Focus Problem..

[kobrien4]

I have a brand new Sony A350. It only has 380 shots fired. The problem is.. Im not getting that extremely sharp photo's that im wanting. They all seem just a tad off focus I dont knwo if its me or if there is accually the camera. I use a tripod with almost all my pictures. I have a shutter release cable for them as well. Attached are some non edited pictures at full res. (14.2 pixels) Can you guys give me some kind of idea of what is going on? Its driving me nuts that i spent 800 on this camera and its not doing what I thought it would and should do.

1. This one I was focused on the log.
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/h...g?t=1265141530

2. Same thing with this one. I was focused on the log.
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/h...6/DSC00330.jpg

3. And this one its kind of obvious what the focal point was.
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/h...6/DSC00316.jpg

[SmartWombat]

Its driving me nuts that i spent 800 on this camera and its not doing what I thought it would and should do.

Only 800?
That's doing pretty well then, you got good value there.
My Canon 20D with only 8MP cost me over $3000 a few years ago!

I can see you've got in-camera the contrast and sharpening set to 2, yet it's still not sharp.
That makes me think it may be the lens.
I can see the shots are at 26mm, 35mm, 210mm all with the same zoom lens?
What lens are you using?

1. This one I was focused on the log.
DSC00297-1.jpg

I see a lot of blue and red colour fringes around the log, particularly obvious on the left.
Maybe f/7.1 isn't the best aperture for this lens, and you can get less distortion with it at a smaller aperture - maybe f/8 or f/11, probably no smaller than f/22.
A lot of the colour problems I can fix in Lightroom, but the softness in the foreground in the corners is coming from the lens, and that can't be fixed in software.

2. Same thing with this one. I was focused on the log.
DSC00330.jpg

I think perhaps f/32 may be stopped down too far, and you're getting softness because of that. Also with the 0.8 second exposure any movement of the branch by the stream will blur it. I agree it doesn't look sharp.
There is much less colour fringing than the first image at f/7.1 but I think you may be past the sharpest point of the lens and need to open it up a bit.
It is also over-exposed, the white of the snow on the log is too bright.
Much of that I can fix in Lightroom, but you can't sharpen an already soft image.

3. And this one its kind of obvious what the focal point was.
DSC00316.

Dead centre of the image is a cluster of 3 side branches, all going in different directions in front of and behind the plane of focus.
With a subject like this with many straight edges all at varying (but only slightly different) distances I think auto-focus is going to have trouble.
Wide open aperture is never the sharpest unless you spend thousands on a lens, and at f/5.6 I don't think it's the best this lens can do.
I would say this is focussed maybe an inch further away than that branch.
The green and yellow needles just above the centre of the picture look sharp to me.
The image quality in DSC00316 is good, it's just not focussed on the branch going from left to right. If you were using the centre AF point, then the junction of those branches is not in the centre of the image.


If this is all taken with one lens, then I think you're finding the limits of the lens.
It's not sharp wide open at 26mm, it's not sharp fully stopped down at 35mm, but it's good at 210mm f/5.6 and might be even sharper there at f/8.

Typically zoom lenses aren't good at the extremes, shortest wide angle or longest telephoto. Also they aren't good at the extremes of aperture either.
The rule of thumb when I was a teenager (back in the 70s) in the camera magazine reviews was a 3x zoom (about 70-200, 24-70) was the limit for high quality and if the focal length range was much greater then the quality suffered.
I don't think it's much different today for the best quality lenses like the Canon "L" series or the Zeiss lenses for the Sony. But things have improved today with computer aided designs and new types of glass.
So I'd say a 4x or maybe 5x range should still give good results, but 10x or more zoom (e.g. 20-200) I would expect softness and lower contrast at the extremes.

The A-350 is a great camera for the price.
To get the best out of it I would use RAW format to save the images, so that you can process them later. Or RAW+JPEG if you want to get an instant JPG result you can share/print and then do detailed editing later on the RAW file.
Then the next investment I would suggest is in lenses.

If you have no budget at the moment, then test your lens at different focal lengths, different apertures and learn where the best quality images can be got.

I decided when I bought my first dSLR that even though it was only the 20D I would buy professional lenses so that I could get the best possible out of the camera.
Today I'm still using those lenses, but on the 1D professional bodies, and the 20D is gathering dust.
Good lenses are expensive, but you will notice the difference.
If you can borrow/hire lenses locally before you spend a lot of money, it's the best way to see if your investment for the future will pay off in image quality.

[kobrien4]

Awesome thanks for the info SmartWombat. Images 1 and 2 are from the kit lens which is 18-70 F3.5-5.6 and images 3 is from a minolta 70-210 F5.6 - 6.4 (I think). After reading everything you said about each photo its making me think it is accually me and not the camera. This is my first DSLR and im learning. Which I think ill get the hang of it with time. I was taking pictures a little bit ago of our cat. If you goto the Photo Critique section and look for the "Milo" thread. That picture right there is how I think this camera should work.

Oh and about the price of the camera. the camera shop hooked me up because I drove 30 miles with ice on the ground to get this camera. and for the 800 bucks I got The camera, a battery grip with the extra battery, 4 gig card, and a 5 year service plan for the 800 bucks

[OldClicker]

I am also shooting with an A350 and really like it. It took a while, but eventually I learned to do it justice - at least somewhat. My first shots were really bad. It just takes time and practice.

Learning to get the best with the limitations of your lens(es) will always be a big help. If you want to find something better and the budget is tight, here are my recommendations - all used Minoltas

Minolta 50mm f/1.7 can be found for $50. Great low light lens.

Minolta 35-70mm f/4 - also under $50. You will probably wish it had more on the wide end, but this lens has a beautiful IQ and is constant f/4.

Minolta 70-210mm f/4 for <$200. Another constant f/4 that is the big brother to the one above often called the 'beercan'. If you don't go above 150mmm, maybe 175, this lens can blow you away. Watch for high contrast stuff, because many copies have a lot of CA (purple fringe), but if used within its limits, it can't be beat.

TF

[kobrien4]

I am also shooting with an A350 and really like it. It took a while, but eventually I learned to do it justice - at least somewhat. My first shots were really bad. It just takes time and practice.

Learning to get the best with the limitations of your lens(es) will always be a big help. If you want to find something better and the budget is tight, here are my recommendations - all used Minoltas

Minolta 50mm f/1.7 can be found for $50. Great low light lens.

Minolta 35-70mm f/4 - also under $50. You will probably wish it had more on the wide end, but this lens has a beautiful IQ and is constant f/4.

Minolta 70-210mm f/4 for <$200. Another constant f/4 that is the big brother to the one above often called the 'beercan'. If you don't go above 150mmm, maybe 175, this lens can blow you away. Watch for high contrast stuff, because many copies have a lot of CA (purple fringe), but if used within its limits, it can't be beat.

TF

I have the minolta 50mm F1.7 Your right it is a pretty nice lens. the other 2 i may look into getting next payday.