so then my setup would look like: Sony 24-50mm f2.8 G Sony 16-25mm f2.8 G Sony 40mm f2.5 G Sigma 85mm f1.4 Sony 14mm f1.8 GM At this point I feel like I'm kinda reaching a bit of a limit in terms of lenses I want to take with me during travel, especially the 85mm. I wish to use it more but noticed I often left it at the hotel/apartment room I was staying at. Initially I bought the a7CR for weight savings but as time has passed I do feel certain limits with the setup especially during travel/landscape (as this is my main form of photography). And that's mainly coming from the amount of lenses I'm taking. I have been considering to trade in the 24-50 G lens to the 24-70 GMII to use on my a7CR but after using my Sigma 85mm f1.4 for an extended time on my a7CR it does feel uncomfortable to use due to the front heavy nature of the setup. The 24-70 GMII would be about the same weight as the Sigma. One option would be to use the extended grip on my a7CR, this certainly makes handling a lot better of bigger lenses but I usually have my setup hanging from the Peak Design Capture Clip on my backpack and I'm not sure if the extended grip really designed to take this much weight to be fair. Maybe anyone here has experience with this? So what this leads me to was the consideration to upgrade to the a7RV + Sony 24-70 GMII as there are some good trade in deals going on right now where I'm at. I'm not sure is this setup an absolute overkill for a hobbyist photographer... :) The benefits of this upgrade would be to have less need for changing lenses during travel and reduce the amount of separate lenses I have to take with me. The overall weight would however be approx. the same that goes in my backpack. Usually when I'm out for hikes I will currently only take the 16-25 & 24-50 with me. With this setup the reach feels limiting even with cropping the 50mm to 75mm (still approx. 26MP on the a7CR after crop). What I usually use my setup for: Landscape photography Travel Portrait Astrophotography I was wondering is there anyone here who went from a lighter a7CR (or similar) setup to a slightly heavier setup to carry around during hikes etc. Did you regret it or was the tradeoff worth it? As mentioned I do feel like my current setup is somewhat limiting and realized that switching lenses during travel is an absolute pain in the ass. But I'm not sure if the extra 450gr (about 1 lb) is worth the tradeoff. I know the decision is ultimately up to me but just like to hear your thoughts on this upgrade, and if the additional features & image quality in trade for weight would be worth it as well. TL;DR: Looking to upgrade my a7CR 24-50G f2.8 setup to a7RV with 24-70GMII f2.8 lens, not sure if it's worth it with the additional weight in trade for more versatility and better IQ. Thanks in advance for your replies!
    • I got one tuned up pretty well last year. I don’t remember exactly after doing a 77ii not too far apart that was different. The a68 was faster and more accurate but color profile was more work to tune btw. profile/style set to clear and highest sharpness allowed + micro focus adjustments per lens if I remember right. And any of these fall apart fast in low light or slow lenses. 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...