|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]() Quote:
so would a better quality lens overcome this? Dave |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
No. Basically, at that point, you're disassembling the image. Nothing is going to look good.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]() Quote:
i usually use that feature to recheck how sharp the picture came out and in that case i can safely say the 18-200 is a very sharp lens, unfortunately one has to shoot at F8 and above Dave |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
|
![]()
Most lenses are sharpest at f8 (give or take a stop), and even the best lenses are not sharp wide open. Honestly, most current lenses are acceptably sharp at medium apertures, and even when not at those apertures are just fine for casual use and the lack of sharpness isn't a huge problem at normal viewing/print sizes. Although viewing images at 100% will give you some insight as to the quality of a lens, and how sharp the image is, even viewing at 100% is not necessary for most casual images and their typical use (4x6, 5x7 printing and web viewing). I've printed shots taken with the 18-200 and made 16x20 prints which turned out great.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
|
![]() Quote:
very well said 80% of most casual photos are printed at 4x6 Dave |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|