Jump to content
ChrisPoole

X-T2 depth of field issues

Recommended Posts

ChrisPoole

I've recently taken the plunge and traded in an X-T1 for an X-T2. One thing I've noticed is that there isn't the depth of field with RAWs using at least two of my lenses (16-55mm and 50-140mm) that I'd become accustomed to with the X-T1. I very often use f8. I could rely on a decent depth of field. But not so using the X-T2 with RAWs appearing to me to be a bit lacking in DoF. I think I see a general softness in RAWs that also wasn't there with the X-T1. JPEGs, however, are brilliant.

Could this be the larger sensor? Or could I be imagining things?

Regards

Chris

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K1W1_Mk2

There should be no discernible different in the DOF. The lenses are the same and the sensor is the same physical size (APS-C). The only thing I can think of is maybe the lenses and X-T2 require a bit of focus tweaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dem

If JPEGs are brilliant, there should not be anything wrong with the camera or the lenses. I would look in the way the raw files are processed. Perhaps the software does not recognise the X-T2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisPoole

Thank you both. My software is Lightroom 6 which is OK with X-T2 files. But I'll have a closer look at the processing and try to compare some examples of RAWs from my X-T1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Petrus
On 1. toukokuuta 2017 at 8:24 AM, ChrisPoole said:

 

Could this be the larger sensor? Or could I be imagining things?

 

Yes and Yes.

Same size sensor and same lens: there CAN NOT be any difference in DOF.

BUT: with the bigger file* your 100% view of the file on the monitor is actually larger, which means you are having a closer look, which in turn means that you think you are seeing less DOF. One constant in defining DOF is actually the viewing distance, and you are not keeping that constant. If you take the same shot with both X-T1 and X-T2 and print them in the same size they will be identical (if not blown too large), but if you make the DPI values the same = X-T2 print is bigger, you will see that the bigger print seems to have less DOF. That is what is happening with the 100% views of the files.

*) in the quote "larger sensor": not larger, but higher resolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisPoole

Thank you Petrus. I think that does explain things. I'm grateful for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisPoole

Even with the excellent advice above I'm still struggling with the quality of some RAF files from my X-T2. 

I've been photographing an event with the camera set at RAW files for slot 1 and JPEG (F) for slot 2. Many, though not all, of the RAWs are not, as I previously thought, suffering from less than expected DOF but they are decidedly soft and blurry. Sorry for this rather poor terminology but I can't find the right words to describe the poor quality of the images. They are in focus, though unclear. The JPEGs of the same images straight from the camera are lovely and crisp and all in focus. I've looked at processing the blurry RAWs into JPEGs for Alamy but, unlike the camera itself, Lightroom seems unable to deal with the blurry image and just produces a blurry JPEG.

To add to my woes, Lightroom refuses to open some of the JPEGs from the camera. 

As always, any thoughts on where I'm going wrong would be appreciated.

If I can I'll attach an example to another post shortly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisPoole

Sorry, can't find a way to reduce the RAW to a size acceptable here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
veejaycee
23 minutes ago, ChrisPoole said:

Sorry, can't find a way to reduce the RAW to a size acceptable here.

Chris, open a free Dropbox account then upload the full size raw (or more) there. Copy the link provided and post it here for us to download. Delete the image from Dropbox after a week or so and the account will be there should you need it in the future to send large files of any type anywhere. Links apply only to the particular file drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisPoole

Thank you for this advice Vic. I'll look into Dropbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisPoole

Had a look at Dropbox. I'm not happy about giving so much information (including credit card details) for a so-called free trial. I accept this means I can't show the forum the fuzzy RAW images problem. But thank you to Vic for the suggestion. I'd still value any thoughts even though I can't demonstrate the problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morpheme

Unless there's been a drastic change, you should be able to get a completely free Dropbox account, that you do not need to provide credit card info for... there's a limit to your storage/transfer space, but it's quite large, so unless you are using it for a business the free account should be more than sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
veejaycee

Dropbox has free version. No details other than email address are needed. As Morpheme says, there is a data limit which is why I suggest you delete the file after a couple of weeks leaving it clear for other uploads. 2GB of storage.

https://www.dropbox.com/downloading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisPoole

Here,I hope, is a link to a typical RAF from my X-T2

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8125bubeaqc9e01/DSCF1501.raf?dl=0

and here is a link to the JPEG straight from slot 2 of my X-T2

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g7a0fncy8u42il3/DSCF1501.jpg?dl=0

Keeping my fingers crossed that I've understood Dropbox and that these images are now visible to you here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
veejaycee

Hi Chris, here is the link to my processed jpg from the raw file. It is sharper than the original jpg but I don't know what in camera settings were used for that. I can say that my XT2 and 16-55mm f2.8 are tack sharp with the DoF as I'd expect.

The larger size of the image from a the XT2 24mp sensor means viewing distance should also be greater. If viewed at the same distance as a 16mp image you will in effect be peering more closely at the image. The only sure way to check this is to print one from each sensor and view from the correct distance for each size. Alternatively crop a detail from each with the 24mp at max screen size and the 16mp at a suitably reduced size (same screen res for both).

 There is still to my eye, a slight lack of complete clarity over the entire image - unless I'm looking too critically but I too am viewing at full size from close proximity. Perhaps others can chime in. https://www.dropbox.com/s/p05a3rc9o9wjw09/DSCF1501.jpg?dl=0

I think it is all down to viewing distance - and screen type - it's probably wonderful on an HD screen or better.

Edit with IXT to DNG, LR for quick basic process and Nik Define and Nik output sharpener and final fine sharpen with high pass filter in PS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christopher

I agree, looking at veejaycee's JPG, the image doesn't seem particularly sharp up close. I tried to find a distinct point of focus but couldn't. Could the shutter speed be an issue?

My experience with the 16-55mm f/2.8 has often been the same. Perhaps I also have a bad copy, but I find the lens to focus poorly or seem soft, even when I aim for higher shutter speeds to avoid camera shake. It's not a lens I really use anymore, I just feel like I cannot trust it in my workflow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
veejaycee

If I lean back to view the full size image - and - remove my reading specs which are for close up, then the image does look sharper. Do you wear reading glasses Chris Poole?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
artuk
On ‎01‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 6:24 AM, ChrisPoole said:

I've recently taken the plunge and traded in an X-T1 for an X-T2. One thing I've noticed is that there isn't the depth of field with RAWs using at least two of my lenses (16-55mm and 50-140mm) that I'd become accustomed to with the X-T1. I very often use f8. I could rely on a decent depth of field. But not so using the X-T2 with RAWs appearing to me to be a bit lacking in DoF. I think I see a general softness in RAWs that also wasn't there with the X-T1. JPEGs, however, are brilliant.

Could this be the larger sensor? Or could I be imagining things?

Regards

Chris

 

the sensor isnt larger, but it has more pixels on the same surface area. Greater pixel density reveals poor technique and reveals the need for critical  focus and adequate dof - it's likely your build 16mp camera simply didn't have enough resolution to reveal depth of field issues, whereas the new one does. many adopters of other brand apsc 24mp cameras made years before Fujis found issues with diffraction as the greater need for dof and pixel level sharpness meant stopping down more, which introduced diffraction and Generalised softness

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisPoole

Thank you all for these helpful observations. 

I do wear reading glasses Vic which I've been using to double-up for screen work. The simple test of leaning closer to the screen  does reveal the RAW as less fuzzy to my eye on my iMac.

I'm starting to feel the same about the 16-55 Christopher. The problem I'm struggling with, though, is that I do like the range of that lens (nicely replacing a 24-70 Nikkor in full frame Nikon days) and it seemed fine to me on my X-T1. As it does, by the way, on my XPro1). All of which does rather confirm some of the comments above. That said, I'm much enjoying the speed and agility of the X-T2.

I'm grateful for the time and trouble people have taken to look at this for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recommended Discussions



×
×
  • Create New...