Nikon D750 & D780

Nothing wrong with the sharpness from what I can tell (if that's what you're asking?).

Although you're comparing apples with oranges here. According to your flickr, those were all taken with the 24-85?

The shot David posted above was taken with a Siggy 50m 1.4 ART lens, which is unbelievably sharp. You'd struggle to match the sharpness of that lens with the 24-85... Your 70-200mm on the other hand...

What is it you're actually trying to achieve?
 
Chuckoir said:
Nothing wrong with the sharpness from what I can tell (if that's what you're asking?).

Although you're comparing apples with oranges here. According to your flickr, those were all taken with the 24-85?

The shot David posted above was taken with a Siggy 50m 1.4 ART lens, which is unbelievably sharp. You'd struggle to match the sharpness of that lens with the 24-85... Your 70-200mm on the other hand...

What is it you're actually trying to achieve?
Click to expand...

Bingo
 
rookies said:
To both you guys up above could you kindly share sooc image of those as I really need see how they are as they sharpness on those beats mine sooc
Click to expand...

I shoot with a very flat and boring profile with sharpness set to 0 in camera and then use unsharp mask in CNX2 or LR and don't need to do too much rather moderate settings as after fine tunes lenses are sharp to start with. Remember LR adds 25 as the Iintensity by default or as you configure irrespective of what you set in Camera. In CNX2 I use I - 35-45, R - 5 and T - 0.

The lenses you have are one of the sharpest on a D750 and if you are not getting sharp images, you need to fine tune them or you have a technique issue. A7RII is not going to solve that unless you are lucky to have perfect tuned lenses to begin with.

I can't tell you which camera will work for you, but with A7RII and good lenses like what you have now it won't be any lighter. An A7RII with the new 24-70 G master and 702002.8 G Master will weigh more than what you have. If you want light, go with prime irrespective of the system you choose.

I think a lot of people don't give enough time with what they have rather keep looking for a solution that doesn't solve on its own in buying something else. And after doing it few times, one may stick with a system not because the problem is solved, rather they realise they spend too much already achieving nothing.

You really need to decide what you want to shoot and if it is worth carrying the bulk of a 70-200 2.8 lens on any system. They are heavy, but what they produce is gold. I started with a Nikon 70-200 F4 fearing that the 2.8 will be heavy and ai won't like lugging it around and Internet supported my thought.

And then why I tried the Tamron my friend bought, I realised that a 2.8 produces something the F4 cannot. And believe me I have the 2.8 at least 5 times more than the F4 version and I don't mind taking it with me.

The D750 with a 24-85 VR is quite lightweight, So I don't see why weight could be an issue. A 35 F1.8 on a D750 is lighter and produces much better images.

I am sure Sony system will be excellent as these days it is difficult to buy a bad full frame system, but I won't discount the D750 for weight issue or sharpness issue as the problem lies elsewhere.

My 2 pence [emoji1]
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
There's no point at all in having sharp photographs if they're crap in every other respect. Normal people don't give a toss how sharp your pictures are. Forget about chasing sharpness and concentrate on making interesting pictures.
Click to expand...

So my picture not interesting so I need work on that then [emoji19]
 
rookies said:
Anything wrong with these guys??

DSC_0923-Edit.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr

DSC_0937.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr

DSC_0963.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr

DSC_1057.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr

DSC_1032.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr

DSC_0957.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with the sharpness per se, however the reason that they might not be as sharp as you want is that the focus seems off/in the wrong place on a couple. Take the shot of your daughter for example, critical sharpness does not appear to be on the eye(s) when looking at the large image on flickr. They're not soft by any stretch of the imagination, and perfectly good enough for most people. However, if you're looking for absolute sharpness then the critical point of sharpness needs to be on the eyes/nearest eye to you. This may also be the reason that the dog pic might not be as sharp as you want (although again it's perfectly good enough), the critical sharpness appears to be on the left eye as we look at it which is the eye furthest from the camera (just). If you'd have focussed on the left eye as we look at it it may have give you better perceived focus. These are very nit picking as overall sharpness looks fine, but you do seem to be nit picking on sharpness so I thought I'd mention it ;) :p
 
Ed Sutton said:
There's no point at all in having sharp photographs if they're crap in every other respect. Normal people don't give a toss how sharp your pictures are. Forget about chasing sharpness and concentrate on making interesting pictures.
Click to expand...

rookies said:
So my picture not interesting so I need work on that then [emoji19]
Click to expand...

What Ed said really Rookies. I've been where you are, fixated on getting the absolute sharpest shot I can get and forgetting the rest of it. Composition, lighting, subject, 'capturing a moment' are all far more important than absolute sharpness. Some fo the best photos I've seen have not been critically sharp or the focus has been missed slightly. Don't fall into the trap I did, focus on your subject and what you want the image to say rather than getting focus mm perfect.
 
snerkler said:
Nothing wrong with the sharpness per se, however the reason that they might not be as sharp as you want is that the focus seems off/in the wrong place on a couple. Take the shot of your daughter for example, critical sharpness does not appear to be on the eye(s) when looking at the large image on flickr. They're not soft by any stretch of the imagination, and perfectly good enough for most people. However, if you're looking for absolute sharpness then the critical point of sharpness needs to be on the eyes/nearest eye to you. This may also be the reason that the dog pic might not be as sharp as you want (although again it's perfectly good enough), the critical sharpness appears to be on the left eye as we look at it which is the eye furthest from the camera (just). If you'd have focussed on the left eye as we look at it it may have give you better perceived focus. These are very nit picking as overall sharpness looks fine, but you do seem to be nit picking on sharpness so I thought I'd mention it ;) :p
Click to expand...

Ok of my daughter looking at the image the right hand side of the image so right eye that when i focus on.... isn't that the correct eye..
 
Absolute Sharpness is usually only looked at when lenses are being reviewed or by the photographer themselves. It's a sad fact that nearly all of us pixel peep at some point and the people who you show your pics too have no idea what you are on about.

An image does not have to be sharp to be decent and a sharp image is not always decent.

Some of the best pics I have seen on here probably are probably not pin sharp, but they just stand out. Looking back at some of my favourite images I have taken, they are far from sharp.

I'm slowly but surely looking at the 'bigger picture' which I think you should be doing. I have tossed aside any ideas of changing cameras or lenses (shock/horror/really?) and working with what i have to get the best shots I can.
 
On the left eye looking at the picture
 
So it the right eye of the dog
 
Okay - and is there anything you're not happy about with the picture?
 
No I like that picture just wondering what others will do differently.
 
rookies said:
No I like that picture just wondering what others will do differently.
Click to expand...
Nothing really. Obviously a dog laid on a settee like this is never going to be the most interesting shot, but in terms of focus and as a memento it seems to be OK to me. I've hundreds of my dog in similar poses. Far from the best pics in terms of interest, but for me they're priceless :)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
rookies said:
Ok of my daughter looking at the image the right hand side of the image so right eye that when i focus on.... isn't that the correct eye..
Click to expand...
I think with that shot either eye would be acceptable as they look pretty much in the same plane to me. I can't say for sure but it looks to me as though it's front focussed/you've rocked back slightly as some of her hair looks slightly sharper than her eye and eye lashes. Please don't get obsessed though, it is only slight and the focus is more than acceptable imo.
 
The pics are fine and to me there's nothing wrong with the sharpness. Obviously, you have to get the eye/eyes in focus and it could be down to your aperture. The other thing you could consider is post processing. Assuming the composition is good then you have a lot of freedom to change the appearance of the pic (if you choose to).

rookies said:
No I like that picture just wondering what others will do differently.
Click to expand...
 
Honestly @rookies I think you need to concentrate on taking better images and you don't need to spend thousands to do that. Just look on Instagram and it's full of teenagers using camera phones in creative ways to make some really stunning pictures. That's not just you though. That's me and literally thousands of others on this board who could do with spending more time taking pictures instead of p***ing about changing systems.

I don't know what you normally shoot or why you think you need better gear but if the post above is typical of what you shoot, if anything a D750 or Sony set up is probably overkill.

Of the photos you've taken there's very little "wrong" with them, but none of them are visually interesting but that's because of your limitations as a photographer, not your gear. Swapping to Sony won't improve the photos you take and kidding yourself there's something wrong with your gear is probably holding you back.

Obsession with gear is holding us all back IMHO.
 
Chuckoir said:
That Escort is lovely. Like the processing too.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I have a bit of a 'thing' for the Mark I and II Escorts, well a lot of the 70's and 80's Fords TBH ;)

rookies said:
As he says. Nowt wrong with your photography pal it me that s*** lol
Click to expand...
Thanks. I don't think you are, I just think you're missing the big picture,much like myself until recently ;)
 
twist said:
The point I'm making is you don't have to impress people, do it because you enjoy it.
Click to expand...
I understand pal.. Just trying to learn to be more creative so having some advise is good to have this could help me save money :naughty:
 
rookies said:
Just got back from a little walk to learn to be a bit more creative and come back with this...

DSC_1141-Edit.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Any very nice it is too. Take a shot like this in the golden hour on a sunny day and it could turn a really really nice shot into a stunner IMO.
 
snerkler said:
Any very nice it is too. Take a shot like this in the golden hour on a sunny day and it could turn a really really nice shot into a stunner IMO.
Click to expand...
Yup I agree..
 
rookies said:
And another from the same walk

DSC_1151-Edit.jpg by Andrew Rookes, on Flickr

Sorry folks if i am posting too many images I just feel it may encourage me more know what I mean.. Rather than looking at new systems
Click to expand...
Don't apologise for posting pics, it's a photography forum ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top