File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
is this shot sharp enough?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:03:10 20:47:30Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1522Image Height1075RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Sharp enough for what?
>> Anonymous
i don't know

i don't think it's as sharp as some photos i've seen
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Nope. You obviously need to go out and buy some really expensive gear.
>> Anonymous
just wanted to know if my 50mm was sharp enough or not
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>138478
Nope. And the 50/1.4 won't be either. You're going to have to buy the 50/1.2. Sorry.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I just want to know if my car is red enough.
>> Anonymous
>>138482
nope. need to turn saturation up to FUCK YEAH!
>> Anonymous
No, if you can't see each and every individual pore on your hand, then your lenses suck.
>> Anonymous
>>138450
you have a gross looking thumb knuckle.
>> Anonymous
>>138479

it was a simple question, lol ¯\(º o)/¯

didn't have to be an ass about it, gb2 your fat whale
>> Anonymous
you should really worry about being a man with lady fingers.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>138495
No, it was a meaningless and stupid question. "Is this shot sharp enough?" Sharp enough for what? Compared to what? How sharp do you need it to be?

You can make out every spec of dust on that Nikon 50/1.8. What more sharpness do you want?
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
needs moar shrap!
>> Anonymous
>>138499

is it sharp compared to other samples of this lens???
>> Anonymous
i'm sorry i said something about your woman, btw
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>138514

is not real Anonymous.
>> Anonymous
>>138515

nah, it is me

i felt bad after calling his gf fat
>> Anonymous
>>138513
Who cares? Is it sharp enough for what you want to do with it?

Here's a simple battery of tests to run on your lens:

Throw a soda bottle onto a wool sweater. Put the camera on a tripod and point it at said arrangement. Focus on some fine text on the soda bottle... the nutritional information works well. Using mirror lock-up and a timer, shoot one frame at every available aperture. This is testing its ability to resolve simple lines, kinda like a ghetto MTF chart.

Then focus on the sweater, and do the same thing. This is testing its resolution and accutance on real-world fine detail.

Examine the files. Figure out what your sharpest aperture is. See if it will pick up enough detail. (Any modern lens will for almost anyone.)

Next, get a friend. Shoot a bunch of portraits of them, at all apertures and a wide range of focusing distances. Examine the files, see if you like the look of the lens, including the sharpness. The reason to do portraits of a friend is because you're intimately familiar with your friends face and how the lens "draws the picture" will be immediately apparent. Also, of course, try it in other situations similar to what you'll be using it for.

Do the flare tests Mike Johnston discusses here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-01-12.shtml
Can you live with the amount of flare and/or do you like the look of the flare?

Based on the results of all that, decide whether the lens is "x"-enough for you.
>> Anonymous
>>138538

i did the focus test from here: http://focustestchart.com/chart.html

but that doesn't test sharpness only accuracy
>> Anonymous
>>138546

Do those, or something like them. The idea is to get to know the abilities and unique properties of your lens, so you know if it will do what you want it to do and so you know how to use it. There's plenty of lenses, for instance, that are not so good wide open but are really good closed down a stop or two. Knowing stuff like that about your lens helps you use it to get the photographs you want.
>> Anonymous
>>138550
And by "those" I mean the tests I outlined in the post I made here. I know nothing about testing autofocus systems, although that's probably a good idea.
>> Anonymous
this is such a dumb question but how do you take pictures with mirror lock up with the d40... i thought it was only for sensor cleaning...
>> Anonymous
>>138619

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD40/page11.asp

in the options
>> Anonymous
>>138621

yes i know how to activate mirror lock up but all it does is flip up the mirror until i turn the camera off... can i take pictures with this feature somehow? i hear of course of using mirror lock up on a tripod to reduce the vibration or whatever within the camera... so how do i do that? am i thinking about a completely different thing?
>> sharp and over-exposed anonymous
Sharpness is not the problem. The problem is over exposure. You're shooting your hand from one foot away with a bright ass flash. Your camera has a light meter. This shot should have been like 1/200. Try shooting in AV mode.
>> Anonymous
>>138682
Looks like natural light to me.
>> Anonymous
>>138633

That would be mirror-lock up for cleaning.

On EOS 400D mirror lock-up is hidden in Custom Functions menu. Turn it on and use Self Timer shooting mode.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Look at your plane of focus. Find the tiniest touchstone you can use for estimating focus sharpness. In this case, I'd say it's your fingerprints. They're perfectly sharp. Yeah, you got the sharpness down.

For portraits and whatnot, I look and see if I can see the peach fuzz hair on their face, or stubble, or pores.

If it looks sharp at 100% enlargement, you're good to go. If it looks sharp at only 50% enlargement, you're probably still good to go, if you're just using it for web or printing small. If you're printing for a newspaper... lol. Newsprint covers ALL sins.
>> Anonymous
>>138633

i think mirror lock up is used to reduce the vibration from mirror slap when you do long exposures or remote shooting

maybe someone else can elaborte, i've never used it
>> Anonymous
>>138891touchstone

TREADSTONE? WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT TREADSTONE?

BLACKBRIAR? WHAT'S THAT?

PAMELA LANDY.

I HEAR YOU'RE STILL LOOKING FOR ME.

BOURNE?

YOU LOOK PALE PAM, GET SOME REST

DUN DUN DUN DUN DAD DUND DA DUND
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>138894
In summary, you never need to use it unless you're super anal.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>138894
When your SLR's mirror flips out of the way, it smacks against the top of your camera. This causes a little bit of vibration.

For long exposures, this vibration isn't noticeable because it's gone for the vast majority of the exposure.

For short exposures, this vibration isn't noticeable because the shutter goes fast enough to freeze it just like all of the other vibration in the world.

But there's a small range around the 1/15th-1/30th or so range where the mirror slap can be an issue (if, as Heavyweather noted, you're really anal). So if you're shooting in that range on a tripod and want every single ounce of sharpness you can get, you lock up the mirror and then take the shot. Et voila, no vibration.

(It's more useful if you're using, say, a Pentax 6x7 medium format SLR, which has a mirror about the size of a dinner plate)
>> Anonymous
>>138924
I've always heard it was something like half a second to a thirtieth.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>138926
Well who're you going to believe? Your own memory, or someone who's freely admitting that he pulled those specific numbers out of his ass?

(If I were you, I'd go with your memory. I pulled those specific numbers out of my ass)
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
mirror slap is a big problem at long focal lengths, too. the longer the lens, the more apparent camera shake becomes. i'm getting pissed just thinking about this, since my F100 doesn't have mirror lock-up for some reason. it's an insane oversight for such a carefully considered camera, and it's one of the few things that keeps it from being the perfect 35mm slr.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>138924
It's worth noting what ac said about medium format. I use mirror lockup on anything slower than 1/125 with my Mamiya 645j, if I've got my composition relatively set.

That camera has an xbox hueg mirror.
>> anonymous
You guys are ridiculous. His problem has NOTHING to do with mirror lock-up. His problem is over-exposure. You lose details when you over expose. Its not even debatable. Start a mirror lock thread somewhere else and stop confusing him.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>138964
He doesn't have a problem, really. So we decided to move on to a more interesting discussion. That happens in /p/ sometimes. You should probably get used to it.
>> Anonymous
>>138964
The image isn't overexposed and one doesn't lose detail when overexposing unless the highlights are blown. His skin looks about a Zone VII, which is the proper, realistic tone for "pasty white guy skin."
>> Anonymous
>>138964

thread was derailed by the guy with the d40 asking about MLU

anyway

i don't have my camera with me, what happens when the mirror is up

doesn't this mean there's blackout in the viewfinder since well, the mirror is up?

do you prefocus and frame then engage MLU then trigger shot?
>> Anonymous
>>138981

bitches don't know about my zonesssss
>> Anonymous
I have the Nikkor 50 1.8 manual focus and it is somewhat sharp. However, the problem lies in the clarity of the glass. My lens produces images that are somewhat "foggy" compared to my new Nikkor lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>139145

Nikon made 1 out of every million a soft focus version. They sell on eBay as collector's items for like, $200.

Congrats.