Advice please - sharp focus?

[Langtoftlad]

I'm disappointed that many of my 'snaps' aren't pin sharp - not blurred but not as crisp as many photographers seem to achieve.
I don't know whether its my eyesight, my lack of technique or the camera.

I generally just snap away on my Samsung S9+ or my Panasonic Lumix TZ95, mostly on automatic.
And that's "good enough" to capture the moment.

But on the occasions when I try to get a better photo - I'm disappointed that the results seem to be 'soft'.

I don't expect much from the phone but the TZ95 should be capable.
But I have read, and I've read a lot, that the Lumix lenses can be 'soft'.

I'm wondering if better equipment, larger sensor might improve things.
I'm looking to replace my ancient FZ150 Bridge - another Panny...
I'm not in the DSLR market and would keep my budget under £1k, preferably nearer £750

But basically is it realistic to say a better camera will equal a better result [composition etc notwithstanding] and should I move away from Panasonic [will all their gear have the same focus characteristic]?

TZ95

Samsung S9+ phone

 

[Just smiffy]

What you are viewing the photos on will also affect them but they do look good on my iPad Pro…

 

[AndyPK]

Probably a larger sensor will help - but the final image quality is (nearly) always down to the quality of the lens. When you say ‘soft’, do you mean ‘out-of-focus’, or, perhaps, ‘pixilated’ - which will show if viewed at a large magnification on your screen…..?

 

[Speve]

When on our Norwegian Cruise in October I had a good chat with professional photographer who was there to give advice and he stated that the newer iPhones and Samsung phones have really good lenses and light sensors on them and you can take very good photos with them. Which we did most of our photos with iphone 13 and they came out well even the northern lights. As pictures below all taken with iphone.

 

[AndyPK]

With regard to sensors……the old photographer’s adage that ‘a good big ‘in will always beat a good little ‘un’ when comparing film formats (126, 35mm, 120 etc.) always held true, as the larger film format was much more tolerant of enlargement than smaller before the silver halide crystals in the frame became evident…..and the same holds true for today’s digital sensors to some extent. The pixel count in modern sensors can cloud the issue also - a ‘full-frame’ sensor with 48 million pixels will give better results than a camera ‘phone sensor with the same number of pixels, both due to the size of the pixels and their ability to ‘gather’ light, and also to the ‘interference’ between the pixels in the smaller sensor. Having more pixels does not always equate to better quality ‘photos in camera ‘phones…..

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Langtoftlad]

When you say ‘soft’, do you mean ‘out-of-focus’, or, perhaps, ‘pixilated’

Out of "pin sharp" focus...

Have you heard of Lumix lenses (Leica) having a reputation of being "soft focus" ?

Obviously appreciate that when the cost of the whole camera is a fraction of some dslr lenses, it can't be that good.

 

[ontheroadagain]

I would suggest that you have a look at the Panasonic FZ1000ii bridge camera.
It is well within your budget and has a good lens, with a 1" sensor.
I had the MK1 version a few years ago and it was great.
The photo below was taken with it.
However, some of the new phones are also very good and as a result have killed off the market for compact cameras so unfortunately choice is now limited.

 

[AndyPK]

Out of "pin sharp" focus...

Have you heard of Lumix lenses (Leica) having a reputation of being "soft focus" ?

Obviously appreciate that when the cost of the whole camera is a fraction of some dslr lenses, it can't be that good.

On the contrary, Leica lenses were always considered to be exceptional in their quality, but I guess that could’ve changed since they were taken over by another company…..?
When you say not ‘pin sharp’, what sort of magnification are you viewing the results at?

 

[Langtoftlad]

I would suggest that you have a look at the Panasonic FZ1000ii bridge camera.

I have indeed been looking at this one, and the FZ2000 which is about the same price.
DPReview seems to suggest the FZ2000 is more geared towards video though.

The Sony DSC-RX10 IV always seems to top the reviews list but as it's twice the price of the Lumix [which is usually also high in various top 10 lists] I'm reluctant to spend that much as it might be the operator rather than the equipment.
Equally I'm cautious about yet another Lumix - I appreciate the sensor is bigger [good] but wonder if the glass, and focus characteristics will be similar to the TZ95?

When on our Norwegian Cruise in October I had a good chat with professional photographer who was there to give advice and he stated that the newer iPhones and Samsung phones have really good lenses and light sensors on them and you can take very good photos with them. Which we did most of our photos with iphone 13 and they came out well even the northern lights. As pictures below all taken with iphone.

I've also been impressed with the Samsung phone, and it's not even the latest.
I'm usually more than happy taking memento snaps with it, given the results will also be shown on a small screen...

Just looking back now - some aren't that fuzzy.
Perhaps I've cleaned my glasses!
And perhaps I need to weed out the duff ones.

 

[ontheroadagain]

The Sony DSC-RX10 IV always seems to top the reviews list but as it's twice the price of the Lumix [which is usually also high in various top 10 lists] I'm reluctant to spend that much as it might be the operator rather than the equipment.
Equally I'm cautious about yet another Lumix - I appreciate the sensor is bigger [good] but wonder if the glass, and focus characteristics will be similar to the TZ95?

I actually replaced my FZ1000 with a Sony RX10iv. The Sony is a fantastic camera with a very sharp lens.
It is however quite a large camera and over your budget, but it may be possible to pick up a second hand one for less than £1000.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Speve]

There are some good deals on the Nikon P950 if you want a lot of zoom and very good for bird and wildlife photos.

 

[Langtoftlad]

When you say not ‘pin sharp’, what sort of magnification are you viewing the results at?

Don't know what magnification - but mostly on my Panasonic 50" Plasma TV - so that might be another issue, size of screen, sharpness of screen etc

But other snappers posting on this forum seem to have a lot sharper images [ to my eyes] on the same screen.
I think that some of my perceived 'issues' are that my £400 compact camera will never compete with a £3k DSLR system and
I don't take my photos in the best conditions, I'm often limited to middle of the day and/or not being enthusiastic enough to go out early morning

Would you say this image is sharp enough, not to doubt the glass?
Assuming the forum software doesn't mess with it too much

Will have been taken on the camera's IQ setting without a lot of time being spent - having to keep up with the tour group

To me, it looks 'soft' not sharp but then zooming in, perhaps not so bad?

50% zoom

at 100%

The sidebar gives the technical details.

 

[Langtoftlad]

I actually replaced my FZ1000 with a Sony RX10iv. The Sony is a fantastic camera with a very sharp lens.

Is it twice as good as the Panasonic?

I suppose [apart from wanting to buy a new toy] is whether something like the FZ1000 is a noticeable quality upgrade from the compact TZ95 from an IQ point of view.

I'm cautious about buying second hand - but I guess it might be safe enough from a reputable dealer

 

[ronidog1]

The best thing to do is go to a real camera shop and try some out. The staff will let you take some test shots and view the results on a screen. If you take your current camera you could also take the same photos and make a comparison. LCE (London Camera Exchange) are a nationwide company with a store in Lincoln. They have a wide range of new and used cameras. I have bought from them and was impressed by their service.

Only you can decide what it is you want/need As we all see things differently and use the cameras in different ways. I have a couple of different cameras depending on what I am doing. Take note of the info given in the posts above but go to the shop with an open mind. It’s better than wasting £700 or so.

good luck and enjoy the experience! Let us know how you get on.

 

[U.Toadifact]

Have you tried processing your shots in a good editing program?

Modern cameras, whilst producing excellent out of the camera (ooc) photographs can always have their output improved in say Lightroom or similar. There are a number of free editors too such as "Gimp", which after a little practice, will improve your output tremendously.

As others have hinted, by far the most important factor affecting image quality is the lens so look for lens quality above all.
(I am an ex semi pro photographer).

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Fat Albert]

Don't know what magnification - but mostly on my Panasonic 50" Plasma TV - so that might be another issue, size of screen, sharpness of screen etc

But other snappers posting on this forum seem to have a lot sharper images [ to my eyes] on the same screen.
I think that some of my perceived 'issues' are that my £400 compact camera will never compete with a £3k DSLR system and
I don't take my photos in the best conditions, I'm often limited to middle of the day and/or not being enthusiastic enough to go out early morning

Would you say this image is sharp enough, not to doubt the glass?
Assuming the forum software doesn't mess with it too much

View attachment 704894

Will have been taken on the camera's IQ setting without a lot of time being spent - having to keep up with the tour group

To me, it looks 'soft' not sharp but then zooming in, perhaps not so bad?

View attachment 704895
50% zoom

View attachment 704896
at 100%

The sidebar gives the technical details.

Your file size looks to be small when trying to fill a 50" screen. Can you increase the DPI size or reduce the actual size ie width and length? The bigger the file more pixels on the screen.

 

[ontheroadagain]

Is it twice as good as the Panasonic?

I suppose [apart from wanting to buy a new toy] is whether something like the FZ1000 is a noticeable quality upgrade from the compact TZ95 from an IQ point of view.

No.
Yes (but you would need to go aps/full frame to see a major difference).
If you are not sure, you could buy a second hand Mk1 FZ1000. They can be bought for approx £390.

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/sku-1731817?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIp8jc5qS9_AIVkLrtCh0n6wiDEAQYBCABEgIZCvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

[steve69]

Surely even the slightest, barely detectable movement of your camera whilst taking the photo will always impact on image sharpness. More so in dim light situations.

 

[gus-lopez]

If you think there is a problem it is your eyes. they are too good.

 

[Otter Spotter]

I'm disappointed that many of my 'snaps' aren't pin sharp - not blurred but not as crisp as many photographers seem to achieve.
I don't know whether its my eyesight, my lack of technique or the camera.

I generally just snap away on my Samsung S9+ or my Panasonic Lumix TZ95, mostly on automatic.
And that's "good enough" to capture the moment.

But on the occasions when I try to get a better photo - I'm disappointed that the results seem to be 'soft'.

I don't expect much from the phone but the TZ95 should be capable.
But I have read, and I've read a lot, that the Lumix lenses can be 'soft'.

I'm wondering if better equipment, larger sensor might improve things.
I'm looking to replace my ancient FZ150 Bridge - another Panny...
I'm not in the DSLR market and would keep my budget under £1k, preferably nearer £750

But basically is it realistic to say a better camera will equal a better result [composition etc notwithstanding] and should I move away from Panasonic [will all their gear have the same focus characteristic]?


View attachment 704828
TZ95

View attachment 704836
Samsung S9+ phone

Nothing wrong with those 2 shots. Sharpness is a compilation of high enough shutter speed to stop any camera or subject movement, steady hold of camera, slow pressing of shutter release, as low a ISO setting as possible, but never too low that the resulting shot is too dark and noisy.
File size, the bigger the better, especially if you are viewing them on a 50in Tv. Shooting JPEG if you hate processing in a computer or RAW if you are happy to process. RAW files need sharpening to do them justice.
Most lenses will produce great sharp shots so don’t get caught up in the hype, even kit lenses with most Canons and Nikons are good for sharpness.
Don’t expect to take a shot of a bird 50ft away in a tree and crop in 200% and expect it to look sharp, no chance, get closer to your subject.
Sensor size, APS and micro 3rds will produce stunning photos but again don’t ‘blow them up’ to 3 or 4 times the original size, whether on a printer or TV screen.
Finally, remember that for web purposes you may take and process the best shot possible, but the resulting photo can be butchered by the web software and reduced to a fraction of its processed file size.
I will not get into which is the best camera, that depends on budget, capacity to carry it for long enough to get the shots you want and ease of use ( in camera menus can be counter intuitive) and a pain.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Langtoftlad]

Your file size looks to be small when trying to fill a 50" screen. Can you increase the DPI size or reduce the actual size ie width and length? The bigger the file more pixels on the screen.

Quite possibly, the TZ has a lot of settings but wouldn't know how to change the DPI - yet more reading required.
I'm not sure what you mean about reducing the size?
AFAIK I have chosen the highest quality setting in the menu.

Surely even the slightest, barely detectable movement of your camera whilst taking the photo will always impact on image sharpness. More so in dim light situations.

Quite possibly, hence wondering if it's my 'technique'.
I try to squeeze rather than jab the shutter button.

I've just been reading a bit more, on some IQ comparison sites - and one thing I've noticed is that the Panny tends to prefer very low ISO and perhaps a longer shutter speed on Auto.
ISO 80 at 1/200 on the above example.

I suspect if I forced the ISO slightly higher, so having a faster shutter speed then it would minimise any camera shake without compromising on noise.

 

[Russell's Dad]

Phone camera sensors tend to produce images that look good on phones or small screens but the images look soft when magnified or on bigger screens, especially when the light isn't great.

My Samsung phone is great for snaps as it is with me all the time. I happily use small prints for my travel journals.

My walkabout camera, a Sony RX10iii is a great camera with a bigger sensor than my phone and better zoom ( digital zoom is not much good, it just magnifies a sensors shortcomings) Even on fully automatic it produces good images. RX10 iii's can be had for about £800 ish from dealer with a warranty and returns policy.
My main camera is a Sony A1. The difference between this and the RX10iii is, again, significant and between the A1 and my phone is huge.

If you want to post on social media and view on a small screen then a phone is great. For big screens and big prints you generally benefit from a bigger sensor and optical zoom.

That said. The best camera is the one you can use competently and have with you.

 

[Langtoftlad]

Modern cameras, whilst producing excellent out of the camera (ooc) photographs can always have their output improved in say Lightroom or similar. There are a number of free editors too such as "Gimp", which after a little practice, will improve your output tremendously.

TBF I'm too lazy to do that... I barely sort the 'OOC' images I take
Both my Phone and TZ95 do have the option to take RAW.

 

[Norfolk Nige]

I actually replaced my FZ1000 with a Sony RX10iv. The Sony is a fantastic camera with a very sharp lens.
It is however quite a large camera and over your budget, but it may be possible to pick up a second hand one for less than £1000.

Have a look on MPB for second hand cameras and lenses. All checked, good quality and considerably cheaper than new. Plus they give a warranty

 

[Neilj]

Have you looked in the menu. Many cameras allow you to adjust the sharpness within each picture style. It won't change any of the camera's basic characteristic but tweaking it a little might add enough sharpness to satisfy you.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Langtoftlad]

I'm beginning to wonder if I should double jump and get an actual APS-C DSLR and a decent third party zoom lens - aaargh.

I've seen a Canon EOS2000D or an EOS4000D for under £360 including 18-55mm lens coupled with a £250 75-300mm which would probably stay on the camera body... so effectively as 'convenient' as a Bridge camera in the same budget.

Am I getting carried away?

 

[dna]

If size of the camera is a factor, I got a Sony RX100 version VI in the summer. It worked well on a few trial pictures but due to them looking good it got taken by my business partner on a 4 month trip to Australia & New Zealand so I dont have it to hand at the moment. The camera is around the size of a Kodak instamatic from the good old days, with a Zeiss zoom lens and a claimed 20 mega pixel sensor

A sample "snap" is attached.

 

[Neilj]

Am I getting carried away?

Quite possibly. The 18-55mm and 75-300mm are only kit lenses. They may be better than what you have, they may not. You would get a bigger sensor that way, it does have advantages but does not necessarily cure all ills.

 

[AndyPK]

If you do go for APS-C, don’t get too hung-up on the pixel count…….the sensor size is not large and ‘noise‘ issues in the image can manifest themselves the more pixels are crammed in. I started my ‘digital SLR’ experience with Nikon D200s - 10megapixel - and the difference in image quality between those and the Nikon D3200s - 24megapixels - was not as great as you would imagine…..

 

[Langtoftlad]

If size of the camera is a factor, I got a Sony RX100 version VI in the summer. It worked well on a few trial pictures but due to them looking good it got taken by my business partner on a 4 month trip to Australia & New Zealand so I dont have it to hand at the moment. The camera is around the size of a Kodak instamatic from the good old days, with a Zeiss zoom lens and a claimed 20 mega pixel sensor

For my sins I do have a used RX100 iii - a little smaller than the Panny.
I got it for the Northern Lights in Norway as it has the 1" sensor and wider aperture.
It's very limited by the zoom and I found the menu system very complex.
But maybe I should dig it out and have a play with it in proper light.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}