Finally! SHARPNESS!

[Swampy]

My first sharp picture from my S2. Figures I wasn't being serious when I took it. :(

Here's the whole shot, next post is a full pixel crop of an area.

[Swampy]

here's a close up crop

[Chris G]

Could you post the EXIF swampy?

[Swampy]

Tag Name Value
010f Make FUJIFILM
0110 Model FinePixS2Pro
0112 Orientation 1
011a XResolution 72.0
011b YResolution 72.0
0128 ResolutionUnit 2
0131 Software Digital Camera FinePixS2Pro Ver1.00
0132 DateTime 2003:01:29 07:58:26
0213 YCbCrPositioning 2
8298 Copyright
8769 ExifOffset 248
829a ExposureTime 1.5
829d FNumber 1100/100
8822 ExposureProgram 2
8827 ISOSpeedRatings 100
9000 ExifVersion 0x30 0x32 0x32 0x30
9003 DateTimeOriginal 2003:01:29 07:58:26
9004 DateTimeDigitized 2003:01:29 07:58:26
9101 ComponentsConfiguration 0x1 0x2 0x3 0x0
9102 CompressedBitsPerPixel 3.2
9201 ShutterSpeedValue -50/100
9202 ApertureValue 700/100
9203 BrightnessValue 133/100
9204 ExposureBiasValue 0/100
9207 MeteringMode 5
9208 LightSource 0
9209 Flash 0
920a FocalLength 18300/100
927c MakerNote
a000 FlashPixVersion 0x30 0x31 0x30 0x30
a001 ColorSpace 1
a002 ExifImageWidth 4256
a003 ExifImageLength 2848
a005 InteroperabilityOffset 1056
0001 InteroperabilityIndex R98
0002 InteroperabilityVersion 0x30 0x31 0x30 0x30
a20e FocalPlaneXResolution 1861.0
a20f FocalPlaneYResolution 1861.0
a210 FocalPlaneResolutionUnit 3
a217 SensingMethod 2
a300 FileSource 0x3
a301 SceneType 0x1
a401 0
a402 0
a403 0
a405 274
a406 0
a408 0
a409 0
a40a 0
a40c 0
0103 Compression 6
0112 Orientation 1
011a XResolution 72.0
011b YResolution 72.0
0128 ResolutionUnit 2
0201 JPEGInterchangeFormat 1204
0202 JPEGInterchangeFormatLength 10160
0213 YCbCrPositioning 2

[Chris G]

Looks a bit more cryptic than I am used to. I could only pick out the ISO value (100)

I was looking for the shutter speed, f stop, focal lengh and lens that you used. A Macro?

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Chris G
Looks a bit more cryptic than I am used to. I could only pick out the ISO value (100)

I was looking for the shutter speed, f stop, focal lengh and lens that you used. A Macro?

You wanted the Exif! :P

829a ExposureTime 1.5
829d FNumber 1100/100


1.5 second exposure
f11

[Tom V]

Swampy,

I get the feeling you never had a sharp image before. Have you been having trouble?

Any idea why this shot is untypical for you?

1.5 second exposure time. Did you use a tripod? Had all your previous unsharp photos come from hand-held shots?

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Tom Voegeli
I get the feeling you never had a sharp image before. Have you been having trouble?

Any idea why this shot is untypical for you?

1.5 second exposure time. Did you use a tripod? Had all your previous unsharp photos come from hand-held shots?

That's why I'm about to surpass even your post count here. I haven't seen one mind boggling sharp picture from my camera in 1200 shots until this flower shot. Trying or not. Everything was always soft or slightly out of focus. I've gone to great lengths to try and get any kind of sharp shot like this one. Sand bagging my tripod, not using the center post to raise the camera (makes it a little more prone to wobbles), using a 2 second shutter delay WITH a cable release. Different apertures 3 different lenses.

As I mentioned before, I am looking to get the clarity and sharpness of any of the sample pictures on my sony sample page, especially the blue parrot or the yellow snap dragon picture. I can get that clarity and sharpness anytime, just about every shot (as long as I'm not in the dark, handheld and in an active Mosh Pit :)).

I've seen posts from other people that are extremely sharp, so I know the camera is capable. It's just me that's missing something now. So I hang around this forum from 5:30am until 10pm every day reading everything that comes in, learning. (Well, I'm reading other things too and doing other things.. :))

I have no idea why this particular shot came in so sharp. I was, of course, on a tripod with a cable release, Aperture priority as I've done before. I've done AP, SP, P, M. You name it, I've taken it. Tripod or handheld. Some come out good, some come out out of focus, this ONE came out supurb (sharpness here). Even my birdhouse pictures are out of focus that I took 5 minutes before that picture. As Chris G saw (after downloading the original prints from me), the birdhouse in my picture isn't what's in focus, but about 8-12 inches behind the birdhouse. Held the cable release down for a few seconds and made sure the focus dot was solid and not flashing before I let the shots rip and everything. I just don't get it. Maybe my next trip to Michigan, I can stop by your place on layover in Chicago for a day. :)

BTW - That's not a pistol you see - THIS is a pistol: http://theswampbbs.com/weapons/de50.htm

I think what you're looking for in the above picture is the "pistil". :p

[jeffinkansas]

I feel that I have been in the same boat. While my photos are acceptable, I feel like they could be sharper or not so soft. I shoot good glass and have had the same experiances whether I shoot AF or MF. Only recently do I feel as though it is improving. Did I have to break this camera in? Will these symptoms come and go? I don't have a clue. Perhaps we are so accoustumed to the way sharpness is interpreted by film that we can only be satisfied by something that mimics it. Maybe I have just gotten used to seeing what this camera makes, and because I cannot afford any alternative I have chosen acceptance over frustration.

Jeff

[bjnicholls]

How often did you ever inspect your film with the kind of magnification you get at actual pixels on your monitor? I would bet not often. Keep in mind that at printed size the actual pixels view would be huge print. Unless you regularly project slides or make very large prints, most of the minor but annoying softness you'll see in handheld shots just won't be apparent looking at a set of 4x6 prints or casually sorting slides.

I had a Minolta Scan Dual Scanner that would do a good job with my slides at 2800 pixels per inch. When I started using my FS4000 scanner at 4000 pixels per inch, I found that I could see problems like chromatic aberration in my lenses, a small amount of blurring due to hand held shake or even mirror slap with the camera on a tripod. The more resolution you have to work with, the more it will show any weakness in your technique and your optics.

[jeffinkansas]

Thanks for the insight. I had not thought about it that way.

Jeff

[Swampy]

Originally posted by bjnicholls
How often did you ever inspect your film with the kind of magnification you get at actual pixels on your monitor? I would bet not often. Keep in mind that at printed size the actual pixels view would be huge print. Unless you regularly project slides or make very large prints, most of the minor but annoying softness you'll see in handheld shots just won't be apparent looking at a set of 4x6 prints or casually sorting slides.

The more resolution you have to work with, the more it will show any weakness in your technique and your optics.

I quite often display my pictures on up to 10' screens at a resolution 1280x1024 and 20-24" screens at 1600x1200 and more. I find that if they aren't sharp at full pixel view, then they will only be "ok" at those resolutions. This is just a personal thing on my part. If you saw all the pictures I've taken with my S2, you'd probably understand why I'm so happy with the shot above, as poorly framed as it is, as well as subject composition. I was, just messing around to see what the camera would happen to produce "today".

I had not really thought about the higher resolution showing more problems with equipment/focus/etc. until you mentioned it today in an earlier post, and I've been thinking about it all day. I undertand the theory behind it and am looking at things in a different way now, but why can't all pictures have the crispness as the one above, given the proper shutter speed, aperture, steadyness, no mirror slapping, etc. and providing you're not actually TRYING to blurr out any or all of the frame? I can show you hundreds of pictures where the focus area is not in focus, but some point before or beyond that point where it could not be the incorrect aperture, shutter speed, etc.

What I get in return from showing the pictures, as few as I can online anyway, is that no one can tell because they are from different days, different lenses, etc. Attached below is a prime example of how most of my shots are. Why is it that the bee is out of focus? Trust me, it's grossly out of focus when viewed at even 1280x1024 shrunk down to fit the screen. Do you agree that the bee is dead center of the picture? Could you agree that the berries to the lower left (that are closer than the bee) are in focus (they are to "my" standards, not perfectly sharp, but sharp, if you'd like me to attach a crop of just the berries, I can)?

My S2 is setup to focus in the center of the frame. Why didn't it?

I do understand what you're saying and thank you for enlightening not only me, but a few other people here as well.

I'm not ragging on you, I'm just trying to figure out why, sometimes it's fairly focused and sometimes it's not even focusing on the right place. If I can get that part down, maybe I can achieve my goal of getting that sharp picture almost all the time, instead of getting that sharp picture almost none of the time.

Bryan

[Tom V]

Originally posted by bjnicholls
... The more resolution you have to work with, the more it will show any weakness in your technique and your optics.

I think you have a very valid point.

Sometimes I think my digital images are soft - until I compare them to scans of film that I did with my 2750 dpi Nikon LS2000 film scanner, or drum scans from 120 or 4x5 film. Then I am reminded of just how many pixels are in the S2 image, and how sharp they are compared to the fewer pixels in film scans.

I am going to try and find some unsharpened film scans and compare them to S2 digital images of about the same size (considering all the factors, it might take some figuring to get two suitable files).

I bet that most of our grumblings about sharpness (lack thereof) is really based on our ability to see with great resolution the flaws we never could detect before.

[Tom V]

And, I think it is possible that some S2 cameras don't focus where we think they should - which throws all our tedious care and preparation out the window.

Swampy, on your sharp pistil shot, what were you trying to focus on? Maybe you were focusing on something else, and the camera ended up focused on what came out sharp, despite what you intended.

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Tom Voegeli
And, I think it is possible that some S2 cameras don't focus where we think they should - which throws all our tedious care and preparation out the window.

Swampy, on your sharp pistil shot, what were you trying to focus on? Maybe you were focusing on something else, and the camera ended up focused on what came out sharp, despite what you intended.

Good, I think I found someone who doesn't think I'm on crack now. :) (Again, I'm not ragging on anyone here, I just feel like I'm almost all by myself with the sharpness issue that I feel I'm having...)

I was continuous mode autofocusing in the middle of the frame that's posted at the top. Just like all of my other pics.

[Tim]

I too have puzzled at times over an apparent lack of sharpness in some S2 exposures.

I noticed recently that when going through some directories of pictures, that I had some that struck me as much sharper than many others in similar directories.

The only consistent difference I could find was that they were shot at 6MP instead of 12MP. It seems that I see a higher percentage of sharp exposures at 6MP.

It may be my imagination, but I don't think so. I believe the in-camera interpolation has a definite softening affect, but it's not consistent on all subjects.

I intend to spend a little time to try both modes on some future shots and see how consistent it appears.

Regards,

Tim

[Swampy]

Here is another example, close up.

Lens is Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 at 70mm f11.
Everything standard. Shutter Speed is 3 seconds.

There a button in the bottom left corner, which measure 13 5/8" away from the front of the lens.

The Letter "A" at the right side bottom third is 12 1/8" away.

The lower silver portion at the top right corner is 13 1/8" away.

Interesting how the focus drops off so quickly, even at f11. The subject is at a 45 degree angle to the lens.

Auto focus in C or A mode would never focus. I HAD to focus manually. I focused on the silver portion until I could see the scratches in the metal.

The complete picture can be downloaded at http://theswampbbs.com/dscf0016.jpg

[Swampy]

Forgot the crop. :)

[jeffinkansas]

Perhaps your use of continuous mode is the culprit?
(And I am another who does not think you are crazy)

[Swampy]

Originally posted by jeff in kansas
Perhaps your use of continuous mode is the culprit?
(And I am another who does not think you are crazy)

The more I read, the more I think it really is the camera's fault. In the thread under the Problems section titled "Focus Problem with S2?" there are some great examples of what it appears that I'm experiencing. The more I look at my photos, the more I see that that they are all focusing slightly behind the subject.

It's not the continuous mode that's causing the problem as I see the issue with single and even manual focusing using the "dot" reference.

I will see what other tests I can come up with today to see if I can further prove this. If I can prove it more, then I will call Ritz, where I bought it, and see if I can't have them witness the problem and get me some resolution to this.

[memobug]

Swampy, I don't think you said which letter you were focusing on? The autofocus really only works on strong edges. Texture won't really do it - I think that's even one of the examples they list in the manual. Only the center focus point works on both vertical and horizontal edges. And focus does drop off tremendously fast in macro mode where your DOF is limited by close distance to the subject.

Which letter was it?

Regards,

Matt

Originally posted by swampy101
The more I read, the more I think it really is the camera's fault. In the thread under the Problems section titled "Focus Problem with S2?" there are some great examples of what it appears that I'm experiencing. The more I look at my photos, the more I see that that they are all focusing slightly behind the subject.

It's not the continuous mode that's causing the problem as I see the issue with single and even manual focusing using the "dot" reference.

I will see what other tests I can come up with today to see if I can further prove this. If I can prove it more, then I will call Ritz, where I bought it, and see if I can't have them witness the problem and get me some resolution to this.

[Chris G]

Yes I did want EXIF, but I can pull the focal length, f stop, shutter speed, iso etc. out of the EXIF when using Photoshop Elements or even EXIFReader.

And now that I read your reply here in this forum, I think I have the answer to my question that I posted to you in the other forum. Did you agree with my interpretation of the focus on your bird house photos?


Originally posted by swampy101
You wanted the Exif! :P

829a ExposureTime 1.5
829d FNumber 1100/100


1.5 second exposure
f11

[Chris G]

Here's (hopefully) and example of what I see in Photoshop Elements:

[Swampy]

Originally posted by memobug
Swampy, I don't think you said which letter you were focusing on?
Which letter was it?


I did say what I was focusing on and it wasn't any of the letters. It was the silver portion at the top right/center portion of the crop above.

It would appear that the center of focus is towards the top left of the picture though, since everything on the left is in focus and everything on the right isn't, so once again, the further side of the center of focus is actually in focus.

Bryan

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Chris G
Yes I did want EXIF, but I can pull the focal length, f stop, shutter speed, iso etc. out of the EXIF when using Photoshop Elements or even EXIFReader.

And now that I read your reply here in this forum, I think I have the answer to my question that I posted to you in the other forum. Did you agree with my interpretation of the focus on your bird house photos?

I was just sending the full EXIF from EXIF Viewer, all the info is there, you just gotta look for it and it's a little harder, but more info from this one.

I think I missed the question in the other forum, thought it was a statement, but yeah, I think you're correct in that the birdhouse is not in focus, but the fence to the left and some of the leaves above are.

Bryan

[Swampy]

Did you look at the full sized picture of that crop above? If you haven't, please do, link is above.

If you notice in the full picture, everything is in focus, pretty sharply I might add, from about the middle of the picture all the way out to the left (the further point of the "subject"), while the closer you get going to the right of the picture, the more out of focus it gets.

Again, the silver portion being directly above the E in Eagle is the focus point.

If DOF is circular around the center, shouldn't the right side of the picture be in focus, at least a little bit?

Bryan

[memobug]

Yes, I did see it the photo, I just didn't see any mention of where the focus point was until your last post, so I couldn't get anything meaningful out of it. Maybe I missed it?

How close were you to the lens's minimum focus point?

You might have a back focus problem. One way to tell is to set focus at infinity (a distant mountain or something) If it back focuses, the hill wouldn't be focusable.

DOF isn't circular. There is a plane of focus parallel to the film plane, and the DOF extends usually 2/3 behind the point of focus, and 1/3 in front

Regards,

Matt

[Swampy]

Originally posted by memobug
Yes, I did see it the photo, I just didn't see any mention of where the focus point was until your last post, so I couldn't get anything meaningful out of it. Maybe I missed it?

How close were you to the lens's minimum focus point?

You might have a back focus problem. One way to tell is to set focus at infinity (a distant mountain or something) If it back focuses, the hill wouldn't be focusable.

DOF isn't circular. There is a plane of focus parallel to the film plane, and the DOF extends usually 2/3 behind the point of focus, and 1/3 in front

Regards,

Matt

Yup, you missed it. I was throwing a lot of info out in that post though. So, the subject is at about 13 inches at the focal point, and I would say no closer than 8 inches to the lens. I don't know the minimum focus point on this lens, but I've gotten as close as 3-4 inches and had the subject in focus (well, for this camera it was in focus anyway...).

Ok, so I mentioned this in another post casually. So, if I turn the focus manually all the way until is stops, is that Infinity, or is it where the reference line on the top of the lens and the inifinity line match up? I was under the impression that infinity was all the way until it stopped. So, what happens, is when I focus on a long shot, plane in the air, bird flying at 500 feet up, etc., if I manual focus all the way until it stops, it's out of focus. I have to back up a little. THAT doesn't sound like a back focus issue, but a front focus issue now. Or maybe I'm getting my near sighted, far sighted backwards again....

I've printed out some of the pictures, blown some of them up on other copies as well, and I'm headed to Ritz this afternoon and get thier opinion. Hopefully the right people are working today, otherwise I may get a Fuji answer. :rolleyes:

[Swampy]

What a surprise! So, I head over to Ritz this afternoon. They remember me since I'm still the only one who's bought an S2 from them and the guy at the counter drools over it.

Showed him some pictures, many of them that I've posted here, including the birdhouse one, and even blew up a section of the birdhouse and the fence to the left. They see the problem as slight as it is and they actually said they'd replace it with a new one! They also mentioned that they do carry old stock sometimes and maybe Fuji did have a bad batch back in the summer and I may have gotten one of those.

It'll take 4-6 weeks to get one in since they're already backordered at thier warehouse, so they said keep this one and they'll call me when they can get one. I'll have to bring it in, they'll take it back and order the new one then and it should only take 3-4 days to get the new one. So. I'm in limbo with my problem until then. When I get the new one, I'll of course be posting all about it and if I notice any changes. I just hope I don't come up with some other problem with the new camera, like dead pixels or something like that. Everything on my camera is perfect except the focus.

Now, about my infinity not being all the way to when it stops, he mentioned that most lenses were that way to compensate for temprature differences in where one temp my make the lense slightly shorter or longer and it may need the longer focus to actually achieve infinity. So that answers my question about that, if it is correct anyway.

They took some pictures with mine and they threw my memory card into a FUJI Kiosk that prints 8x10's. Ha Ha. Jokes on them and Fuji. The images were too big and wouldn't even let them print them.

I wish I could come up with a faster replacement so I could clear some of these issues up with you guys, but, this is the best that can be done with whom I've gone through on my purchase. :(

Bryan

[bjnicholls]

If the focus plane isn't where you were focusing, follow up on the S2 replacement. "The silver area" isn't specific enough for me to understand what that means, but I trust that it wasn't the same spot as the actual focus plane that is obvious in this shot.

The DOF, however, is what you'd expect to see with the lens you used and the closeup shot. Also keep in mind that zoom lenses at close focus tend to get soft fast toward the edges of the frame. You have to add that optical softness to the shallow depth of field when evaluating the sharpness of a macro shot.

Also keep in mind that depth of field is a subjective calculation. Even with a lot of depth of field, there still is only one sharp focus plane for any scene. Depth of field is the "acceptable" area where sharpness is falling off ahead and behind the focus plane. It doesn't guarantee razor-sharp focus between the DOF distances.

[Chris G]

I wish I could remember where I read it (Thom Hogans Guide to the S2 maybe?), but I know that I read that as well. It came as a suprise to me because with my old 35mm I would always crank the focus ring all the way if I wanted the focus to go to infinity. So the guys at Ritz are right on that one I believe. Makes it hard to manually set to infinity doesn't it?

I'm still searching for a replacement for my Nikkor 80-200 so I can try it as well on the new body Fuji sent me. I got tired of waiting on my local dealer to come up with a replacement. But mine was on the recall list as well, so that probably helped me get Fuji to send me a new one. I've taken a few close ups with my 85mm f1.8 if you are interested I could post them. But the 85 always performed the best out of all the lenses so it's not a great trial.

The first picts I took with the new body had spots on them that turned out to be dust on the CCD :mad:

bjnichols- Since the CCD is not a full frame sensor, I was led to believe that the softness of the edges was less of a problem, since you are not using the full 35mm size image that the lens is producing. In essence, you are croping the center portion of what the lens actually projects. Could be wrong, that was just my understanding. Also, when evaluating focus, I hear a lot about depth of field and how much shallower it is with a DSLR. I still think that in Bryans pictures (especially the ones of the birdhouse) even if the range of the DOF is subjective, I think we should be able to agree on when the center lies, ie the central focus point of the picture, and try and compare that with what the camera was supposed to be focusing on. Within reason I would think.

Also, if you have a chance Bryan, try another sample of the same lens if you can. I do know that even though the salesman thought that the Tokina was "actually better" than the Nikon lens, when I switched from the Tokina 70-200 f2.8 to the Nikon 80-200, there was a considerable improvement in the focus ability of the camera. Still not there yet, but definitely better. I have also heard that you may have to go through a few lens samples to get a "keeper".

Also, a week or so ago when I was wondering why my local dealer couldn't get a new S2 in I checked www.ritzcamera.com. They claimed on their website "usually ships in 7-14 days". It still states that now. I hope you can trust that they will still honor the exchange even though you will be past their 14 day return period.

Originally posted by swampy101

Now, about my infinity not being all the way to when it stops, he mentioned that most lenses were that way to compensate for temprature differences in where one temp my make the lense slightly shorter or longer and it may need the longer focus to actually achieve infinity. So that answers my question about that, if it is correct anyway.

......

I wish I could come up with a faster replacement so I could clear some of these issues up with you guys, but, this is the best that can be done with whom I've gone through on my purchase. :(

Bryan :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Swampy]

Originally posted by bjnicholls
If the focus plane isn't where you were focusing, follow up on the S2 replacement. "The silver area" isn't specific enough for me to understand what that means, but I trust that it wasn't the same spot as the actual focus plane that is obvious in this shot.


I manually focused on the blue green ball area. Sorry, bad WB settings on this pic. The center of the whole picture is the white ball... See next post...

[Swampy]

Originally posted by bjnicholls
The DOF, however, is what you'd expect to see with the lens you used and the closeup shot. Also keep in mind that zoom lenses at close focus tend to get soft fast toward the edges of the frame. You have to add that optical softness to the shallow depth of field when evaluating the sharpness of a macro shot.

Also keep in mind that depth of field is a subjective calculation. Even with a lot of depth of field, there still is only one sharp focus plane for any scene. Depth of field is the "acceptable" area where sharpness is falling off ahead and behind the focus plane. It doesn't guarantee razor-sharp focus between the DOF distances.

I kinda understand what you're saying, but it just seems really odd that the left half of the picture is what is sharp here and the right half, right in the middle is a drastic drop (almost immediate) in sharpness. I have drawn a white line around the area that I consider sharp. (Again, the full size original pic can be viewed here: http://theswampbbs.com/dscf0016.jpg ) I mean, shouldn't the DOF provide a sharp picture that's 1/3 to the right of the "E" in the middle of the picture and 2/3 to the left of the "E"?

I hope I'm not ticking you off or anything and I'm certainly not questioning what you're trying to tell me, I'm just hard headed and my Sony pics seemed to be predictable to me and when I shot film with my Canon A1 too many years ago, it seemed to me that the sharp area was more of a circular area around the center of the picture.

Thanks BJ.

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Chris G
Also, if you have a chance Bryan, try another sample of the same lens if you can. I do know that even though the salesman thought that the Tokina was "actually better" than the Nikon lens, when I switched from the Tokina 70-200 f2.8 to the Nikon 80-200, there was a considerable improvement in the focus ability of the camera. Still not there yet, but definitely better. I have also heard that you may have to go through a few lens samples to get a "keeper".

Also, a week or so ago when I was wondering why my local dealer couldn't get a new S2 in I checked www.ritzcamera.com. They claimed on their website "usually ships in 7-14 days". It still states that now. I hope you can trust that they will still honor the exchange even though you will be past their 14 day return period.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

You want me to do the same picture of the flower or the gun with the SAME lens? Or another one of the same lens? I doubt that I'll be able to obtain another one of the same lenses since I borrowed this 80-200mm and I doubt I'd be able to find another one anytime soon, at least until I buy the hopefully soon to come out 80-200 VR. :)

I'm giving Ritz this one chance. I had a problem just getting this one from them in the first place. I ordered, they said they shipped, I called back a few days later for a tracking number, they tell me it didn't actually ship and that sales sent the order to shipping to be shipped, but the warehouse didn't have anymore so they canceled the order and didn't say anything. Needless to say, my Xmas gift did not arrive on time. They scrambled and found one and got it to me a week late. I'm hoping that since the guy knew what this picture was of, and that they had totally screwed up, that they'd actually try and make this deal work out. :D I figure that some people took months to get thiers fixed by fuji directly, I might just get lucky with only having to wait 1 month.

You know what I might just do tonight or more likely tomorrow, is take the same picture over with my Sigma lens and see what I get at the same f stop.

Bryan

[Wichita Wayne]

What I see in the picture is depth of field that is a function of the lens, and the picture looks like what I would expect. DOF is a function of the distance from the lens. There is a point of perfect focus directly in front of the lens and as you move away from this point either toward the lens or away from the lens the focus tends to fall off until you are out of focus. The trick is to adjust the lens focal length or the distance to the subject so that the subject is at this point. The disclosed focal length of the lens represents the focal length when the lens is focused at infinity. When you focus on something close to the lens the distance from the point of focus to the point at which you are out of focus is not very much. As you move the point of focus away from the lens this distance gets larger. In your picture I believe what you see is a point of focus that strikes the pistol right under the “r” in the word area. You are close enough to the pistol that the depth of field only extends a short distance away from or toward the lens. A smaller aperture would increase this but not much in macro photography. The pistol is not perpendicular to a line that extends through the center of the lens so the lettering is not all in focus. As you move to the right on the pistol you are getting closer to the lens and the focus is falling off. This picture looks normal to me and the area of the picture that is out of focus is caused by the lens optics and not the CCD in the camera.

[scotgasch]

Exactly!!!!
I think to sum it up you have reached the lens' limit on how close it will focus even with DOF at its max. That is why you get the closer part of the gun out of focus faster that the part of the gun that is further.

Good Job!!!!!

[bjnicholls]

The soft image area on a macro focusing zoom is a lot more obvious and affects more of the image area than the typical kind of edge softness that the cropping factor removes. Only true macro lenses will deliver "flat field" sharpness.

If you want to do macro shots to evaluate sharpness, do flat field shooting with a real macro lens. Macro zooms are handy, but I've yet to use one that can begin to approach the performance of a true macro lens.

Don't frustrate yourself by doing tests that test the lens limitations more than they test the camera's focusing ability.

http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/24_85rug.jpg

The above shot was taken in the macro mode of my Nikon 24-85 zoom. This is better performance than my 28-105 Nikkor delivers.

http://users.sisna.com/bjnicholls/60micro1to2.jpg

The above was shot at the same reproduction ratio with my 60mm Micro-Nikkor. See what I mean? Same aperture, by the way.

[Swampy]

They got me a replacement already! So, get this, I had a serial number in the low 10000's. 100xx low. The one I got today is in the mid 32000's. Quite a difference considering I ordered "both" of them at the same time. If you remember, they "canceled" my order around Xmas and they found me another one in another store and got me that one. In the meantime, they just got the original one today from the warehouse. Go figure. So anyway, going by serial numbers, that gives me 22,450 newer camera.

I took the birdhouse test shot again. I'll only include a close up of the house and the fence for now as I shot this in haste this evening wanted to grab whatever light I could (and matched up pretty good with the other one ta boot!) to get a quick difference shot. I'm seeing that the house is in better focus, especially the vertical sticks below the roof. Notice at the very top of the heart in the middle, there's a particular stick with a small knot in it. It's much sharper to me in the new camera than the old. The old camera shot is on top and, obviously, the new camera is on the bottom. Both pictures have only been cropped and no editing otherwise has been done to them. These are f5.6 shots.

Back to testing again...

[Swampy]

Ok, back focus or not, there was something goin on here. I just took a few more test shots, one of my car keys that I had never taken before, but have taken several "similar" close up shots, and nothing else compared to the sharpness of the keys tonight. I also took some test shots of some roses last night with the old S2 and some more tonight with the new S2 and the new S2 had greater detail and sharpness. All of my settings in the new camera are the same as the old one. Believe me or not, I'm quite the happy guy now.

Thanks for all of the opinions on this, I don't think I would have been able to solve this without the people here and this forum. I probably would have used it a few months and sold it with a bad taste. And Ritz Camera made up for the initial screw up when I first purchased, so we're even and I'd go back there again.

Bryan

[Wichita Wayne]

The top shot is much better.
















Tee Hee Hee

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Wayne
The top shot is much better.

It's a tough call. Here's another one. Top pic is the new, bottom is the old. Same lighting and I believe the same settings, both with my Sigma 24-70mm. This is a printout from a Xerox Fiery Color laser printer, but this is just a portion of the page. The Text looks sharper to me in the top. Hard to explain, but it appears no one really cares about how it looks pixel by pixel on the screen as long as it prints awesome. hehe. Now, I guess that I'm more than happy with the on screen viewing, I'll probably get crappy prints now? :)

Anyway, here's a different view, slight as it may be.

[Wichita Wayne]

Originally posted by swampy101
It's a tough call.

Relax Swampy, I was just kiddin' about the top shot being better. It looks like your new camera is going to give you the detail and sharpness you want. I wonder what was wrong with the other one.

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Wayne
Relax Swampy, I was just kiddin' about the top shot being better. It looks like your new camera is going to give you the detail and sharpness you want. I wonder what was wrong with the other one.

I know you were kidding. :P I'm starting to wonder if something wasn't wrong with the mirror on my old camera, not a back focus or any other type of issue. I notice with my new camera, it "sounds" different when I take pictures. In other words, the mirror seems to be quieter when it's flipped up and back down again. Mirror slap issue maybe? I dunno. I'm happy with the new one and the old one - looks like it may have been on the list with the electrical recall problem too - is gone and so is all my worries about having a lemon. I'll have to dig up the old serial number and see if it was on the list. It didn't occur to me to check the serial number since I had bought it from a larger dealer and it was so long after the recal came out. I figured they would have checked thier inventory. I still can't believe I've got a camera that's 25,000 camera's newer than my old S2 (serial number wise anyway).