Still trying to get repeatable, sharp images!

The sun has finally come out so I could get the ISO down below 1000 so had another go at this annoying issue! Camera on a tripod, steady shoot OFF, f5.6, 1/400 ISO (AUTO) between 200 - 1000, shooting RAW, small amount of processing. Still not convinced about the sharpness but an improvement from the ones taken on the dark days! [epzimg]3334208[/epzimg] [epzimg]3334207[/epzimg] [epzimg]3334206[/epzimg] [epzimg]3334205[/epzimg] [epzimg]3334204[/epzimg] [epzimg]3334203[/epzimg]

The sun has finally come out so I could get the ISO down below 1000 so had another go at this annoying issue!
Camera on a tripod, steady shoot OFF, f5.6, 1/400 ISO (AUTO) between 200 - 1000, shooting RAW, small amount of processing.
Still not convinced about the sharpness but an improvement from the ones taken on the dark days!

Hi. Print from the internet or buy a Lens Resolution Chart and test your lenses. If lenses seem to work as they should check your eyesight.

Hi. Print from the internet or buy a Lens Resolution Chart and test your lenses. If lenses seem to work as they should check your eyesight.

🤣🤣🤣 why, do they look good to you? Must admit they are not too bad but I'm sure the lens is good, just the AF a bit suspect!

🤣🤣🤣 why, do they look good to you? Must admit they are not too bad but I'm sure the lens is good, just the AF a bit suspect!

The first and last look better than the rest, this may be cos they are all fairly small jpegs, and depends on the possible crop. The left of the cage looks sharper than the bird on the last image, hard to say on the first so DOF could be an issue, higher ISO's will affect overall sharpness as will technique. Are you using spot focus or multi point ? The lens could be front or back focussing which can be checked with a cheap unit purchased from the web or a newspaper and a ruler. Subject movement can't be ruled out either. You may not be to far from me,so would be happy to meet and see if we can resolve the issues your having if you wished. HTH

The first and last look better than the rest, this may be cos they are all fairly small jpegs, and depends on the possible crop.

The left of the cage looks sharper than the bird on the last image, hard to say on the first so DOF could be an issue, higher ISO's will affect overall sharpness as will technique.

Are you using spot focus or multi point ?

The lens could be front or back focussing which can be checked with a cheap unit purchased from the web or a newspaper and a ruler.

Subject movement can't be ruled out either.

You may not be to far from me,so would be happy to meet and see if we can resolve the issues your having if you wished.

HTH

Many thanks Chrism8, the most helpful reply I've had to date on this (there is a previous thread on a similar subject). I shoot RAW and then post capture process in (i)photos. I am using spot focus however on this camera "spot" is actually a square covering quite a few pixels I suspect, unlike the Fuji I came from. I am in Culmstock, Devon? Would be pleased to meet up somewhere for a hands on session, most kind. The Starling, ISO200 (the sun was actually on it), F5.6 1/400 The last (Sparrow) same apart from ISO400.

Many thanks Chrism8, the most helpful reply I've had to date on this (there is a previous thread on a similar subject).

I shoot RAW and then post capture process in (i)photos.
I am using spot focus however on this camera "spot" is actually a square covering quite a few pixels I suspect, unlike the Fuji I came from.
I am in Culmstock, Devon? Would be pleased to meet up somewhere for a hands on session, most kind.

The Starling, ISO200 (the sun was actually on it), F5.6 1/400
The last (Sparrow) same apart from ISO400.

What lens is this and are these taken at full zoom? If so, trying pulling back a bit and close it down to f8.

What lens is this and are these taken at full zoom?

If so, trying pulling back a bit and close it down to f8.

Sorry, I didn't mention what camera again, assumed people had read my previous posts! Sony RX10 Mk4 so not interchanges ble lens. Comes with a 24-600mm zoom and after initial problems now only go out to 400-500mm.

Sorry, I didn't mention what camera again, assumed people had read my previous posts! Sony RX10 Mk4 so not interchanges
ble lens. Comes with a 24-600mm zoom and after initial problems now only go out to 400-500mm.

Chrism8 - "The lens could be front or back focussing which can be checked with a cheap unit purchased from the web or a newspaper and a ruler." I'll do this Chris but I can't find anywhere in the manual where one can fine tune this as I could with my Canon 7D.

Chrism8 - "The lens could be front or back focussing which can be checked with a cheap unit purchased from the web or a newspaper and a ruler."
I'll do this Chris but I can't find anywhere in the manual where one can fine tune this as I could with my Canon 7D.

I wonder if somehow you are processing jpegs instead of raw, especially if you are shooting RAW +JPEG - They look as if there's loads of noise reduction, creating a mush, plus some heavy sharpening that's just exaggerating noise in the out of focus areas. I was thinking about you when the sun started coming out again!

I wonder if somehow you are processing jpegs instead of raw, especially if you are shooting RAW +JPEG - They look as if there's loads of noise reduction, creating a mush, plus some heavy sharpening that's just exaggerating noise in the out of focus areas.

I was thinking about you when the sun started coming out again!

Thanks Chris_L. I used to shoot only JPEG but now with this camera I have gone over to RAW only to try to sort out this (perceived?) problem. I'm processing in my Mac Photos. Can't upload RAW here or to my portfolio.............. Just made a focus test chart which I'll have a go at when it stops raining as I need to be outside and the target around 25mtrs from the camera!! [epzimg]11645_1580231772.jpg[/epzimg]

Thanks Chris_L. I used to shoot only JPEG but now with this camera I have gone over to RAW only to try to sort out this (perceived?) problem. I'm processing in my Mac Photos.
Can't upload RAW here or to my portfolio..............

Just made a focus test chart which I'll have a go at when it stops raining as I need to be outside and the target around 25mtrs from the camera!!

I realise you can't upload raw to your PF but if you forgot a simple step such as choosing from the menu in the Photos app on the Mac "Use RAW as Original" or right-clicking on the photo and choosing "Use RAW as Original" then it won't. Your edits will apply to your jpeg. Switch the camera so it shoots ONLY raw, NOT Raw plus JPEG to be certain. I'm sure those files you have uploaded have been damaged in processing. What quality do you export them at from the Photos app? What noise reduction level do you use, what sharpness settings? Sorry for badgering you about this but I don't think it's the camera, or your technique, I think it's the way the Mac is processing them.

I realise you can't upload raw to your PF but if you forgot a simple step such as choosing from the menu in the Photos app on the Mac "Use RAW as Original" or right-clicking on the photo and choosing "Use RAW as Original" then it won't. Your edits will apply to your jpeg. Switch the camera so it shoots ONLY raw, NOT Raw plus JPEG to be certain.

I'm sure those files you have uploaded have been damaged in processing. What quality do you export them at from the Photos app? What noise reduction level do you use, what sharpness settings? Sorry for badgering you about this but I don't think it's the camera, or your technique, I think it's the way the Mac is processing them.

Again, thanks Chris_L. As I said in my previous post I am only shooting RAW and uploading them to my computer so the ""Use RAW as original" option in Photos does not apply. I export from Photos as JPEG, maximum quality, full size. The only other option is "Export unmodified original" which of course is a RAW image. The original RAW image is 20.6Mb but the JPEG when exported (after some processing, sharpening etc.) is only showing as 2,116,544 bytes (2.1 MB on disk) - pretty small! If I export the original RAW image from Photos as a JPEG without any processing it comes out as 7,536,942 bytes (7.5 MB on disk). I have no idea what parameters Photos uses when converting the RAW to JPEG but obviously some quite severe compression and that added to any processing I've done will obviously affect the quality. This is the 7.5MB JPEG - I've done no processing........... [epzimg]3334696[/epzimg]

Again, thanks Chris_L.
As I said in my previous post I am only shooting RAW and uploading them to my computer so the ""Use RAW as original" option in Photos does not apply.
I export from Photos as JPEG, maximum quality, full size. The only other option is "Export unmodified original" which of course is a RAW image.
The original RAW image is 20.6Mb but the JPEG when exported (after some processing, sharpening etc.) is only showing as 2,116,544 bytes (2.1 MB on disk) - pretty small!
If I export the original RAW image from Photos as a JPEG without any processing it comes out as 7,536,942 bytes (7.5 MB on disk).
I have no idea what parameters Photos uses when converting the RAW to JPEG but obviously some quite severe compression and that added to any processing I've done will obviously affect the quality.

This is the 7.5MB JPEG - I've done no processing...........

This is what I am driving at. If you have a raw image how can you export it as a jpeg without Photos compressing it? Photos can't just change the file extension. It also has to process it one way or another. [quote]If I export the original RAW image from Photos as a JPEG without any processing it comes out as 7,536,942 bytes (7.5 MB on disk). I have no idea what parameters Photos uses when converting the RAW to JPEG but obviously some quite severe compression and that added to any processing I've done will obviously affect the quality.[/quote] You can't turn a negative into a print without processing it. However if your camera was shooting negatives and prints together and only the prints were making their way to the computer then all you say would make sense. Just double check your shooting settings. You did used to have it set for shoot raw plus jpeg and I think you still might.

This is what I am driving at. If you have a raw image how can you export it as a jpeg without Photos compressing it? Photos can't just change the file extension. It also has to process it one way or another.


Quote:If I export the original RAW image from Photos as a JPEG without any processing it comes out as 7,536,942 bytes (7.5 MB on disk).
I have no idea what parameters Photos uses when converting the RAW to JPEG but obviously some quite severe compression and that added to any processing I've done will obviously affect the quality.


You can't turn a negative into a print without processing it. However if your camera was shooting negatives and prints together and only the prints were making their way to the computer then all you say would make sense. Just double check your shooting settings. You did used to have it set for shoot raw plus jpeg and I think you still might.

[quote] Just double check your shooting settings. You did used to have it set for shoot raw plus jpeg and I think you still might. [/quote] [epzimg]3334745[/epzimg] Target shot at 600mm [epzimg]3334748[/epzimg] Target shot at 500mm [epzimg]3334747[/epzimg] Second at 600mm [epzimg]3334746[/epzimg] All look just about the same to me. I have to say that I have used the Photos/laptop for a long time for my photo editing and have always he'd very good results from my Canon 7D2 [epzimg]3334750[/epzimg] Fuji XT-2 [epzimg]3334749[/epzimg] There is just no comparison between these photos and the ones I am getting from the Sony!

Quote:
Just double check your shooting settings. You did used to have it set for shoot raw plus jpeg and I think you still might.






Target shot at 600mm




Target shot at 500mm




Second at 600mm




All look just about the same to me.
I have to say that I have used the Photos/laptop for a long time for my photo editing and have always he'd very good results from my Canon 7D2




Fuji XT-2




There is just no comparison between these photos and the ones I am getting from the Sony!

Am happy to see the camera settings, it has put my mind at rest. Your other cameras are starting off with better glass and bigger sensors. You and I are aware of the quality available from the RX10-IV, why are other people's images better? These are the possibilities: 1) [b]The photographer's technique[/b] Shooting your 600mm equiv lens at 600mm and shooting at 1/400s is not fast enough even with a subject that is still but breathing. The lens is at the worst focal length for image quality. Some reviews warn you to stay away from 600. Some people say to always use electronic shutter, some say turn off the touch screen as it's easy to refocus inadvertently with your nose. Trial and error. 2) [b]The in-camera settings[/b] You have them perfect now? Are you using highest quality uncompressed raw? I know there's some raw format options on some Sony cameras where the colour depth is lower but file size is smaller. 3) [b]The image processing[/b] You need to get your processing to the next level. If you do not know how much sharpness or noise reduction is getting applied to raw files when they are output as jpegs then you are not in control. It's as if you are sending your film off for mass printing by machines at BonusPrint while comparing pictures from the same camera taken by users who run sophisticated dark rooms. I know you are 80 but it's not as if you're a hundred :P, you can learn to do more with raw, just stop watching Countdown on an afternoon ;) and watch processing raw on Mac on YouTube - there are some advanced techniques to get the best from those files. The Apple Photos app is more BonusPrint than Darkroom tbh.

Am happy to see the camera settings, it has put my mind at rest.

Your other cameras are starting off with better glass and bigger sensors.

You and I are aware of the quality available from the RX10-IV, why are other people's images better?

These are the possibilities:

1) The photographer's technique
Shooting your 600mm equiv lens at 600mm and shooting at 1/400s is not fast enough even with a subject that is still but breathing. The lens is at the worst focal length for image quality. Some reviews warn you to stay away from 600. Some people say to always use electronic shutter, some say turn off the touch screen as it's easy to refocus inadvertently with your nose. Trial and error.

2) The in-camera settings
You have them perfect now? Are you using highest quality uncompressed raw? I know there's some raw format options on some Sony cameras where the colour depth is lower but file size is smaller.

3) The image processing
You need to get your processing to the next level. If you do not know how much sharpness or noise reduction is getting applied to raw files when they are output as jpegs then you are not in control.

It's as if you are sending your film off for mass printing by machines at BonusPrint while comparing pictures from the same camera taken by users who run sophisticated dark rooms.

I know you are 80 but it's not as if you're a hundred , you can learn to do more with raw, just stop watching Countdown on an afternoon and watch processing raw on Mac on YouTube - there are some advanced techniques to get the best from those files. The Apple Photos app is more BonusPrint than Darkroom tbh.