Sun patches

[quester]

Everyday at sunrise and sunset, the low angle of the sun creates this nice motley pattern in the orchard. The small sensor doesn't do it justice, but anyway...
BTW, I'm getting blur on the right side of the shots I took of this - used both "spot" and "multi" focus modes, but no difference, and no wind. Any ideas?

 

[Blow-in]

It's a nice shot. I can see the blur when I look for it and can't explain it either....I assume you've checked the lens cover for smearing? I suggest some test shots of something like a sign or picture in one plane of focus to see if it repeats.

Richard

 

[Orol]

Quester, a great pattern of both the regularly grown palms and the shadows on them.
Did not you accidentally hit the lens? When the axis of some inside component(s) gets shifted, there can appear blur at borders of the photo.

Peter

 

[quester]

Thanks Richard and Peter - I suppose that the camera could have been "squished" a bit in my right pant pocket, it's at work with me all the time...I'll have to check this out in shots like this, this is the first time I've seen this happen. Other shots I've taken in the past few days didn't have detailed objects on the right side of the frame, so I don't really know when this started...

 

[thelps]

I am seeing a bit of blur on the left side but it seems to come further into the image on the right.
I guess the PX uses "folded optics" like the Panasonics and perhaps something is askew inside the camera but it would be tough to see any alignment issue as it would need instruments to detect.
Maybe a "newspaper on the wall" with the camera tripod mounted as an optic test may yield some more info.

 

[AlbertTRAL]

Nice colors and geometry! Usually decentering defects in the lens cause fuzziness on one side of the image at certain focal lengths/distances. Could be this... :roll:

 

[quester]

Thanks Tim, Albert - the funny thing is that I have been trying to find similar shots taken before I noticed this problem, but I see that such shots also are a bit fuzzy on the sides. Maybe this is indeed just the limits of the lens and sensor, and it's only now that it's so apparent to me.
If any of you have a PX (Richard?) and could try and take a shot of a forest, or perhaps buildings, with enough details/objects at different distances (like this orchard shot), perhaps we could come to a conclusion.

Just checked the option of sending it off to Ricoh Service in Germany - just the shipment will cost $25 each way. If there is indeed a problem (it's still in warranty), I'd be willing to pay this.

 

[Blow-in]

Thanks Tim, Albert - the funny thing is that I have been trying to find similar shots taken before I noticed this problem, but I see that such shots also are a bit fuzzy on the sides. Maybe this is indeed just the limits of the lens and sensor, and it's only now that it's so apparent to me.
If any of you have a PX (Richard?) and could try and take a shot of a forest, or perhaps buildings, with enough details/objects at different distances (like this orchard shot), perhaps we could come to a conclusion.

Just checked the option of sending it off to Ricoh Service in Germany - just the shipment will cost $25 each way. If there is indeed a problem (it's still in warranty), I'd be willing to pay this.

I'll take a few shots of trees & buildings tomorrow and post the results....the problem with progam mode cameras is that you are never sure what's happening with the aperture and therefore depth of field.

Richard

 

[quester]

Thanks Richard- no rush!
BTW, if you go to "Choose shooting info" in the Setup menu, you can choose "Show info" - and then you get shutter and aperture values on the screen while the shot is in focus (before pressing the shutter button). So you have this option, it's just that you can't change it - except by changing the ISO, and that's not really useful for regular shots in good light.

 

[Gab]

Lovely picture quester!

 

[Blow-in]

Quester, I've attached 2 shots of trees taken with the same focal length, ISO and aperture as your shot for comparison (only for focus, not for artisitic merit!). I used spot focus so the focus should be in the centre. I'm using the 10M 4:3 capture with standard colour. I've not done any PP of course. Looking at 200%, the PX sharpness is lacking everywhere as usual and while there is some more softness away from the centre, I don't think it is as marked as your shot....what do you think? I think you are using a different aspect ratio unless you cropped your post....tell me your set-up and I could try some more.

Richard

 

[quester]

Wow, Richard, thanks very much for your effort, I really appreciate it! I didn't have time today to do a serious experiment, but I took two photos that I think reveal what the problem is : the camera seems to be OK, it's just that in this type of scene that I took a photo of (namely, an orchard with many conspicuous objects at different distances), the camera's auto-focusing has its limitations.
In the shots you provided, the main trees are more or less at the same distance from the camera, so the photos are generally OK.

What I saw today is that if I take a shot using "multi AF", the camera can theoretically (and practically) focus on a near object, therefore putting a more distanced one out of focus.
So what I tried is to use "Spot" focus on the distant tree, and then re-compose - and this indeed brought out a bit more detail.

Take a look at the following two shots (both without PP or cropping, just resized):
The first one was taken with spot focus on the nearest trunk (the one in the middle of the frame). I've drawn a circle around the area on the right that is a bit blurred - but compare this area in the next shot, which was taken with spot focusing on the upper right, and then re-composing. You can see that there is a slight, but perceptible, difference in favor of the second. You'll have to view them full size to see this.





Add to this that foliage is a problematic object anyway, and that we're dealing with a small sensor and a very basic focusing mechanism - and it looks like this is what we can expect from this camera. At least I hope that there is nothing wrong with it, as I really don't want to ship it out to Europe to have it checked, it's just not worth it, especially as I'm still not sure that there really IS a problem.
Anyway, if you get another opportunity to shoot something similar, let me know - this seems to be a fairly particular type of setting.
And now I'm really wanting a better camera...

 

[Blow-in]

What I saw today is that if I take a shot using "multi AF", the camera can theoretically (and practically) focus on a near object, therefore putting a more distanced one out of focus.
So what I tried is to use "Spot" focus on the distant tree, and then re-compose - and this indeed brought out a bit more detail.

Add to this that foliage is a problematic object anyway, and that we're dealing with a small sensor and a very basic focusing mechanism - and it looks like this is what we can expect from this camera. At least I hope that there is nothing wrong with it, as I really don't want to ship it out to Europe to have it checked, it's just not worth it, especially as I'm still not sure that there really IS a problem.
Anyway, if you get another opportunity to shoot something similar, let me know - this seems to be a fairly particular type of setting.
And now I'm really wanting a better camera...

Hi quester, the program mode seems to favour a low ISO when there is enough light and often selects a wide open aperture which I guess is always going to challenge the corner sharpness of the lens and produce a shallow depth of focus. Physically, the lens can only focus on one plane so in multi it samples several areas and picks the average which is why spot should be more reliable if the main object is in the centre (with the GRDs you can drive the spot focus around the screen which overcomes the need to have the main object in the centre). I think you are shooting in 16:9 which also challenges the lens a bit more at the edges than 4:3 (effectively an in camera crop).

I guess all cameras are a compromise. The PX does well - very well in your hands - given its small physical size and internal telephoto lens. In some ways it reminds me of my first digital which was a Minolta Dimage which used to slip in to a pocket easily and was always there when an opportunity presented itself. My main camera these days is my GRD4 which I think it absolutely fantastic and is a small 'real' camera with everything adjustable and a great lens too. Yes, it's a fixed focal length lens but as I have posted elsewhere the digital zoom to 40mm equivalant (with auto resize) is really quite good. And yes it is still a small format camera but it is capable of some great image quality and is an absolute joy to hold and use. However, small that it is, the GRD is bigger than the PX and I've attached a couple of comparison shots. Also, it's not for the jean's pocket but it will slip in to my baggy pants pocket in it's GC4 case with a GV2 view finder attached. Another option is to use the camera 'naked' with a GL1 lens cap (note some FW issues with this cap reported elsewhere) and a screen protector. Just some thoughts.....

Richard

 

[thelps]

While the outdoor tests are valid and worthwhile IMO, I think you could learn something of your camera by doing a lens test.

There are some sites suggesting a procedure, such as here -- http://www.photozone.de/lens-test-faq
But I think hanging a sheet of newspaper on the wall, mounting the camera on tripod, getting it square on in both planes and taking some test shots may exhibit any aberrations.
There are a myriad of downloadable and printable test charts also and they also may be of use.

I think it a worthwhile exercise and I will try to find some time and do a chart of my GRD III optics and post back here just for the learning experience.
I do suspect that camera lenses can vary from sample to sample of the same type. You can be lucky and get a good build.

 

[quester]

Hi quester, the program mode seems to favour a low ISO when there is enough light and often selects a wide open aperture which I guess is always going to challenge the corner sharpness of the lens and produce a shallow depth of focus.
My main camera these days is my GRD4 which I think it absolutely fantastic and is a small 'real' camera with everything adjustable and a great lens too.
Richard

Thanks Richard - the open aperture is definitely part of the problem, but I don't really have any way to circumvent this. So it seems that using spot focus is my only way to improve on what the camera does automatically.
I'm glad that you and others are enjoying their GRDs - it really looks like a useful and convenient camera. I hope my next camera will look a lot like it, only with a bigger sensor and - hopefully - weather-sealing. After the PX, I've developed a liking for the "rectangular slab" look of these mirrorless cameras - minimalistic and convenient.

 

[quester]

While the outdoor tests are valid and worthwhile IMO, I think you could learn something of your camera by doing a lens test.
There are some sites suggesting a procedure, such as here -- http://www.photozone.de/lens-test-faq
But I think hanging a sheet of newspaper on the wall, mounting the camera on tripod, getting it square on in both planes and taking some test shots may exhibit any aberrations.
There are a myriad of downloadable and printable test charts also and they also may be of use.

Thanks for the info Tim, I was not aware of this type of test. However, after going through the suggested procedure and reading this :

"In case of a slight centering problem you should not send it to the service department simply because there´re limits of what they can do. They may even make it worse after all (not unheard of) or simply return it arguing that the lens is within factory limits. If I was a normal user I would run this procedure only if there´s reason to be suspicious. Otherwise you just risk loosing your sanity."

I decided that the PX is not worth my sanity...
Seriously, I am too lazy to set this up for my PX....

 

[Athena]

Excellent shot, with lovely lighting and colour! Until you mentioned the blur on the right side, I hadn't even noticed, especially since not all parts of a picture can be in focus anyway.