120 gains on everything.
Aperture Priority, f/2.8 looks the best edge-to-edge due to higher shutter speed.  Always shoot f/2.8.

files:
https://drive.google.com/open?id ... OZx1BLnDf8B8Rcnjofl

F4.5 and f5 look slighter better to me,  crisper.

I've done this test in the past. After f/4.5 things become soft due to diffraction.
The 1 inch sensor on the M2P has a 2.7 times crop factor. This needs to be applied to the apperture of the lens to understand DoF and diffraction.
To put it simple:

f/2.8 = f/8 approx. (f2.8 x 2.7 = f/7.56)
f/4 = f/11 (f/10.8)
f/4.5 = f/12

Anything above that goes into softening the image. For entertainment purposes:

f/8 = f/22
f/11 = f/30!

The best FF glass starts suffering from diffraction after f/11 (except Macro lenses). it is crazy to expect a small sensor - lens combo like in the Mavic to perform at those apertures

El Diabolico Posted at 1-30 02:37
I've done this test in the past. After f/4.5 things become soft due to diffraction.
The 1 inch sensor on the M2P has a 2.7 times crop factor. This needs to be applied to the apperture of the lens to understand DoF and diffraction.
To put it simple:

Where did you get the 2.7x from?  If you are aiming at things that aren't hundreds of feet away and is say indoors, there is bokeh.

More f/stops would just act as an ND filter?

What is ff glass?

El Diabolico Posted at 1-30 02:37
I've done this test in the past. After f/4.5 things become soft due to diffraction.
The 1 inch sensor on the M2P has a 2.7 times crop factor. This needs to be applied to the apperture of the lens to understand DoF and diffraction.
To put it simple:

What is the crop factor of the M2Z and P4PV2.0?

Hard to judge without 100%

AntDX316 Posted at 1-30 03:52
Where did you get the 2.7x from?  If you are aiming at things that aren't hundreds of feet away and is say indoors, there is bokeh.

More f/stops would just act as an ND filter?

Hello there, I will try to address your questions in the same order.

ISO and Aperture (f/stops) numbers have been established utilizing the Full Frame camera sensor size. The FF size was chosen due to the fact that SLR cameras used a 35mm film strip so when switching to DSLRs, the same sensor size as film was utilized. To make thing comparable, every sensor has a 35mm (film size) equivalent crop factor. FF or Full Frame lenses are used in cameras with a 35mm sensor. The 1" sensor utilized in the M2P, has a 2.7 times 'crop factor' compared to the 35mm reference number. This practically means that the 1" sensor is 2.7 times smaller than the full frame equivalent (please see pic below). The P4P also uses a 1"  sensor so the same crop factor that applies to the M2P, applies to it. The M2Z uses an even smaller sensor (1/2.3") that is equivalent to a x5.6 crop factor.

The crop factor is also applied to the aperture number to get the equivalent DoF and understand the diffraction limits. Usually, the smaller the lens unit - sensor combo, the larger the depth of field (that's why in camera phones with a small sensor or the Mavic, everything seems to be in focus, from a few cm to infinity).
Please mind that I've simplified the above explanation as it also depends on the distance from the subject.

Larger f/stops do reduce the amount of light like an ND filter does. However, the use of ND filters is necessary more often than not, as the aperture has limitations before diffraction kicks-in so utilizing the smallest f /stop sometimes isn't enough (ND filters are also used to really allow much longer shutter speeds). FYI, general purpose lenses start to suffer from the diffraction limits around f/11. Specialty lenses (like Macro), can go as small as f/22 or beyond.

Diffraction is a loss in detail (resolution) caused by the light "bending" when trying to get through a very small aperture when higher f/stop numbers are used. That's why the Mavic 2 pro is sharper at wider apertures, because the equivalent f/stop number is much smaller.

El Diabolico Posted at 2-3 00:09
Hello there, I will try to address your questions in the same order.

Every sensor has a 35mm (film size) equivalent. FF or Full Frame lenses are used in cameras with a 35mm sensor. When comparing it to smaller sensor sizes like the 1" sensor utilized in the M2P, we use a 'crop factor' to compare them to the 35mm reference number. in the case of a 1", it is 2.7 times smaller than the full frame equivalent (please see pic below). The P4P also uses a 1@ sensor so the same crop factor that applies to the M2P, applies to it. The M2Z uses an even smaller sensor (1/2.3") that is equivalent to a x5.6 crop factor.

So full-frame is considered 1:1 crop?  Smaller and bigger, then we need to calculate the aperture as it's not exactly where it says it is?  The purpose of having the ability to go beyond the limits of where the corners are at maximum sharpness is the purpose of having a dynamic ND-filter?

AntDX316 Posted at 2-3 00:17
So full-frame is considered 1:1 crop?  Smaller and bigger, then we need to calculate the aperture as it's not exactly where it says it is?  The purpose of having the ability to go beyond the limits of where the corners are at maximum sharpness is like having an ND-filter?

Correct. I've edited the post to explain the 35mm correlation.

No, you just need to be careful when using anything smaller than a DX sensor (x1.5 crop).

Camera manufacturers use f/stop numbers to impress potential buyers. You often see all-in-one zoom cameras (Bridge Cameras) with 1/2.3" sensors and 25-600mm zoom lenses that state "f/2.8 constant aperture" (e.g. Panasonic Lumix FZ300). That f/2.8 is in reality  f/16 and that makes sense as physics are physics. to give you an example, a Nikon 600mm f/4 lens (f/2.8 would just be crazy) weighs 8.4 lb  or 3.81 kg and cost 12.000$ so as you can see, there's a lot of marketing bs going on...

El Diabolico Posted at 2-3 00:37
Correct. I've edited the post to explain the 35mm correlation.

No, you just need to be careful when using anything smaller than a DX sensor (x1.5 crop).

I could imagine.  A lot of marketing bs luring people into buying things that aren't even that great.  I like the real detailed answers of how come.  It's what everyone needs to have.

It would be nice if they could just give the equivalent f/ number that isn't 1:1 with something that has a great reference.  It would be nice to have diffraction and illumination degradation numbers instead but of course, it has to be in perfect tolerance otherwise people will complain then.

Imo, having a quick identifier to understand is what to have rather than running all these tests on our own and figuring out how it does but due to the different mounts and other things, it would be impossible to really tell.

All that is important is knowing where the diffraction starts, corner sharpness is at the highest and note it.  I'm not too experienced but if you have more or less light does the f/ ideal number before diffraction change or if you are at 100% maximum sharpness corner-to-corner at say f/7.1 will it always be f/7.1 w/ that setup no matter what?

If you add a compatibility mount (adapter) will that increase the diffraction at a lower f/stop?

I do understand going under or over optimal f/stop for certain lighting conditions indeed mattering over sharpness though.

Instead of given f/ numbers, shutter speeds, ISOs to select from we are given illumination, sharpness, motion blur, bokeh, and noise tolerance numbers to select from.  The computer handles the rest with fast KHz polling rates to detect for an unstable shooting platform and a changing environment because right now, we have to remember the presets ourself when the time comes and take the shot instead of it doing it automatically at a 1ms change that we cannot do as humans.  Establishing the balance are what pros do.  It's not like we can change one setting and be good.  If we don't mess w/ the rest it would be suboptimal.

AntDX316 Posted at 2-3 00:42
I could imagine.  A lot of marketing bs luring people into buying things that aren't even that great.  I like the real detailed answers of how come.  It's what everyone needs to have.

It would be nice if they could just give the equivalent f/ number that isn't 1:1 with something that has a great reference.  It would be nice to have diffraction and illumination degradation numbers instead but of course, it has to be in perfect tolerance otherwise people will complain then.

Hello again. I agree with you, however, manufacturers will never state: 25-600mm with a f/16 constant aperture... Unfortunately the best solution to understand your gear is try by yourself and find the limitations and/or read/watch reviews online from reputable sources.

No diffraction will always start at the same aperture. It has to do with the way the light bends to enter the lens towards the camera sensor, not the amount of light itself.

Some adapters might have a negative influence in the amount of light, especially the ones that don't have any glass elements on them. on the other side, some good adapters like the Metabones, will allow you to use faster glass in smaller sensors while improving the f/stop numbers so the negative effects of the crop factor are minimized.

If light conditions are forcing you to use an f/stop that will soften your image, better use an ND filter

The easiest way to learn when shooting a camera is use Aperture Priority (you will decide how much you want in focus, Sharpness  and Bokeh levels) and a variable ISO up to the sensor capabilities (controls image noise, the lower the ISO, the cleaner the image). The camera will automatically select the Shutter Speed for you and everything should be fine. Just avoid clipping the highlights as once baked on the RAW data they cannot be recovered. Again, check reviews on your gear to understand what ISO is acceptable and what is the limit and depending on the lens, what apertures are sharper

i salute you.

El Diabolico Posted at 2-3 01:16
Hello again. I agree with you, however, manufacturers will never state: 25-600mm with a f/16 constant aperture... Unfortunately the best solution to understand your gear is try by yourself and find the limitations and/or read/watch reviews online from reputable sources.

No diffraction will always start at the same aperture. It has to do with the way the light bends to enter the lens towards the camera sensor, not the amount of light itself.

I will be taking some images today w/ a lens I've never used before.  Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Sony E-mount on an A7 III.  I will only have an hour or so to practice before I head over to the client.  They aren't paying thousands of dollars but I always wanted a nice wide lens since I started for more versatility.  All I'm going to do is find where the sharpness is at the highest then just stick to that with ISO 400 being the maximum and AEB 5x (during high clip areas) because I don't really have any jobs and I'm bored.

AntDX316 Posted at 2-3 01:32
I will be taking some images today w/ a lens I've never used before.  Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Sony E-mount on an A7 III.  I will only have an hour or so to practice before I head over to the client.  They aren't paying thousands of dollars but I always wanted a nice wide lens since I started for more versatility.  All I'm going to do is find where the sharpness is at the highest then just stick to that with ISO 400 being the maximum and AEB 5x (during high clip areas) because I don't really have any jobs and I'm bored.

I guess you will be doing some real estate / Interior photos?
I've used the Nikon version of that lens (rented, I decided I wanted something even wider [and cheaper] so I went for the Samyang 12mm f/2.8). In a nut shell, you got a little gem there friend.

It is super sharp from f/2.8 to f/5.6, extreme corners pick up at f/8 but obviously you will loose some center resolution.  With my Nikon D750 (Z6 added recently) focus was a little inconsistent so i used Live View to be sure that the cnter and the corners were sharp. I believe Sony's AF is quite better so I guess you won'z have any issues.

I wish you luck

El Diabolico Posted at 2-3 03:47
I guess you will be doing some real estate / Interior photos?
I've used the Nikon version of that lens (rented, I decided I wanted something even wider [and cheaper] so I went for the Samyang 12mm f/2.8). In a nut shell, you got a little gem there friend.

Yes, interior but it doesn't have to be perfect but I'm trying to get into it for practice.  I've been trying to get myself to do presentations and brochures to be believable so when people hire me, I buy the stuff and practice.

What settings do you recommend for the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 A7 III?

AntDX316 Posted at 2-3 03:50
Yes, interior but it doesn't have to be perfect but I'm trying to get into it for practice.  I've been trying to get myself to do presentations and brochures to be believable so when people hire me, I buy the stuff and practice.

What settings do you recommend for the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 A7 III?

For interior and 14mm my Hyperfocal table calculator (PhotoPills for iOS) gives me a Hyperfocal  Distance of 1.17m at f/5.6. This means that if you actually focus at 1.17m, everything from 0.6m to infinity should be in focus so practically the whole room. Be sure to use a tripod, ISO 100 and a timer or remote as interiors usually have less light and camera shake can be easily introduced

That Sony camera and Art lens combo of yours have excellent performance so you can zoom at 100% and check for minor differences although I doubt you will be able to see any unless pixel peeping at 200%. I would start with that aperture and also try f/8 (although the center might be a little softer). At f/8 you need to focus at 0.8m and from 0.4m to infinity you will get acceptable sharpness levels (with a 42Mpx camera acceptable means great).

To be honest with any super wide angle, practically at any aperture from f/4 and above everything should be quite sharp sharp.

El Diabolico Posted at 2-3 05:27
For interior and 14mm my Hyperfocal table calculator (PhotoPills for iOS) gives me a Hyperfocal  Distance of 1.17m at f/5.6. This means that if you actually focus at 1.17m, everything from 0.6m to infinity should be in focus so practically the whole room. Be sure to use a tripod, ISO 100 and a timer or remote as interiors usually have less light and camera shake can be easily introduced  

That Sony camera and Art lens combo of yours have excellent performance so you can zoom at 100% and check for minor differences although I doubt you will be able to see any unless pixel peeping at 200%. I would start with that aperture and also try f/8 (although the center might be a little softer). At f/8 you need to focus at 0.8m and from 0.4m to infinity you will get acceptable sharpness levels (with a 42Mpx camera acceptable means great).

So f/4 and ISO 50?  I saw the examples of what they want me to shoot.  The setup I have is going to be overkill but I end up using some of the images for my own portfolio anyway.  Shooting in 5x AEB good or bad but the RAW files are going to suck to process.  1x ok?

What is the best way to make everything sharp?

El Diabolico Posted at 2-3 05:27
For interior and 14mm my Hyperfocal table calculator (PhotoPills for iOS) gives me a Hyperfocal  Distance of 1.17m at f/5.6. This means that if you actually focus at 1.17m, everything from 0.6m to infinity should be in focus so practically the whole room. Be sure to use a tripod, ISO 100 and a timer or remote as interiors usually have less light and camera shake can be easily introduced  

That Sony camera and Art lens combo of yours have excellent performance so you can zoom at 100% and check for minor differences although I doubt you will be able to see any unless pixel peeping at 200%. I would start with that aperture and also try f/8 (although the center might be a little softer). At f/8 you need to focus at 0.8m and from 0.4m to infinity you will get acceptable sharpness levels (with a 42Mpx camera acceptable means great).

I just completed it but I was running test before heading out to the job.  f/4 is not enough nor even f/11 which I was shooting at.  I was testing at a rest stop before heading to the area.  f/16 shows everything and the corner sharpness was identical.  I couldn't examine it on the camera but at home I could see.

I was using ISO 50 with like a 2" which was fine but 250 kept the sharpness.  I didn't add the 2 second start delay until a few shots which sucked because some of the photos were blurry.  Even a 4" shot was ok w/ the tripod 2/ the 2-second delay at f/11.

El Diabolico Posted at 2-3 05:27
For interior and 14mm my Hyperfocal table calculator (PhotoPills for iOS) gives me a Hyperfocal  Distance of 1.17m at f/5.6. This means that if you actually focus at 1.17m, everything from 0.6m to infinity should be in focus so practically the whole room. Be sure to use a tripod, ISO 100 and a timer or remote as interiors usually have less light and camera shake can be easily introduced  

That Sony camera and Art lens combo of yours have excellent performance so you can zoom at 100% and check for minor differences although I doubt you will be able to see any unless pixel peeping at 200%. I would start with that aperture and also try f/8 (although the center might be a little softer). At f/8 you need to focus at 0.8m and from 0.4m to infinity you will get acceptable sharpness levels (with a 42Mpx camera acceptable means great).

All f/1.8.  ISO 1000 1-sec seems amazing.  Time lapsing would be unreal.  I'm going to go nuts with this in the summer.  I didn't know stars like that existed!!  It was super dark outside btw.

The ISO 1000 1-sec didn't look like that outside.  Outside it was like 3-4x darker.

How come focusing beyond the ∞ notch makes the image look worse that is closer?  I'm not even sure if the image far away looks sharp though.

F/2.8 looks slightly better than F/5.6.  Both look better than F/11.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 2-3 16:28
F/2.8 looks slightly better than F/5.6.  Both look better than F/11.

The shutter speed starts to become a problem.

AntDX316 Posted at 2-3 16:39
The shutter speed starts to become a problem.

The old Exposure Triangle...

With some now calling for Exposure Square as follows:  Shutter, Aperture, ISO, Light  or  Shutter, Aperture, ISO, Focal Length
Light relating to use of Neutral Density Filters** / Strobes and Studio lighting

Potentially leading to Exposure Pentagon: Shutter, Aperture, ISO, Light, Focal Length ?

With ISO for digital cameras being re-labeled: Gain (post-sensor gain or amount output from sensor is post amplified)  Confusion comes from ISO on digital cameras being attempt to characterize what was Film's ASA rating based on photochemical emulsion used.  

With digital ISO (Gain) tied back in part to megapixles, sensor size (density), and sensor's own sentivity to photons; ultimately leading to Noise...
Shutter, Aperture, Noise (gain), Light, Focal Length, and adding Sensor...  the Hexagon of Exposure


** Mavic 2 Pro Cine Variable ND Filters

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 2-3 19:37
The old Exposure Triangle...

With some now calling for Exposure Square as follows:  Shutter, Aperture, ISO, Light  or  Shutter, Aperture, ISO, Focal Length

I had to shoot on the go so I wasn't entirely ready.  There was bread moving and I had to increase the shutter speed but my aperture was already set at f/11.  The only way to increase shutter w/o losing the aperture was to jack up the ISO.  I wanted to get the bread still but didn't know what shutter was needed so I ended up shooting some shots at ISO 10000 and 20000 which I had to nose reduc hard.  I was varying between 50, 250, 400, and 1000 ISO 10000 and 20000.

It could've been better but I had zero experience w/ the lens prior other than 10 minutes of use.  Sigma f/1.8 14mm

AntDX316 Posted at 2-3 15:53
I just completed it but I was running test before heading out to the job.  f/4 is not enough nor even f/11 which I was shooting at.  I was testing at a rest stop before heading to the area.  f/16 shows everything and the corner sharpness was identical.  I couldn't examine it on the camera but at home I could see.

I was using ISO 50 with like a 2" which was fine but 250 kept the sharpness.  I didn't add the 2 second start delay until a few shots which sucked because some of the photos were blurry.  Even a 4" shot was ok w/ the tripod 2/ the 2-second delay at f/11.

Nice photo.

You are right about f/4 don't being enough... I was expecting a room in a house, not a warehouse lol
At f/16 you should be losing quite a bit of sharpness according to the MTF Charts. However, you will need to zoom-in to see that and have photos taken with larger apertures side by side for comparison. Sigma Art lenses are extremelly sharp even wide open (I had the 18-35mm f/1.8 for DX and I still have the 35mm f/1.4 for my Nikon D750/Z6).


Is ISO 50 native on the Sony or extended? The Sony sensors are similar to Nikon's sensor (that actually are also made by Sony) so  if you aren't going to print big, you can easily shoot at ISO 6400 without any issues.
You actually chose the best option, to experiment. With experience and familiarity with your gear you will be able to read conditions easier so your starting point comes closer to the final settings you will need. Keep walking!

Glad you figured out on how to use the delay function

AntDX316 Posted at 2-3 16:22
All f/1.8.  ISO 1000 1-sec seems amazing.  Time lapsing would be unreal.  I'm going to go nuts with this in the summer.  I didn't know stars like that existed!!  It was super dark outside btw.

The ISO 1000 1-sec didn't look like that outside.  Outside it was like 3-4x darker.

You have to be careful with the infinity symbol / notch. Very few manufacturers really calibrate their lenses to infinity (Zeiss) and the distance can be influenced by the expansion and contraction of  the barrel when subjected to temperature changes.

Best way is to use live view, zoom at 100% on a star and manually focus until it becomes a small dot. Then switch your camera into Manual Focus so it doesn't try to re-acquire focus when pushing the shutter and take the shot. You can also use Back Button focus to separate the focus function from the shutter button.

In addition, when shooting at infinity, it is very difficult to can get both the foreground and the background in focus with one shot. Try taking take 2 shots (or more), 1 for the foreground and 1 aiming at the stars and then stack them in post

You believe are going to enjoy yourself friend...

AntDX316 Posted at 2-3 16:22
All f/1.8.  ISO 1000 1-sec seems amazing.  Time lapsing would be unreal.  I'm going to go nuts with this in the summer.  I didn't know stars like that existed!!  It was super dark outside btw.

The ISO 1000 1-sec didn't look like that outside.  Outside it was like 3-4x darker.

You need to download a DoF Table calculator like PhotoPills that I mentioned yesterday.
I f you wish to avoid photo stacking, you need to understand what the minimum focus distances and hyperfocal points will give you the best results.

With a 14mm, if you focus at 5m you will get everything from 2,41m to infinity in acceptable focus, this means the overall photo will look great but the stars will not be super sharp if you zoom-in.

If you focus to 1000m (infinity), everything from 4,6m to infinity will be sharp. That is actually what you shot above and that is why the porch is kind of soft but everything from the trees and beyond look sharp

With such a high resolution camera you can either focus to infinity and crop, stack or avoid a bright foreground so the eyes of your audience are drawn to a further subject.

El Diabolico Posted at 2-4 02:38
Nice photo.

You are right about f/4 don't being enough... I was expecting a room in a house, not a warehouse lol

It allows you go to ISO-50 on the A7 III.  What sucks is the blurring on the sides if the focus is setup incorrectly at distance.  The center looks sharp though but the sides are smeared.  I just got the lens so I need to learn.  Indoors, you can get away with it but pretty far away in a big place it starts to show.

El Diabolico Posted at 2-4 02:44
You have to be careful with the infinity symbol / notch. Very few manufacturers really calibrate their lenses to infinity (Zeiss) and the distance can be influenced by the expansion and contraction of  the barrel when subjected to temperature changes.

Best way is to use live view, zoom at 100% on a star and manually focus until it becomes a small dot. Then switch your camera into Manual Focus so it doesn't try to re-acquire focus when pushing the shutter and take the shot. You can also use Back Button focus to separate the focus function from the shutter button.

I need to look at the pixel peaking for this to work.  Also, a tripod shot with 2-sec delay is a super must.  Holding the shutter for AEB is impossible to keep steady.  First time shooting w/o much time as I had to keep up w/ the factory tour.  I realize the importance of all the dial settings.  You need to be able to setup and take because holding up the clients won't look too good.

El Diabolico Posted at 2-4 03:04
You need to download a DoF Table calculator like PhotoPills that I mentioned yesterday.
I f you wish to avoid photo stacking, you need to understand what the minimum focus distances and hyperfocal points will give you the best results.

https://drive.google.com/open?id ... axO7wklf1cPABRB6qGk

Take a look at those.  Download them and upload them to Lightroom to see the metadata to compare.  f/16 shows everything sharp all around including distance.  f/11, if you look out through the windshield it's not sharp.  I couldn't tell this because I didn't bring the computer to examine.  I just bought the lens 30 minutes ago from this time.

To be safe, I would do everything landscape on f/16 considering there is time to sit still and not where you need to shoot on the move.  100% from what I've seen f/4 isn't enough to have all-around sharpness unless I am missing something.  People are probably focusing stacking hard.

I like to look at people's test and then run my own to see, usually, people are right but I just think they've made f/16 perfect on the Sigma.  The Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Sony E-mount just came out and they probably revised it.  The other manufacturers, Canon and Nikon, those lenses came out before so the test results are going to be different as I assume, the build and calibration is different.

I need to 100% focus peak all the time most likely.  The DoF of the lens is high.  Maybe I didn't set infinity on some photos.  I'm not 100% sure.

I will run MF tests next time.

What do you mean by 5m to infinity and 1000m to infinity?  The shallow DoF is carried on throughout the "dolly" unless you are at f/16 so anything before and beyond will have some or massive blur if below f/16.  Say you are at f/1.8, when you drag out the focus the shallow depth of field is moved.  The shallow depth of field zone does not change, just moved.  How can we make it where anything between us and the DoF distance is sharp and switch it to where anything after at the DoF distance is sharp.  Everything opposite is bokeh?

Have a look at this, at 1080p of course.  It was set to AF-C at default response times.


I think the MTF performance chart is wrong.  My images are sharper all around at f/16.  I just did a test inside the room looking at the corners.  f/4 has smeared corners still and f/16 has everything sharp.  You have to increase ISO or decrease the shutter speed but that is the only downfall.  The Sony E-mount model must be different.  They use the same manual in their boxes it seems.  In the manual it says MF is the only option when in video but AF-C does indeed work.  I think the lens is underrated but I could be wrong as the 14-24mm is the professional choice but I don't really care about taking pictures of VIPs on the move.

AntDX316 Posted at 2-4 03:40
https://drive.google.com/open?id ... axO7wklf1cPABRB6qGk

Take a look at those.  Download them and upload them to Lightroom to see the metadata to compare.  f/16 shows everything sharp all around including distance.  f/11, if you look out through the windshield it's not sharp.  I couldn't tell this because I didn't bring the computer to examine.  I just bought the lens 30 minutes ago from this time.

What was your focus point in the warehouse? That would drastically influence the rest of the image.
That's why Hyperfocal  Focus point and DoF are closely linked.

If you focus too close to you, no matter the aperture, the background will never get super sharp. If you focus too far way (infinity), the foreground would never be super sharp. This is why you need to understand where to place your focus point (m or inches). A rule of thumb is that if you focus 2/3 into your image with a small aperture, everything should be quite sharp, especially with a super wide angle lens like your Sigma.

In your case and based on the Hyperfocal table, if you focus at 5m away at f/1.4, everything from 2.5m (half your focusing distance) to infinity should be in focus (photo 2).

If you focus at 1000m away (that is considered infinity), at f/1.4, everything from approx. 5m until infinity will be acceptably sharp and that is why in the photos you took, your porch and the trees close to it are soft (less than 5m) and everything beyond that (grass, trees, stars = more than 5m) is sharp (photo 1).

We use 'acceptably' sharp because it is extremely difficult to capture all that in one single shot being uniformly sharp, there's always a trade-off. Wider lenses like your 14mm tend to be much more forgiving. For longer focals you need to pay more attention as bokeh (DoF) is more prominent.
I've found the link to PhotoPills for PC (free), you can experiment more to understand what I am saying and then practice
https://www.photopills.com/calculators/hyperfocal-table

Closing, your lens shouldn't be sharper at f/16. try focusing at the distances I am telling you and check the differences edge to edge, not only center sharpness!I am posting below a photo I took in Iceland with my Samyang 12mm at f/11. Focused to the middle of the boat and you can see that also the mountains on the back are in focus.

El Diabolico Posted at 2-4 05:26
What was your focus point in the warehouse? That would drastically influence the rest of the image.
That's why Hyperfocal  Focus point and DoF are closely linked.

Focus was ∞.

Amazing post again but that boat picture is cheating the prime results of what we are talking about.  Look at the picture, the sides are cropped out but we shouldn't assume it's because of "art", it's to make the corner smearing problem that goes away if you just take the center portions of the image.  Basically, the method of working around in an artistic fashion.  A good pano can make it where you crop out a 16:9, 3:2, or 4:3 that corner to corner is sharp but taking a one-shot with corner-to-corner sharpness w/o a high f/stop just won't happen.

I'm trying to get the best sharpness all around while keeping the ISO levels down and blur to an acceptable level.  Does anything exist where it can automatically take shots adjusting the focus point from closest to infinity in steps that we set then have Adobe merge the images together so everything is super sharp?  Also, have it do the same with a slight say 15° rotation on the left and right direction so everything is beyond sharp?

Maybe the only option is just to do Aperture priority f/16 at ISO 400 for the best of all-worlds?

AntDX316 Posted at 2-4 06:37
Focus was ∞.

Amazing post again but that boat picture is cheating the prime results of what we are talking about.  Look at the picture, the sides are cropped out but we shouldn't assume it's because of "art", it's to make the corner smearing problem that goes away if you just take the center portions of the image.  Basically, the method of working around in an artistic fashion.  A good pano can make it where you crop out a 16:9, 3:2, or 4:3 that corner to corner is sharp but taking a one-shot with corner-to-corner sharpness w/o a high f/stop just won't happen.

Hello again,

1st of all, no crop (I can send you the RAW file if you wish). That lens is extremely sharp edge to edge. The issue with a 12mm is that you can go really get close to your subject and I was shooting at f/11. I would suggest you read this review, it explains the 'smearing' you're seing and how to avoid it.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-14mm-f-1-8-dg-hsm-art

I am not aware of such device HOWEVER, my Nikon Z6 has a focus Stacking feature that does that automatically. Don't know if Sony has a similar feature though
Another photo with the 12mm, sharp edge to edge. the mountain on the background is what we would call 'acceptably sharp' (it is a few Km away).

El Diabolico Posted at 2-4 07:23
Hello again,

1st of all, no crop (I can send you the RAW file if you wish). That lens is extremely sharp edge to edge. The issue with a 12mm is that you can go really get close to your subject and I was shooting at f/11. I would suggest you read this review, it explains the 'smearing' you're seing and how to avoid it.

yeah, the built-in focus stacking is so cheating

When people post their pictures they just put the standard triangle numbers but they don't list all the other things like focus stack, Pano, crop, AI sharpen, etc.  There are lot of things that people don't know that do matter.  It sucks.  Either we strongly research trying to find the best intel or we settle for whatever comes our way.

This is good but to properly focus stack you need to take dozens of photos.
https://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft-products/helicon-focus/

On the go focus stacking on a tripod will solve all my problems.  The people who have great photos with edge-to-edge sharpness most likely All have focus stacking going on.  How is focus bracket stacking not even a standard?


edit: I just did a focus stacking with f/11 and the difference versus a one-shot is amazing. I tried to f/1.8 focus stack and was wondering why it was bad.  It was because I don't have enough images.  Sony is trying to keep the average people out of the pro secrets.  Focus stacking is so beyond a must than AEB imo.  We have an autofocus motor, we have multiple ways on how to do autofocus and exposure automation, how don't we have a method to do focus bracketing??

Ended up ordering Arsenal.  I need reliable and consistent sharp edge-to-edge focus stacking.
edit: aresenal sucks, returned it

AntDX316 Posted at 2-4 08:13
yeah, the built-in focus stacking is so cheating

When people post their pictures they just put the standard triangle numbers but they don't list all the other things like focus stack, Pano, crop, AI sharpen, etc.  There are lot of things that people don't know that do matter.  It sucks.  Either we strongly research trying to find the best intel or we settle for whatever comes our way.

Kid, the above images are not stacked nor cropped. They were taken with my D750 and the Samyang 12mm f/2.8 at f/11 or f/13 (don't remember). They are edited in Lightroom as in the past film was edited in the Darkroom . I usually don't need to stack as I take care of my composition, foreground and background. If you want everything 100% sharp in a 2D environment, you will need to stack your photos.

Photographers don't use the word cheating as photography is creative and based on the manipulation of light and composition, with your logic, Black & White should be cheating... There's nothing wrong with stacking, editing or whatever techniques you use to get the results you are after. The only type of photography that can be considered cheating if altered is photo journalistic as you need to show reality.

IMO you should also avoid stacking unless this is explicitly asked by any client. Having everything in focus often results in a 'weird' and unnatural image as humans also perceive DoF. Closing, stacking is no 'pro' secret of any kind, it is just another technique that you learn when practicing photography.
The difference you see between f/1.8 and f/11 when stacking is normal as the DoF at f/1.8 is very short so the physical intervals between photos (distance) doesn't cover the necessary DoF. At f/11 it is already great so you will need just a few shots.

Closing, stacking increases the file size and not everyone knows how to handle multiple exposures.

El Diabolico Posted at 2-12 05:04
Kid, the above images are not stacked nor cropped. They were taken with my D750 and the Samyang 12mm f/2.8 at f/11 or f/13 (don't remember). They are edited in Lightroom as in the past film was edited in the Darkroom . I usually don't need to stack as I take care of my composition, foreground and background. If you want everything 100% sharp in a 2D environment, you will need to stack your photos.

Photographers don't use the word cheating as photography is creative and based on the manipulation of light and composition, with your logic, Black & White should be cheating... There's nothing wrong with stacking, editing or whatever techniques you use to get the results you are after. The only type of photography that can be considered cheating if altered is photo journalistic as you need to show reality.

https://forum44.djicdn.com/data/ ... nbsng96xrcr878w.jpg

This image was taken w/ the camera in portrait mode then?

Stacking does indeed work.  It 100% indeed works.  As long as you aren't stacking not enough f/1.8s and stacking some f/11s it is indeed better than not stacking at all.  You either get good close edge sharpness and sacrifice a lot of distance or you get good distance and sacrifice close edge sharpness.  Maybe you can't really tell there is a sharpness issue as you just look into the distance anyway and some "blur" on the sides doesn't matter but I prefer an image is that is super sharp edge-to-edge as if you did a pano then cropped in, it's as if you chopped the excess off such as taking just the head of the cupcake instead of using the whole entire cupcake.  It's like in a way, eating the pizza w/o the crust.  The excess will happen it has to exist but if you chop it off because of you have a lot more middle area to work w/, it's better.

I will go outside and capture some images stacking to show but it's my first time using the A7R4 and the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 outdoors so.. I won't know what to change until I drive back home.  I might bring the other lens and the Ronin-S to setup for some good pano cropping like I was talking about though.

AntDX316 Posted at 2-12 06:08
https://forum44.djicdn.com/data/ ... nbsng96xrcr878w.jpg

This image was taken w/ the camera in portrait mode then?

Yes, the image was taken in portrait mode. I use a 3 Legged thing L-Bracket.

Ultra wide lenses are extremely sharp stopped down, stacking is rarely necessary. In your case, I believe you are running into problems because you are not very familiar with your gear. IMO, you should forget about stacking unless absolutely necessary. From the charts I've posted, it is clear that the 14mm is starting to soften up at f/11 (chose f/5.6 for better center and corner sharpness or f/8 for the extreme corners. Check charts above!). Please read that article because the author was also having soft corners until he learned to properly focus the lens.

Stacking is a temporarily solution that will allow you to "go around the problem" instead of solving it. There will be several instances that you won't be able to stack because the moment will be simply gone. Take the time to experiment with different apertures and different focal points via the Hyperfocal calculator I've sent to you and you will be amazed. It might seem complicated at first but I ensure you it is much easier than eating the pizza's crust ;)
Closing, no one is going to be zooming at 200% to examine your photos. You have to take in consideration that factor and the viewing distances. Obsess with improving your technique, not pixel peeping!

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 2-3 19:37
The old Exposure Triangle...

With some now calling for Exposure Square as follows:  Shutter, Aperture, ISO, Light  or  Shutter, Aperture, ISO, Focal Length

Any idea why this guy has been banned? His posts were quite polite...

El Diabolico Posted at 2-13 05:49
Any idea why this guy has been banned? His posts were quite polite...

He was polite, but often rambling,  disjointed and having nothing to do with MP2s.

parkgt214 Posted at 2-13 06:06
He was polite, but often rambling,  disjointed and having nothing to do with MP2s.

That,  and arguing with various folks.....mostly hallmark007, who is also gone for now.  If you were to look at bandwidth by user on here......those 2 took up 70%....just as a number, nothing to prove....just nice having those that want answers or ask questions not having their threads taken over by those two.

Randy

parkgt214 Posted at 2-13 06:06
He was polite, but often rambling,  disjointed and having nothing to do with MP2s.

I see... weird IMO.