JayWu0505
New member
WOW, I didn't know this lol, do you have the link to this test? I'll be very grateful to see it!
D850 Sharpness
- Thread starter JayWu0505
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
- Status
Vicintheshed
Member
I have the 600 f4g vr lens, have taken many stunning images with my D850 and Z9
Apparently you didn't read the OP which discussed comparing images from the same camera taken with 600 f4E to the 200-500. Surely you're not suggesting the higher resolving lens is producing softer images than the lower resolving lens due to the high rez sensor? But at any rate here is yet another post promoting the mythology of high rez sensors making images softer. Always seems to come from new members.
JayWu0505
New member
Another main concern of mine is that is it necessary to have advanced (at least I consider) editing software like Lightroom or Topaz Denoise to handle those RAW files.
The software that I'm using now is Darktable which I think had been pretty decent for a while, but the pictures in it just weren't sharp as I see from my camera. I used to think that's just because they're raw. And I just tried Nikon NX Studio and it seems perfect for viewing pictures, the sharpness and the details are exactly the same as it was on the camera. So I wonder if the editing software affects the final quality of the photo.
The upper one is NX Studio
The lower one is Darktable
Is it only NX Studio that can show the photo like this or other editing software can do the same thing?
btw I set everything in Picture Control to zero so I perceive that nothing is being affected when viewing raw files on the camera (or is it?)
The software that I'm using now is Darktable which I think had been pretty decent for a while, but the pictures in it just weren't sharp as I see from my camera. I used to think that's just because they're raw. And I just tried Nikon NX Studio and it seems perfect for viewing pictures, the sharpness and the details are exactly the same as it was on the camera. So I wonder if the editing software affects the final quality of the photo.
The upper one is NX Studio
The lower one is Darktable
Is it only NX Studio that can show the photo like this or other editing software can do the same thing?
btw I set everything in Picture Control to zero so I perceive that nothing is being affected when viewing raw files on the camera (or is it?)
Attachments
JayWu0505
New member
Oh...and one thing to admit, I...am a student, 14 years old, so... these are already pretty expensive pieces of equipment (my parents bought them for me), so I'm definitely not considering buying a brand-new lens or a new camera like Z9, and this is also the reason why I didn't have lightroom, it's considerably expensive.
And I have to say, the 600 f4 is second-handed, that's why I think it might have maybe some little adjustment (or not?)
And I have to say, the 600 f4 is second-handed, that's why I think it might have maybe some little adjustment (or not?)
It's not so much the editing software that affects the final image as how it is edited. The same/substantially similar results can be achieved with many different software packages. Which is why there are so many. The argument in favor of shooting RAW is that it give you more latitude in editing the images. If you are not doing any serious editing then there's really no need. Than again some day after you do start more in depth editing you may want to go back and revisit some shots. So maybe the answer for you is to set you camera up to shoot RAW+jpeg. You can enjoy the jpegs now and at some future date when you've gotten into editing more you can revisit the RAW files and edit them.
However in the short term you do in fact want to start editing RAW images, NX Studio is a full RAW image processing package and is free. You can edit the RAW images and export them in any other format that you want for posting on line, printing, etc. Many years ago that's exactly how I started out was with free Nikon software and free versions of Adobe PS Elements that came with various pieces of hardware.
You are correct that by setting all of the picture controls to zero then what you see in camera is what the RAW file will look like in an editing software that can not read all of the information in the Nikon files. But if you use NX Studio then it can read the picture control commands and will mimic the in camera processing. So if you use NX Studio feel free to experiment with the picture controls with confidence that you can reproduce the results that you're seeing in camera.
You're very fortunate to have access to the equipment that you have at your young age. Looking forward to seeing you post some more images. Nice owl BTW.
JayWu0505
New member
This is the edited version of the photo of the short ear owl - is it kinda overedited or not?
And I personally think this photo is very soft, is it normal with all the RAW files?
The noise is pretty overwhelming to me since I think this is already a close enough photo (I rarely had the chance to be close to birds)
drive.google.com
And I personally think this photo is very soft, is it normal with all the RAW files?
The noise is pretty overwhelming to me since I think this is already a close enough photo (I rarely had the chance to be close to birds)
850_1462.jpg
drive.google.com
BlackRockArt
Well-known member
I downloaded your edited JPG photo, when viewed on my 40inch monitor, the owl is of acceptable sharpness.
IMHO, it's the depth of field, I would like to see more details in the wings, the F/4 is too shallow.
Oliver
IMHO, it's the depth of field, I would like to see more details in the wings, the F/4 is too shallow.
Oliver
So, I am no photo editing expert. I will show you what a little photo editing can do…perhaps you are better than this.
Here is a quick screenshot of the 5098 file taken from what my Chrome browser displays when I click on your link (I didn't enlarge a small screen shot, I zoomed in using the browser control and then screen-capped…if I was being more scientific I would have screen-shotted or exported the opened NEF while in Camera Raw. But you get the idea:
Below is my hack job of processing it, blown highlights and all, through ye olde copy of CC 2017 Photoshop/Camera Raw. I am in a bit of a hurry. No fancy denoise app happening here! Edit: I did also add some vignetting, which helps keep the eye on the subject. Don't overdo this. I probably would dial it back even more as in my view you want vignetting be be rather unnoticeable.
The cropped NEF, as I have it, is 2819px wide. 1200px wide is this forum's recommended max width. At this size, the photo becomes much less sharp-looking, as at 1200 px wide the eye detail gets a bit smushed out of the file.
Here is a 200% screenshot of the original 2819px wide NEF/PSD file of just the head. I selectively over-sharpened the eye and beak so it looked sharper once I smushed it down to 1200px. (Turn phone sideways to allow the pic to expand fully)
Here is a 100% screenshot of just the head from the 2819px wide file:
Anyway, what I am getting at is you have to think about your display size, be it online/digital or in print and sharpen accordingly. In the print world it was (maybe still is?) de rigueur to oversharpen the file on the computer screen so it would look good when offset printed (like in a magazine). But different printers react differently to sharpening, so experimentation is key.
I do think you missed focus a little or something is wrong/decentered with the lens, and it doesn't help that the bird is small in the frame. Also, in the uncropped pic, what is going on with the shadow on the right?
Here is a quick screenshot of the 5098 file taken from what my Chrome browser displays when I click on your link (I didn't enlarge a small screen shot, I zoomed in using the browser control and then screen-capped…if I was being more scientific I would have screen-shotted or exported the opened NEF while in Camera Raw. But you get the idea:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Below is my hack job of processing it, blown highlights and all, through ye olde copy of CC 2017 Photoshop/Camera Raw. I am in a bit of a hurry. No fancy denoise app happening here! Edit: I did also add some vignetting, which helps keep the eye on the subject. Don't overdo this. I probably would dial it back even more as in my view you want vignetting be be rather unnoticeable.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
The cropped NEF, as I have it, is 2819px wide. 1200px wide is this forum's recommended max width. At this size, the photo becomes much less sharp-looking, as at 1200 px wide the eye detail gets a bit smushed out of the file.
Here is a 200% screenshot of the original 2819px wide NEF/PSD file of just the head. I selectively over-sharpened the eye and beak so it looked sharper once I smushed it down to 1200px. (Turn phone sideways to allow the pic to expand fully)
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Here is a 100% screenshot of just the head from the 2819px wide file:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Anyway, what I am getting at is you have to think about your display size, be it online/digital or in print and sharpen accordingly. In the print world it was (maybe still is?) de rigueur to oversharpen the file on the computer screen so it would look good when offset printed (like in a magazine). But different printers react differently to sharpening, so experimentation is key.
I do think you missed focus a little or something is wrong/decentered with the lens, and it doesn't help that the bird is small in the frame. Also, in the uncropped pic, what is going on with the shadow on the right?
Last edited:
I should say that a proper sharpening of the file, if this was my image, would be to mask out the background (and feather the selection) so the background wouldn't get so distracting. Also, as of last Sunday my retina tore in two places and also detached. It has been repaired via laser and needles, but to put it very mildly, my eyes ain't working the best. I mention this because I am quite sure this processing leaves much to be desired. Also, been into this BIF hobby for a bit over a week.
Anyway, there you go.
Anyway, there you go.
Last edited:
Teunis
New member
I am pretty sure that your problem has to do with the processing software as demonstrated by Carbon. I can strongly recommend DXO Photolab 5 or 6 as an alternative for Lightroom. It's denoising tool "Deep Prime" gives excellent results, especially in cases where you have to crop a lot or you have to use high ISO.
missterephotos
New member
For Nikon shooters there's no better software than Capture One.
Just curious if you’re writing from personal experience using these lenses on 45mp cameras, or just basing your opinion on numbers? Also, I’d have to ask what are the alternatives if not super telephoto Nikon primes? There are many professional wildlife photographers who seem pleased with their 600 f4 lenses on 45mp bodies, but what the heck do I know, I’m just an amateur.
Personal experience. I'm currently selling my 85mm f/1.2 S Z/NIKKOR because it can't fully resolve the sensor until about f/4. Isn't remotely sharp until f/2. Virtually identical rendering to the Sigma 105mm 1.4 which is insanely sharp at f/1.4.
The curse of the 45mp sensor.
I might start a thread on this to make the point clear as a bell, but I could see that being a complete and utter waste of my time.
If something in the photo is soft, it's not the lens. As referenced above in my post, with birds I'd judge sharpness based on small feather detail around the eye. For using a 600mm lens, the subject is still not large in the frame and needs cropping. That's normal - but needs to be considered when you view the photo. Everything is magnified when you crop - including noise.This is the edited version of the photo of the short ear owl - is it kinda overedited or not?
And I personally think this photo is very soft, is it normal with all the RAW files?
The noise is pretty overwhelming to me since I think this is already a close enough photo (I rarely had the chance to be close to birds)
850_1462.jpg
Your ISO is not particularly high in that image, so any issues with noise are from your post processing. It's easy to use settings for the entire image that increase apparent noise. The more you globally sharpen an image, the more apparent the noise.
How are you judging your image? If you take a D850 - a high resolution camera - and magnify at 100% - you are looking at the equivalent of a 7 foot wide print from 18 inches. A 100% or 200% view can be used for evaluating an image, technique, or editing, but needs the understanding as to how that relates to a final image. For even a large print, a 50% view is much closer to what you might see even looking closely.
RAW files need to be sharpened. There are books on sharpening that talk about capture sharpening being used to render a RAW file. Creative sharpening is the next step where you sharpen portions of the image for creative intent - such as feather detail and eyes of your owl. Then the entire image is sharpened for the output intended, and a large print has very different sharpening needs than a downsized image for display on social media.
Forget the idea that the problem is your lens and camera. It's probably not. Steve has a good video on getting sharper images.
8 Secrets For Sharper Wildlife Photos - Backcountry Gallery
Do you want sharper wildlife photos? Are you tired of deleting otherwise amazing shots because of sharpness issues? Then take a look at this quick ten minute video where I’ll share eight different field-tested (and time-tested) methods for consistently securing tack-sharp wildlife images! As...
backcountrygallery.com
He also talks about 10 Reasons Why My Image Looks Soft in his paid video on the Nikon AF System. Equipment or gear problems are among the least common reasons. Most of the reasons are related to the photographer - not the gear.
You have a lot of money invested in your gear. Spend the additional money on the AF System video so you can get more out of your gear and have a better idea of how to make your images sharper.
ARClark
Well-known member
Your point is well-taken regarding challenges faced by lenses on 45mp cameras, especially those with older designs like the 600G. However, I don't agree with your conclusion that the Nikon 600E, or the 400E and 500E for that matter, are not capable of excellent sharpness and outstanding images, even when used with 45mp cameras. Yes, all things being equal, a quality lens with a 4,000 imatest result would be sharper than one at 3,500. But 3,500 is still a high performance level and significantly better than that of a Nikon 200-500.
I do wish you had chosen to provide links to your sources, as the narrative by the testers that goes along with the numbers is important. I'm assuming you're basing your numbers and statements on Photography Life reviews. Below is an excerpt from their review of the 600mm f/4E in which they state how impressed they are with the sharpness of the lens despite being tested on Nikon 45mp D850. https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-600mm-f4e-fl-ed-vr/2
********************
"Lens Sharpness and Contrast
If you have previously used a high-end 600mm f/4 lens, you already know what to expect – these lenses are designed to be remarkably sharp. But how much better can new optical designs be compared to their predecessors? As it turns out, quite a bit better. Since many of the older lenses were either designed for film cameras or did not take into account digital camera resolution, they tend to have more optical aberrations and quality control issues that can impact lens sharpness on a modern high-resolution camera. In comparison, modern lens designs are optimized for high-resolution sensors in order to deliver much higher levels of sharpness, and they go through much tighter quality control. As a result, sharpness differences in images are fairly obvious.Let’s take a look at how the Nikon 600mm f/4E FL ED VR performed in our lab. Here is an MTF chart that shows the lens performance at different apertures, as measured by Imatest:
While a detailed comparison to other lenses, including the 600mm f/4G ED VR, is provided on the next page of the review, one can immediately notice how sharp the 600mm f/4E FL ED VR is, even wide open. I was surprised to see how sharp the lens is when shooting on the 45 MP Nikon D850, which is quite a demanding camera for any lens."
********************
I thought it would be interesting to note that ephotozine's imatest on the Nikon 600mm Z reveals a 4000+ score, demonstrating the benefits of the most recent design.
For those seeking the highest performing 600mm lens in the Nikon line, the 600mm f/4Z would be it. But IMO, for those seeking an excellent 600mm lens at substantially less cost, like the OP, they couldn't go wrong with a 600mm f/4E.
missterephotos
New member
Your point is well-taken regarding challenges faced by lenses on 45mp cameras, especially those with older designs like the 600G. However, I don't agree with your conclusion that the Nikon 600E, or the 400E and 500E for that matter, are not capable of excellent sharpness and outstanding images, even when used with 45mp cameras. Yes, all things being equal, a quality lens with a 4,000 imatest result would be sharper than one at 3,500. But 3,500 is still a high performance level and significantly better than that of a Nikon 200-500.
I do wish you had chosen to provide links to your sources, as the narrative by the testers that goes along with the numbers is important. I'm assuming you're basing your numbers and statements on Photography Life reviews. Below is an excerpt from their review of the 600mm f/4E in which they state how impressed they are with the sharpness of the lens despite being tested on Nikon 45mp D850. https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-600mm-f4e-fl-ed-vr/2
********************
"Lens Sharpness and Contrast
If you have previously used a high-end 600mm f/4 lens, you already know what to expect – these lenses are designed to be remarkably sharp. But how much better can new optical designs be compared to their predecessors? As it turns out, quite a bit better. Since many of the older lenses were either designed for film cameras or did not take into account digital camera resolution, they tend to have more optical aberrations and quality control issues that can impact lens sharpness on a modern high-resolution camera. In comparison, modern lens designs are optimized for high-resolution sensors in order to deliver much higher levels of sharpness, and they go through much tighter quality control. As a result, sharpness differences in images are fairly obvious.
Let’s take a look at how the Nikon 600mm f/4E FL ED VR performed in our lab. Here is an MTF chart that shows the lens performance at different apertures, as measured by Imatest:
While a detailed comparison to other lenses, including the 600mm f/4G ED VR, is provided on the next page of the review, one can immediately notice how sharp the 600mm f/4E FL ED VR is, even wide open. I was surprised to see how sharp the lens is when shooting on the 45 MP Nikon D850, which is quite a demanding camera for any lens."
********************
I thought it would be interesting to note that ephotozine's imatest on the Nikon 600mm Z reveals a 4000+ score, demonstrating the benefits of the most recent design.
For those seeking the highest performing 600mm lens in the Nikon line, the 600mm f/4Z would be it. But IMO, for those seeking an excellent 600mm lens at substantially less cost, like the OP, they couldn't go wrong with a 600mm f/4E.
Quoting PhotographyLife is useless, since they NEVER reveal what cameras they use in conjunction with their tests and their results are based on a camera+lens combination
and not just the lens.
They are, in fact, the most useless tester on the internet.
If you guys keep this up I'm going to start a thread on sharpness, and make all your top end glass worth 1/2 of what it is right now. Don't tempt me further.
ARClark
Well-known member
Please enlighten us. The OP and others have already requested links to your sources. It would be helpful to the OP, me and others if you would do so. By the way, the quote I included above from the Photography Life review clearly states that a D850 was used for the testing. In addition, the article offers the same Imatest results you quote for the 600G (3,100) and 600E (3,500), which is why I assumed you were using them as a source. In addition, the gist of review's narrative reflects your remarks about 45mp sensors being tough on older lenses. If anything, I would think you'd embrace it. Nonetheless, I'm certainly open to a polite exchange of information relative the topic of this thread.
Last edited:
Abinoone
Well-known member
For someone new to this forum, you’re pretty assertive. Nothing wrong with having opinions, it’s just all in the delivery. Threats never win much support.
Abinoone
Well-known member
Yes, probably a waste of your time, and ours.
I'd enjoy the entertainment value. Unfortunately there are always a misguided few who mistake confidence for competence and will be confused by it. So maybe better if you just let us continue to live in blissful ignorance.
JayWu0505
New member
Ummm...ok, despite the fact that this 600mm f4 "might maybe" not be extremely sharp, people had been using this lens (with D850) and getting amazing results. So I think the discussion should be around techniques, shooting conditions, or even post-processing.
Ok, I just went out this morning shooting in both jpg(still set to zero in picture control) and raw. Can anyone tell me the major difference between these two images, or it's not a good enough example? Or maybe the final result of the two images after editing.
JPG - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h1U39iJ4f_iGTfr_ep4kgoaTQjUeiMx3/view
NEF - https://drive.google.com/file/d/143duim7f3ua-solSBQIuxdKCebrCcjOX/view
Ok, I just went out this morning shooting in both jpg(still set to zero in picture control) and raw. Can anyone tell me the major difference between these two images, or it's not a good enough example? Or maybe the final result of the two images after editing.
JPG - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h1U39iJ4f_iGTfr_ep4kgoaTQjUeiMx3/view
NEF - https://drive.google.com/file/d/143duim7f3ua-solSBQIuxdKCebrCcjOX/view
I agree. Let's honor the OP's request to get back on topic.
Thanks!
Thanks!
The problem with shooting and trying to compare raw and jpeg images is that raw files are generally post processed before they are considered ready for viewing. Historically, Nikon's raw files were seen by many as less sharp and less contrasty, and this was often appreciated by folks who like to do post processing work as they can get an image to look as they wanted without having to "undo" settings. And, I am going to guess that the raw file you posted may actually be the embedded jpeg file. So this may not be a useful comparison.
--Ken
Optical physics clarify image resolution (many of us are interested in this) goes up with every lens at every aperture when used on a higher resolving sensor - and that image resolution goes up with every sensor when used with a higher resolving lens.
Having done photography for 60 years I have found the physics to be true - every time film and then sensor resolution has increased, or each time I have been able to afford a higher resolving lens
There is in real world photography no such thing as the "curse of the 45 MP sensor" - in regard to resolution.
When it comes to testing methodology Canon seem to have fallen in line with Leica and Zeiss in producing manufacturers MTF which account for diffraction.
Reading and Understanding Lens MTF Charts | Canon U.S.A., Inc.
Reading and understanding lens MTF charts. Dive into the world of photography and explore Canon's collection of educational articles to inspire your creativity.
www.usa.canon.com
As yet Nikon and Sony appear not to consider diffraction in there wide open manufacturers MTF charts.
Nikon seeming not to take diffraction into account with their MTF for the 500 f5.6 or the 800 f6.3 - may not be the end of the world.
These lenses would still score around 0.95 in a manufacturers MTF - taking diffraction into account.
Canon rated above 0.80 as excellent in LENS WORK III.
One advantage of Lens manufacturers MTF when using 10 and 30 lines/mm is these are widely accepted as corresponding to the overall human perception of image sharpness.
MTF 50 is a more precise measure at range of apertures with the limitation (perhaps starting World War III) that MTF 50 seems not widely accepted as corresponding well with the human perception of image sharpness
A limitation of either test methodology is the "never encountered in real world photography" 1000-1 contrast target used might not account for different results with lower contrast real world subjects.
They certainly do not in Fuji 1.6:1 film MTF data.
In the UK daylight with 10 stops dynamic range is rare.
Test charts provide useful information.
I find real world ownership and usage more relevant.
This is a basic fact that is conveniently overlooked by the online pundits and other experts who grace us with their home test results. They ignore basic principles of testing such as using standardized input/output for valid comparisons. They proceed to compare full resolution images from sensors of different resolutions, add a dose of confirmation bias, and voila, myths are born. And unfortunately in a modern society who look at internet personalities as sources of unfailing information the result is untold numbers of people who become educated well beyond their intelligence.
Say it ain't so
missterephotos
New member
Optical physics clarify image resolution (many of us are interested in this) goes up with every lens at every aperture when used on a higher resolving sensor - and that image resolution goes up with every sensor when used with a higher resolving lens.
Having done photography for 60 years I have found the physics to be true - every time film and then sensor resolution has increased, or each time I have been able to afford a higher resolving lens
There is in real world photography no such thing as the "curse of the 45 MP sensor" - in regard to resolution.
When it comes to testing methodology Canon seem to have fallen in line with Leica and Zeiss in producing manufacturers MTF which account for diffraction.
Reading and Understanding Lens MTF Charts | Canon U.S.A., Inc.
Reading and understanding lens MTF charts. Dive into the world of photography and explore Canon's collection of educational articles to inspire your creativity.
As yet Nikon and Sony appear not to consider diffraction in there wide open manufacturers MTF charts.
Nikon seeming not to take diffraction into account with their MTF for the 500 f5.6 or the 800 f6.3 - may not be the end of the world.
These lenses would still score around 0.95 in a manufacturers MTF - taking diffraction into account.
Canon rated above 0.80 as excellent in LENS WORK III.
One advantage of Lens manufacturers MTF when using 10 and 30 lines/mm is these are widely accepted as corresponding to the overall human perception of image sharpness.
MTF 50 is a more precise measure at range of apertures with the limitation (perhaps starting World War III) that MTF 50 seems not widely accepted as corresponding well with the human perception of image sharpness
A limitation of either test methodology is the "never encountered in real world photography" 1000-1 contrast target used might not account for different results with lower contrast real world subjects.
They certainly do not in Fuji 1.6:1 film MTF data.
In the UK daylight with 10 stops dynamic range is rare.
Test charts provide useful information.
I find real world ownership and usage more relevant.
You asked for it, and now you shall receive.
- Status