What are the sharpest photos you have take with a sonay a200-300?

Andyvalver

Andyvalver

Suspended / Banned
Messages
572
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I ask this question because i see lots of pin sharp photos on here and i dont seem to be able to get super sharp photos with my a300.

Anyone got any good examples of sharp photos taken with an a200-300?

Thanks :P

Edit.. It should say SONY not SONAY lol
 
Last edited:
Can't comment on the camera as I don't use Sony but (and you might already know this, so ignore it if you do) sharpness has more to do with the lens than the body. There are other factors too, of course, such as the shutter speed, aperture you're using (lenses tend to have a 'sweet spot' where they're at there sharpest) and how steady the camera is being held. Also, if you're shooting in jpeg, have a look at what sharpness settings the camera is set to, and if you're shooting in raw, apply some sharpening in post processing.
 
Just had a look on your flickR site and your Sony images look fine to me..;)
 
Thanks for the input guys. I know a decent amount about how to get them sharp using the camera settings. It's just that some photos I see on here of landscapes with rocks in the foreground or something are super sharp from front to back. Sharper than I can get when I'm just messiing around taking random photos of the fields behind our house. I know that the higher aperture is used for landscapes with a tripod.
 
The highest aperture will give you the greatest depth of field, i.e. everything will be in focus from front to back, but the sharpness of the lens still comes into play. I don't know what lens you're using, but I went from using a Sigma 24-70 to a Nikon 28-70 and the difference in sharpness was immediately noticeable. By and large, the better the lens, the sharper it is, especially if you're using primes!
 
The best lens i think i have is the 50mm 1.8 sony. That seems sharp, but only as sharp as the kit lens really. I could really do with a better lens i guess.

Thanks
 
Try shooting the 50 stopped down a bit, usually nifty fifty's aren't at their sharpest until f/2.0-f/2.8 depending on the lens :)

You won't be able to find much sharper than a 50 1.8, at least not anything that anyone would use paired with an a200/a300, so you may actually want to test for a front/back focusing issue in either the lens or camera?
 
Lens quality, camera settings, shooting technique, lighting and processing skills all have a significant part to play. In the great scheme of things the role of the camera is often not that great. Of course it has to focus accurately and produce a low noise image, but that should be a given for any camera body. There is the AA filter to consider, but I think any DSLR made in the last several years should be capable of turning in a sharp image. It's in the other areas I mentioned where differences really tend to show.

It's also worth noting that poor quality filters can harm IQ to the point where a lens might be considered to be junk with the filter in place. If you doubt your results and have a filter fitted then take it off and try again.
 
TTK said:
Just had a look on your flickR site and your Sony images look fine to me..;)
Click to expand...

I had a look as well. If anything your photos lack contrast and a bit of sharpening. Search TP for some excellent threads how to do it.
 
The kit lens (if it's the 18-70) is not the sharpest thing in the world but the 50/1.8 should be fine. With its CCD sensor the A300 is certainly capable of very sharp images at ISO 100/200, when I bought my A700 after having an A300 I noticed that images it produced at low ISO values were actually slightly softer than the A300.

Open it up to f/8 or so and pop it on a tripod, use a remote release cable to avoid the camera moving when you press the shutter and you should get something very sharp.

This photo was taken with my A700 and hasn't been sharpened:



from memory (no EXIF viewer here and I think I inadvertantly removed the data when I resized it for upload anyway) it was taken with a Sony 35/1.4 lens at f/8. I know it was taken handheld as I didn't bring my tripod on that outing.
 
onomatopoeia said:
Open it up to f/8 or so
Click to expand...
?

I think you mean stop it down.

onomatopoeia said:
and pop it on a tripod, use a remote release cable to avoid the camera moving when you press the shutter
Click to expand...
Don't forget mirror lockup. The tripod should also be robust and not flimsy, and perhaps weighted down. Be aware of blustery conditions and time your shot for a quiet moment. Do not extend the centre column. If you do not need full height then extend the thicker legs of the tripod before the thinner ones.

If you don't have a remote release and shot timing is not critical then the self timer can perform the job of shake free release equally well.

onomatopoeia said:
This photo was taken with my A700 and hasn't been sharpened:
Click to expand...
I think you would struggle to judge how sharp the original picture was from a tiny resized image on the web. Shrinking an image can conceal a multitude of sins. Also, the smaller your reproduction size the greater your DOF at any given combination of aperture, focal length, sensor size and focus distance.

It is usually good practice to sharpen after downsizing as the final step in workflow before saving. Your software may do that for you by default, or you may need to perform the step manually. For example, I use Lightroom for my processing and subsequent to the initial release Adobe has added an Output Sharpening option, which can be tailored to suit the size and presentation medium of the image for display. Even on default settings Lightroom will sharpen the image on import so unless I set the sharpening slider to zero (and perhaps even if I do) the image will have been sharpened with no input from me at all.

If you're pulling images off Flickr or similar then there is a definite possibility that the image has been sharpened by the website, especially if you pick an image size other than the original. Your image above looks sharpened to me, no doubt about it. The original image uploaded to Flickr looks softer and more natural....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/onomatopoeia99/4416846828/sizes/o/
 
Cheers for the replies guys. I'll take all the info onboard when I take my camera out next. :-)
 
Being honest I found the same thing with my A200 despite some apparently bloody good lenses. I now shoot a Canon 30d as I got infuriated with the Sony, however folks on here looked at my flickr images and said they were just fine.
 
these are some examples taken on my A350,when i had it...

DSC01316_filtered.jpg


abbeyfalls1.jpg


DSC00748.jpg


as mentioned by others..stop your lens down,use a tripod and remote shotter release to avoid camera shake,and also turn off the super steady shot if shooting on a tripod or panning,as it confuses the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top