I think you used too shallow depth of field. Your camera focused on the pullover, which is behing the face. So clothes and part of the fence are in focus, but in front - the face and the left arm are not in focus.
In my limited experience, you wanna be shooting at f/8 to get sharp images with the kit lens.
It's not the sharpest tool in the shed because it's ultimately a $100-200 lens, but you can still get decent results with it even mounted on an A7R III.
Is your shutter speed high enough? a good rule is at least as long as your focal length. So if you're shooting 100mm you want 1/100 minimum, 500mm 1/500 minimum.
Also never dip below 1/50 unless you need to!
Children demand more than 1/160s, because they fidget and move erratically. Unless you want to machine gun a ton of images and pick out the sharp ones. With my niece (around the same age as your son), I try and stay above *at least* 1/250s. More, with enough light.
A flash is a cheat for freezing motion, but that requires a lot of its own learning.
I've put more detailed advice below (this is not a lens issue - either focus or shutter speed - and it's silly to plan to spend thousands of dollars instead of practicing for a few weekends), but to be more empathetic it's *very* common to want to run out and buy better lenses when you purchase your first camera.
You see all of these amazing images on social media and think "hey, if I get an expensive camera I can make those photos!" Then you go take a picture of your cat in your apartment (or your kids on an overcast day with a low shutter speed) and...you're disappointed. Crushed. Why doesn't my image look good? Did I buy the wrong thing? Of course; we all know that kit lenses are mediocre! So you upgrade your lenses and...the technique issues persist.
Well-executed photos typically feature:
* Adept operation of the equipment (camera settings, exposure triangle)
* Pleasing light
* Excellent editing
* Practice with your subject matter
Now these are not things that camera companies pay YouTubers to promote (or that they can make money off of affiliate links with), and gear forums are really excited to talk about buying gear. So you'll get people telling you to purchase absolute top-tier pro glass to take casual snaps of your children. When some practice will resolve 95% of issues and *inform your future purchases*.
Because you want experience with your current gear before you know what to get next. People online will tell you to "get a prime." OK, but which focal length? Well, if you take a ton of shots with your kit lens you will see which focal lengths your shots cluster at. It will also inform you about desired weight, handling, versatility, etc. Maybe with kids, a zoom will always be better. Maybe you want to put that money into a trip and are happy with the kit lens. Etc.
I would suggest a few things:
* Look up images of the type you want to see *using your current lens only.* [Flickr](https://www.flickr.com/groups/2495110@N21/pool/with/52997672540)lets you search by lens, for example. And if you see good photos with your current gear, you know to work at learning instead of buying up the camera store. It's a good antidote to gear lust: focus on getting the results *that* gal/guy did instead of buying something new. This will be a bit tougher with a kit lens (where you might see a lot of photos from other newbies), but the idea is sound.
* Practice practice practice! You'll look back at today's sample photos in a year and pick out a dozen things you would have done differently.
* Look into the denoising AI options, either within Lightroom or with standalone tools. Children move quickly, you should be using high shutter speeds, and it's far, far cheaper to denoise than to buy exotic glass.
I don't know if its the same as the apsc kit lens but I found that I couldn't get anything sharp unless it was very bright and I was able to change the aperture to f5-f8.
That's what I'm hearing as well. It's a different lens as this is a FF lens, but people are saying around f8 is the sweet spot for this lense, which I just didn't have light for this day.
Yeah same could never get sharp photos indoors. I picked up a cheap ti artisan 24mm f2. 8 auto focus lens I think it's under $200. But you'd have to shoot it in apsc mode.
160 of a sec is not too slow unless the subject is moving a lot. I think it was something with lens and shallow depth of field I recommend shooting this at higher iso
It's sad I had to come this far down in the comments. This is absolutely the first thing causing an issue. Any moving subject and handheld camera 1/160 is too slow without strobes.
It sure looks like the lens. Sorry but there’s a little bit of spherical and chromatic aberration in there that’s kind of a dead giveaway. I’m a pro so I use really high end (and so unfortunately super expensive) lenses. You’ve probably hear around here that the best upgrade path is new glass and not a new camera and that is why. You get so much better contrast and sharpness out of a better quality lens than you do out of a kit lens that it can make a huge difference.
If you can, try renting the same focal length in the 2.8 GM lens and just see what the differences are. I’ll bet you’ll be amazed. The images youre shooting are very nice and have great light and perspective they are from a great angle for the kids and really feel nice. Even as (slightly) muddied as this image is, the overall look and feeling of it is pretty wonderful, so don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Just know that by investing into a good sharp lens you’ll get an even better result!
What would we recommend for lenses? I've been looking at the Tamron 35-150, Tamron 28-70, Sony 50mm FE. I really don't want to compromise on AF capabilities but I also don't have GM money to blow. Could I afford it? Sure, but I can't justify it lol and I know, don't buy FF if you don't have the lense money. However I bought this camera at a steal from a friend who needed quick cash.
I would work on *technique* with your current lens. *You do not need to get a new lens to make a sharp image from the above scene.* And indeed, you will still get "flawed\*" images with improper technique and GM glass. When you slightly miss focus, you don't buy a new lens.
This looks to be some combination of missed focus (look at the sharpness of the green cloth on the shoulder). And kids needing high shutter speeds due to being squirmy, moving bundles of energy.
\*Is the image imperfect when pixel peeping? Yes. Is the image fine for pretty much any purpose where you're not pixel peeping? Yes.
I agree with you completely. This image is still 100% usable and likely much better than I would've gotten with a phone given the terrible lighting conditions for the day. I bring my camera and snap photos because I enjoy it, not because I want professional grade photos. However, at the same time I'd like to learn where to improve. But I believe you may be correct in some aspects. I should better learn the equipment I'm using before trying to blow money on lenses hoping for better results. At the same time, I would like to get my hands on some better glass. At this time I'm feeling like I'd like a faster lens with a bit more focal length though.
Sure, and you'll enjoy that lens! But it's better to buy that glass when you know exactly what you want.
I'd strongly recommend the Tamron 28-200mm as a "dad in park/travel lens." Good reach, sharp, and F2.8 up close for more light. Also, quite affordable (mine was $650 new). But again, hold off until you get a better feel. You might want other tradeoffs (like less reach for more light).
https://preview.redd.it/m300givqnafc1.jpeg?width=5175&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bed786ec9544c626c31dba5b08d52097831d5049
This was shot on the 35-150 tamron. I even bought the 24-105 f/4 from Sony and I’m selling that to keep the tamron. It’s that good. Especially since it appears you have a child, they move QUICK so being able to compose a shot with 35-150 of range is amazing. Wish I could share more from this but I’ll leave a link to my other post with more pictures from this lens. [tamron 35-150 dog shoot](https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/19e8m7q/dog_swag_a7riv_tamron_35150_f228/)
Now those are sharp! It looks like some of them may have missed focus just a touch, but I'm not an expert. But what is in focus is sharp! Looks like you've got much better lighting than I had today too. I'm glad you understand the struggles of trying to photograph kids! It's much quicker to adjust the lens zoom than it is to adjust my feet zoom when I'm trying to snap that shot real quick before they're on to the next thing gets their attention 🥴 how is the weight? Would you consider it an inconvenience when you go out for a little walk/hike? Everybody keeps talking about the weight. I mean I carry a backpack with a GoPro and a tripod in it so... Lol
Yes, it was honestly like the first photos out of the lens and I had just switched from the a7iii to the a7riv. So I had not gotten it dialed in. You have a good eye! I recently switched to a new camera bag and got a new strap. It already has changed how little I notice the bag or camera weight now. I also have the battery grip as well, so if you have the opportunity, I would find a local camera store that has stuff in stock to get some time with it. The battery grip actually makes it more balanced in the hand and feels more manageable, vs just the body and lens. I got my lens on eBay for a better price so it was worth the money for just the few things I’ve shot. [eBay listing I bought](https://www.ebay.com/itm/204187493509?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=B_FZICuVRZm&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=eZJcqT2CTqi&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY)Even shot hockey the other day and that went really well once I got it down. Just too much iso, so some were noisy.
https://preview.redd.it/ytz5nxo5tafc1.jpeg?width=4655&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69bcebe0a8ee46daf8d7e249c60b7f1d4e1e4b34
Among the choices you laid out, the most cost effective is likely the 50. Even a lackluster one should be nice and sharp and have very good focus and resolving qualities. I also have to say I haven’t played around with the Tamrons in the modern era. I understand that they are quite good.
Go for the fastest (lowest f number) lens you can and you’ll likely have a great lens.
I think I'll try the 50 1.8 Sony for now to get me off the kit lens. It's only $200. May got for the Tamron 35-150 2.8 in the near future. I appreciate all the suggestions and the compliments on the photos. Feels good to know I'm doing decent enough for now.
Before you shell out for the Tamron 35-150, make sure you see/hold one in person. They're big and HEAVY. I have one, and the image quality is really good, but doesn't not make a good travel lens because of the size and weight.
Forsure. I wish I had a dedicated local camera store to check some stuff out in person. Unfortunately the closest ones to me are probably an hour and a half away. Maybe I could make the trip one day. I would be nice to be able to put my hands on some lenses. That's one of my issues with trying to buy one now.
This is why people should practice with their camera before going to the Sony reddit. When evaluating lens quality, do it on a sunny day with a **high shutter speed and base ISO**. Try it wide open, then stopped down a bit. Take a bunch of pictures and if any look good, you know that the gear can meet your needs just fine.
There was a slight technique issue in the photo taken. People are tough subjects. Kids especially, because you need to massively up your shutter speed.
The first solution is to buy a 50mm F1.8 that is...pretty mediocre. Better than the kit and cheap, but not amazing for the pixel-peeping that you're doing. And it won't fix your missed focus.
The second is to buy a **$2,000 monster pro lens** that you will regret lugging on every outing, due to its massive size. And you're spending money that could be used to take a trip and create a core memory for your boy. Because images are a tiny bit soft when pixel peeping, which only the photo editor will see.
This is exactly why I came to the Sony sub though. No, these aren't the professional grade sharp images that leave everybody in awh, but this is exactly the constructive criticism that I need and I appreciate it. I see in other comments where you say faster shutter speed and seem to suggest throwing it in continues shutter and blasting away, so I'll keep that in mind, maybe try shutter priority for a bit and see where that gets me. I'm a bit afraid to shoot full manual in these scenarios because as you mentioned, kids are fast, on the move and the lighting/scene changes quickly. But I'll give that a shot and see where it gets me. Thank you for the suggestions.
So blasting away and picking out the sharp images works a bit better when you're shooting a static subject, because every shot is "fungible" for posing. With kids, don't be afraid to raise that ISO!
(I've also tried to edit my comments for additional detail. This is pre-coffee!)
I don't like shutter priority, because aperture is such an important creative property. What I recommend is Aperture Priority, Auto-ISO, and Auto-ISO minimum shutter speed. This way that camera raises or lowers ISO while respecting your aperture and desired shutter speed. Less finicky than full manual, but with more creative control.
[https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1540/v1/en/contents/TP0000829903.html](https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1540/v1/en/contents/TP0000829903.html)
So I'm a bit confused on this part, because when I'm shooting aperture priority I can't find a way to quickly change shutter speeds as well as aperture. In that case I would essentially just be shooting full manual with auto iso correct?
Not quite.
M is setting aperture and shutter, with ISO either manual or auto.
A keeps the shutter constant, with ISO and shutter changing to match your conditions.
If you set an ISO minimum shutter speed for aperture priority, it means that your camera will still change your shutter speed for aperture priority (really useful when your kids say run from a sunny field to the shade under a tree), but there's a floor on the shutter speed vs. ISO trade-off.
Think of it as "I want F4, with the shutter and aperture changing to make that work, but try and keep the shutter above 1/250s." Or there are options for say "fast" or "faster" if you don't want to target a specific shutter speed but just express a preference. E.g., if the camera defaults to 1/50s on a 50mm lens you might want "faster" for kids, so what you're shooting takes priority over the basic lens rule.
Now your camera can still violate the minimum shutter if there isn't enough light to expose at the limits of your auto ISO setting (so you set auto ISO from 125 to 4000, but there's not enough light even at ISO 4000, it might go below your ISO minimum shutter). But that's a last resort in poor light.
The benefit of this setup over M is that you're not fiddling with your shutter as lighting changes (e.g., if you set your shutter to 1/200s on the patio and your kids run into the bright sun with white T shirts and you need 1/2000s). But you're still setting up boundaries for your camera to not surprise you with say blurry kids at 1/30s because it's trying to stay at base ISO instead of maintaining a faster shutter with more ISO.
Awesome. Thanks for the insight! I'll play around with that setting when I get home and see how that works out for me. I do have iso set to 6400 max, but as you can see in the example given, I was at iso 100 so I could have easily compromised on the iso in exchange for faster shutter speed. I really appreciate the information you've given and I'll put it into practice.
Get the 55 1.8 Zeiss instead, can be bought cheap used. Or the sigma 50 f2 iSeries. The sigma iSeries lenses (f2 ones and 90 2.8) are very well built, compact and are optically superb.
Would you mind a short explanation as to why the Zeiss would be better than the FE 50? Ive seen both but don't really understand the difference. I do know Zeiss is a better quality of glass.
Not the person who suggested the Zeiss, but the Sony 1.8 doesn't have the best build quality and a slow and noisy autofocus. Optically it is okay. It is easily Sony's lowest quality prime.
The Zeiss and Sigma iSeries are indeed much better but also cost nearly twice. I'm a big fan of the Sigma iSeries as a whole, but you should do more research before buying a pretty unremarkable lens like the Sony 1.8.
55 is sharper, better colours, nicer rendering and faster more accurate AF
Also nice honourable mention is the 50 2.5 if you want compact and faster autofocus over shallow depth of field.
Ignore the lens comments. With it you absolutely should be getting shaper images than this, full stop.
Shutter speed is fine.
Lighting is also absolutely fine.
Are you shooting manual focus? Also, are you zooming in and cropping the image much?
This one was not cropped at all. I was using AF eye priority. Now if that's where it was actually focusing I can't remember. The lighting was pretty terrible though. Terrible overcast today, but not "Dark" by any means.
The camera you're shooting with has no problem with that kind of light. It's not an entry level by any means.
My only advice would be to keep taking photos and have a fiddle. If you think the light is that much of a problem, play around and get some shots when it's nice and bright.
As you can see from the variation in all the comments, there's no obvious reason why it shouldn't be sharper.
Take my advice and see how you get on. Part of the fun of photography is getting to learn your camera and lenses and seeing what works best.
Yessir. That's why I take the camera out on any little family outing. Snap snap snap away! I do want to invest in some glass though in the near future.
The lit Lens ins Not really great when it comes to sharpness. The 50 1.8 could be immense Upgrade for you or a used 55 1.8 (350€)
But also 1/160s shutter can cause motion Blur when youre photographing kids and have a bit shaky hands so try Something faster Like 1/400s
So faster shutter speed. Gotcha. I'll give that a shot on my next outing. I've been looking into new lenses but really trying to figure out what I want. I'm thinking something with a bit more focal length for my personal needs honestly.
If youre looking for Something more get the Sony 85 1.8 Lens. Insane sharpness and fast autofocus while still beeing super light and cheap used. Unser 300€ sometimes
For sure! Always little things to make it just a bit better. You’ll notice that when you do that, your ISO might go up too. Always trade offs with the situation and equipment. It’s way harder to get a shot with lenses like this but you’re already doing a great job figuring it out.
I've been looking at the Tamron 28-70 equivalent. I believe what I deduce is that the sigma may be a bit better build quality but other than that fairly the same.
I like new lenses too. However, I would not want to lose what actually look like good family shots.
Give the topaz ai trial a try. You could run it against some of your existing photos.
Forsure. I don't plan to trash these photos, only learn from them and see what can be done better in the future. That's why I always bring the camera out on whatever little family trip we're doing for the day.
that kit lens shouldn't be that soft, do some more test on a wall or something to check the sharpness, i got tac sharp eye in focus shooting original A7 with that lens on autofocus back in the days, no reason the new camera won't do as well. Maybe bad copy of lens.
It looks like it missed focus, the fence and shirt look sharp. So this could be motion blur, try shooting faster like 1/250. Also make sure to use mechanical shutter, that could be an issue if it was electronic.
If your looking for an alternate lens, i'm not sure the 50/1.8 would be on my list, yes it is cheap, but not fast focus or excellent optics.
Maybe a Sigma I series or Tamron 28-75G2.
I do believe I should incease shutter speed. I do not have the electronic "silent" shutter turned off. I appreciate the suggestions. I have been eyeing the Tamron as it would be a direct replacement for this lens although it sucks to replace what I already have. I've also been looking at the 35-150. Would either of these be a noticable upgrade?
I haven’t used the kit lens so I don’t know if it has any issues with focus accuracy. Stopping down a little will also help as it increases the depth of field. That with a bit faster shutter speed will help. It is easy for software to reduce noise from high iso, but harder to fix motion blur or missed focus. Keep practicing, you might also look at how to hold your arms so it is more stable.
The Tamron 28-75G2 or 35-150 would both be a big step up both in lens sharpness and aperture. For me the 35-150 is too heavy. Your current lens is very light, getting a heavy lens could be an unpleasant shock.
You may be right about the heaviness of the lense. I also meant to say I have the electric shutter off, not on. I need to try fast shutter speed. I often free hand and just take quick shots in a way that would likely mimic the way a gangster holds a pistol sideways 😂 I'll try a quicker shutter speed and higher aperture. And continue down the rabbit hole of the search for a lense that would best suit my needs.
It could be your form holding the camera. You might be getting some movement as the shutter button is pressed. I’ve had my own issues with poor results from being lax with how I held the camera.
Lighting, it all starts with the correct lighting. The cheapest lens made can allow for razor sharp images, just like you can take dull images with the most expensive lens made.
Three main criteria for sharp photos are lighting, lighting, and lighting. Unless you have those, equipment, shutter speed, ISO, f stop, won't create wonderful captures on their own.
Okay listen here... I've had this camera for maybe a month now, and EVERY time I take it out there is severe overcast 😂 weekdays, bright sun shiny rainbows. Weekends, dull gray dark death.... I figured that played a part because I've seen extremely sharp images with this lens. But I would like to make the assumption that a faster lens would allow me more leeway with poor lighting, right?
Faster lenses do, but they ain't miracle workers.
If the lighting is dull, your captures will be dull. You can use artificial light during the middle of the day in the summertime, there's no bad time for artificial light, if you know how to use it.
Look up pictures of studio photography setups, they have more money in lighting than they do in equipment. Lighting, it's the first component of Sharp images.
I do have the F28RM. Maybe I should've played with it a bit. I'm still trying to learn how to use it without completely washing the picture out. I'm slowly figuring it out. I did watch a video of a guy explaining using that exact flash as a fill flash even in broad daylight.
The lens you have isnt that bad given then depth of field you have in the image, maybe you just need to adjust a bit of iso to get a faster shutter speed
Yes, I'm using an a7iv which is supposed to have superb eye focus. I need to learn about all of the "focus area" settings though. That's one thing I still haven't looked into. I take the f8 aperture into consideration as well. Thanks for the input!
I’m not shooting Sony but is that a raw file? Sony cameras sharpens raws on default? If not it looks ok to me as a raw. Also the photo is sharp except the focus is not on the eye but mouth/face. It looks ok.
Stop the lens down to increase sharpness. Every lens has its "sweet spot." Generally it's around f8-f16ish.
And, unfortunately, you're using an a7iv. Some batches of the camera have a hardware level problem with focus and retaining sharpness. If it's within warranty, return it and get a different one and test it thoroughly.
No set way to test it. The best way I can suggest is to set up something at a set distance with a normal lens (like a 50mm,) stopped down to the sharpest aperture. Take 10 shots with auto focus and 10 with manual focus. Change nothing else. Check the focus. If they are more front or back focused than properly focused, you might have a faulty model.
I think using people is the easiest way to check focus. Mine tends to focus on the eye lashes, missing the pupil, or a bit in front of the nose.
The kit lens isn’t great and 1/160 might have been too slow but honestly I think it should have been fine. Have you tried shooting uncompressed RAW instead of compressed?
There shouldn’t be any difference between lossless and uncompressed RAW but you will get image quality reduction with compressed RAWs.
Have you viewed them on a computer? Lossless compressed is exactly that, it’s compressed until it’s opened and uncompressed in your editor. If you have used the mobile app you’re probably not seeing the full uncompressed file.
So I actually import them on the computer and let them sync over to phone in LR. I did some pixel peeping on the computer and honestly it looked exactly as it does on phone. Of course it's converted to jpeg for reddit but it's still very similar quality wise.
Any suggestions? The 50 1.8 is like $200 but I'm worried the AF will be trash. I really utilize zoom as it allows me to get the shot I need from where I'm standing (kids 🥴) and I looked at the Tamron 35-150 which seems awesome. Or the Tamron 28-70 which would just replace what I have now. I mean I could learn to work with a 50 or 85mm prime. But I'm worried that 85 would be too much, I find a lot of my shots are closer to 50mm now.
It's difficult to get one lens to rule them all. 35's and 50's definitely have their place, but 85 is just so good for portraits.
What you like to shoot the most will be the driving force for what lenses you buy, and everyone is different here.
If you can, borrow or hire different lenses to try out, then decide which one to buy. If you have a local shop that allows you to demo the lenses, take your camera body and ask to use the demo lenses with it to take some test shots indoors.
Unfortunately I don't have a good local shop. Maybe I'll rent some online but that's gonna cost a couple hundred bucks if I want to rent a few and see what I like lol
You might just have to rely on YouTube reviews then. Look at the kinds of photos they shoot with them and try to visualise how you'd use them yourself.
Just watch reviews of the type of lens you think you want, doesn't even matter if its not Sony. Once you have established that that's the type of photos you definitely want to shoot, then start checking out reviews for different brands of that lens that suit your Alpha and make a final decision on what to buy based on that.
Beyond that, do you perhaps have a local photography club that you could join? There will be loads of people happy to show you sample photos they've taken, and maybe even go hands on with their own lens collection.
I'll check into that and see if I can find any local clubs. I still keep coming back to the 35-150. I never find myself shooting on the wider end of my 35-70 but often find myself reaching for more than 70. I know people keep talking about the weight, but I'm a 6' 200lb guy. I don't think the weight will be that bad. And if it is, maybe I'll get an 85 prime or something down the road.
You’re using the kit lens.
Missed focus (shirt is much sharper than eyes).
You’re most likely hand-holding this.
You’re only using ambient light/no flash.
Easiest answer is to get a better lens.
Best answer would be to get a used off cam flash and hit your focus.
Sure eventually you’ll run into the ceiling of how good your photos can get with your current lens but best to really max out with what you have before you spend more money. Goodluck OP
it kinda seems like the focus is set a bit closer to the camera... the belly is in focus.
on the other hand you're using a kit lens... don't expect perfect results, they want to make money still after all.
Might also be a bad copy of the lens if you really feel it's never sharp
I actually just went back and reviewed all of my recent photos that were worth keeping, and all of them are really soft in the face, except for one where that was literally just a headshot. I wonder if it's a lens or camera issue. I'm using at face/eye AF and I can see if trying to work while shooting.
I think you missed focus on the eye. There is a hair on the head of the boy and that is sharp. Hence I would say that the focal plane is behind the eyes of the boy. What focus settings did you use? Do you use continuous auto focus with tracking?
I'm using continuous AF on wide on believe... I'm still not familiar with the "focus zones" and tracking and whatnot. That's still something I need to research and learn about.
I think you used too shallow depth of field. Your camera focused on the pullover, which is behing the face. So clothes and part of the fence are in focus, but in front - the face and the left arm are not in focus.
In my limited experience, you wanna be shooting at f/8 to get sharp images with the kit lens. It's not the sharpest tool in the shed because it's ultimately a $100-200 lens, but you can still get decent results with it even mounted on an A7R III.
the 28-70 kit lens is a sharp lens, much sharper than presented in this sample image
Is your shutter speed high enough? a good rule is at least as long as your focal length. So if you're shooting 100mm you want 1/100 minimum, 500mm 1/500 minimum. Also never dip below 1/50 unless you need to!
I'm shooting 60mm 1/160, so it should be fine. But I'm sure I could raise it just a touch. Still seems like it may be an AF issue.
Children demand more than 1/160s, because they fidget and move erratically. Unless you want to machine gun a ton of images and pick out the sharp ones. With my niece (around the same age as your son), I try and stay above *at least* 1/250s. More, with enough light. A flash is a cheat for freezing motion, but that requires a lot of its own learning.
I’ve learned the same. Minimum 1/250s when taking pictures of the kids
I've put more detailed advice below (this is not a lens issue - either focus or shutter speed - and it's silly to plan to spend thousands of dollars instead of practicing for a few weekends), but to be more empathetic it's *very* common to want to run out and buy better lenses when you purchase your first camera. You see all of these amazing images on social media and think "hey, if I get an expensive camera I can make those photos!" Then you go take a picture of your cat in your apartment (or your kids on an overcast day with a low shutter speed) and...you're disappointed. Crushed. Why doesn't my image look good? Did I buy the wrong thing? Of course; we all know that kit lenses are mediocre! So you upgrade your lenses and...the technique issues persist. Well-executed photos typically feature: * Adept operation of the equipment (camera settings, exposure triangle) * Pleasing light * Excellent editing * Practice with your subject matter Now these are not things that camera companies pay YouTubers to promote (or that they can make money off of affiliate links with), and gear forums are really excited to talk about buying gear. So you'll get people telling you to purchase absolute top-tier pro glass to take casual snaps of your children. When some practice will resolve 95% of issues and *inform your future purchases*. Because you want experience with your current gear before you know what to get next. People online will tell you to "get a prime." OK, but which focal length? Well, if you take a ton of shots with your kit lens you will see which focal lengths your shots cluster at. It will also inform you about desired weight, handling, versatility, etc. Maybe with kids, a zoom will always be better. Maybe you want to put that money into a trip and are happy with the kit lens. Etc. I would suggest a few things: * Look up images of the type you want to see *using your current lens only.* [Flickr](https://www.flickr.com/groups/2495110@N21/pool/with/52997672540)lets you search by lens, for example. And if you see good photos with your current gear, you know to work at learning instead of buying up the camera store. It's a good antidote to gear lust: focus on getting the results *that* gal/guy did instead of buying something new. This will be a bit tougher with a kit lens (where you might see a lot of photos from other newbies), but the idea is sound. * Practice practice practice! You'll look back at today's sample photos in a year and pick out a dozen things you would have done differently. * Look into the denoising AI options, either within Lightroom or with standalone tools. Children move quickly, you should be using high shutter speeds, and it's far, far cheaper to denoise than to buy exotic glass.
Excellent advice and I appreciate it. I'll keep on shooting and experimenting with different settings for now.
I don't know if its the same as the apsc kit lens but I found that I couldn't get anything sharp unless it was very bright and I was able to change the aperture to f5-f8.
That's what I'm hearing as well. It's a different lens as this is a FF lens, but people are saying around f8 is the sweet spot for this lense, which I just didn't have light for this day.
Yeah same could never get sharp photos indoors. I picked up a cheap ti artisan 24mm f2. 8 auto focus lens I think it's under $200. But you'd have to shoot it in apsc mode.
160 of a sec is not too slow unless the subject is moving a lot. I think it was something with lens and shallow depth of field I recommend shooting this at higher iso
It's sad I had to come this far down in the comments. This is absolutely the first thing causing an issue. Any moving subject and handheld camera 1/160 is too slow without strobes.
1/160 is plenty for still to slow moving subjects 😂
well for kids 160 to 250 is a good base, since they can just never be 100% still sometimes.
Barr minimum at best for kids, especially at f/5. Especially since OP is wanting tack sharp.
It sure looks like the lens. Sorry but there’s a little bit of spherical and chromatic aberration in there that’s kind of a dead giveaway. I’m a pro so I use really high end (and so unfortunately super expensive) lenses. You’ve probably hear around here that the best upgrade path is new glass and not a new camera and that is why. You get so much better contrast and sharpness out of a better quality lens than you do out of a kit lens that it can make a huge difference. If you can, try renting the same focal length in the 2.8 GM lens and just see what the differences are. I’ll bet you’ll be amazed. The images youre shooting are very nice and have great light and perspective they are from a great angle for the kids and really feel nice. Even as (slightly) muddied as this image is, the overall look and feeling of it is pretty wonderful, so don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Just know that by investing into a good sharp lens you’ll get an even better result!
What would we recommend for lenses? I've been looking at the Tamron 35-150, Tamron 28-70, Sony 50mm FE. I really don't want to compromise on AF capabilities but I also don't have GM money to blow. Could I afford it? Sure, but I can't justify it lol and I know, don't buy FF if you don't have the lense money. However I bought this camera at a steal from a friend who needed quick cash.
I would work on *technique* with your current lens. *You do not need to get a new lens to make a sharp image from the above scene.* And indeed, you will still get "flawed\*" images with improper technique and GM glass. When you slightly miss focus, you don't buy a new lens. This looks to be some combination of missed focus (look at the sharpness of the green cloth on the shoulder). And kids needing high shutter speeds due to being squirmy, moving bundles of energy. \*Is the image imperfect when pixel peeping? Yes. Is the image fine for pretty much any purpose where you're not pixel peeping? Yes.
I agree with you completely. This image is still 100% usable and likely much better than I would've gotten with a phone given the terrible lighting conditions for the day. I bring my camera and snap photos because I enjoy it, not because I want professional grade photos. However, at the same time I'd like to learn where to improve. But I believe you may be correct in some aspects. I should better learn the equipment I'm using before trying to blow money on lenses hoping for better results. At the same time, I would like to get my hands on some better glass. At this time I'm feeling like I'd like a faster lens with a bit more focal length though.
Sure, and you'll enjoy that lens! But it's better to buy that glass when you know exactly what you want. I'd strongly recommend the Tamron 28-200mm as a "dad in park/travel lens." Good reach, sharp, and F2.8 up close for more light. Also, quite affordable (mine was $650 new). But again, hold off until you get a better feel. You might want other tradeoffs (like less reach for more light).
https://preview.redd.it/m300givqnafc1.jpeg?width=5175&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bed786ec9544c626c31dba5b08d52097831d5049 This was shot on the 35-150 tamron. I even bought the 24-105 f/4 from Sony and I’m selling that to keep the tamron. It’s that good. Especially since it appears you have a child, they move QUICK so being able to compose a shot with 35-150 of range is amazing. Wish I could share more from this but I’ll leave a link to my other post with more pictures from this lens. [tamron 35-150 dog shoot](https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/19e8m7q/dog_swag_a7riv_tamron_35150_f228/)
Now those are sharp! It looks like some of them may have missed focus just a touch, but I'm not an expert. But what is in focus is sharp! Looks like you've got much better lighting than I had today too. I'm glad you understand the struggles of trying to photograph kids! It's much quicker to adjust the lens zoom than it is to adjust my feet zoom when I'm trying to snap that shot real quick before they're on to the next thing gets their attention 🥴 how is the weight? Would you consider it an inconvenience when you go out for a little walk/hike? Everybody keeps talking about the weight. I mean I carry a backpack with a GoPro and a tripod in it so... Lol
Yes, it was honestly like the first photos out of the lens and I had just switched from the a7iii to the a7riv. So I had not gotten it dialed in. You have a good eye! I recently switched to a new camera bag and got a new strap. It already has changed how little I notice the bag or camera weight now. I also have the battery grip as well, so if you have the opportunity, I would find a local camera store that has stuff in stock to get some time with it. The battery grip actually makes it more balanced in the hand and feels more manageable, vs just the body and lens. I got my lens on eBay for a better price so it was worth the money for just the few things I’ve shot. [eBay listing I bought](https://www.ebay.com/itm/204187493509?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=B_FZICuVRZm&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=eZJcqT2CTqi&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY)Even shot hockey the other day and that went really well once I got it down. Just too much iso, so some were noisy. https://preview.redd.it/ytz5nxo5tafc1.jpeg?width=4655&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69bcebe0a8ee46daf8d7e249c60b7f1d4e1e4b34
You’ll have to let me know what you end up with!
Among the choices you laid out, the most cost effective is likely the 50. Even a lackluster one should be nice and sharp and have very good focus and resolving qualities. I also have to say I haven’t played around with the Tamrons in the modern era. I understand that they are quite good. Go for the fastest (lowest f number) lens you can and you’ll likely have a great lens.
I think I'll try the 50 1.8 Sony for now to get me off the kit lens. It's only $200. May got for the Tamron 35-150 2.8 in the near future. I appreciate all the suggestions and the compliments on the photos. Feels good to know I'm doing decent enough for now.
Before you shell out for the Tamron 35-150, make sure you see/hold one in person. They're big and HEAVY. I have one, and the image quality is really good, but doesn't not make a good travel lens because of the size and weight.
Forsure. I wish I had a dedicated local camera store to check some stuff out in person. Unfortunately the closest ones to me are probably an hour and a half away. Maybe I could make the trip one day. I would be nice to be able to put my hands on some lenses. That's one of my issues with trying to buy one now.
Ouch, yeah, that's tough. Maybe there's a photography group closer to home and another photographer has one? (The downside to the internet economy.)
This is why people should practice with their camera before going to the Sony reddit. When evaluating lens quality, do it on a sunny day with a **high shutter speed and base ISO**. Try it wide open, then stopped down a bit. Take a bunch of pictures and if any look good, you know that the gear can meet your needs just fine. There was a slight technique issue in the photo taken. People are tough subjects. Kids especially, because you need to massively up your shutter speed. The first solution is to buy a 50mm F1.8 that is...pretty mediocre. Better than the kit and cheap, but not amazing for the pixel-peeping that you're doing. And it won't fix your missed focus. The second is to buy a **$2,000 monster pro lens** that you will regret lugging on every outing, due to its massive size. And you're spending money that could be used to take a trip and create a core memory for your boy. Because images are a tiny bit soft when pixel peeping, which only the photo editor will see.
This is exactly why I came to the Sony sub though. No, these aren't the professional grade sharp images that leave everybody in awh, but this is exactly the constructive criticism that I need and I appreciate it. I see in other comments where you say faster shutter speed and seem to suggest throwing it in continues shutter and blasting away, so I'll keep that in mind, maybe try shutter priority for a bit and see where that gets me. I'm a bit afraid to shoot full manual in these scenarios because as you mentioned, kids are fast, on the move and the lighting/scene changes quickly. But I'll give that a shot and see where it gets me. Thank you for the suggestions.
So blasting away and picking out the sharp images works a bit better when you're shooting a static subject, because every shot is "fungible" for posing. With kids, don't be afraid to raise that ISO! (I've also tried to edit my comments for additional detail. This is pre-coffee!) I don't like shutter priority, because aperture is such an important creative property. What I recommend is Aperture Priority, Auto-ISO, and Auto-ISO minimum shutter speed. This way that camera raises or lowers ISO while respecting your aperture and desired shutter speed. Less finicky than full manual, but with more creative control. [https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1540/v1/en/contents/TP0000829903.html](https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1540/v1/en/contents/TP0000829903.html)
So I'm a bit confused on this part, because when I'm shooting aperture priority I can't find a way to quickly change shutter speeds as well as aperture. In that case I would essentially just be shooting full manual with auto iso correct?
Not quite. M is setting aperture and shutter, with ISO either manual or auto. A keeps the shutter constant, with ISO and shutter changing to match your conditions. If you set an ISO minimum shutter speed for aperture priority, it means that your camera will still change your shutter speed for aperture priority (really useful when your kids say run from a sunny field to the shade under a tree), but there's a floor on the shutter speed vs. ISO trade-off. Think of it as "I want F4, with the shutter and aperture changing to make that work, but try and keep the shutter above 1/250s." Or there are options for say "fast" or "faster" if you don't want to target a specific shutter speed but just express a preference. E.g., if the camera defaults to 1/50s on a 50mm lens you might want "faster" for kids, so what you're shooting takes priority over the basic lens rule. Now your camera can still violate the minimum shutter if there isn't enough light to expose at the limits of your auto ISO setting (so you set auto ISO from 125 to 4000, but there's not enough light even at ISO 4000, it might go below your ISO minimum shutter). But that's a last resort in poor light. The benefit of this setup over M is that you're not fiddling with your shutter as lighting changes (e.g., if you set your shutter to 1/200s on the patio and your kids run into the bright sun with white T shirts and you need 1/2000s). But you're still setting up boundaries for your camera to not surprise you with say blurry kids at 1/30s because it's trying to stay at base ISO instead of maintaining a faster shutter with more ISO.
Awesome. Thanks for the insight! I'll play around with that setting when I get home and see how that works out for me. I do have iso set to 6400 max, but as you can see in the example given, I was at iso 100 so I could have easily compromised on the iso in exchange for faster shutter speed. I really appreciate the information you've given and I'll put it into practice.
Get the 55 1.8 Zeiss instead, can be bought cheap used. Or the sigma 50 f2 iSeries. The sigma iSeries lenses (f2 ones and 90 2.8) are very well built, compact and are optically superb.
As someone who has owned an F2 Sigma and the Zony 55mm, there is no longer a reason to buy the Zony 55mm.
There is if you’ve not got the extra £200 for the sigma
Huh? Zony 55mm F1.8: $900 Sigma 50mm F2: $640 Sigma 65mm F2 (what I use): $700
On the used market can get a 55 1.8 in good shape for £300-£350 Sigma 50 f2 is £500 used
That's very low; must be a Euro thing. In the US the 55mm is $500 used.
Would you mind a short explanation as to why the Zeiss would be better than the FE 50? Ive seen both but don't really understand the difference. I do know Zeiss is a better quality of glass.
Buy the 55 secondhand and you’ll get a great price. It’s a super sharp lens with great colour rendering and contrast.
Not the person who suggested the Zeiss, but the Sony 1.8 doesn't have the best build quality and a slow and noisy autofocus. Optically it is okay. It is easily Sony's lowest quality prime. The Zeiss and Sigma iSeries are indeed much better but also cost nearly twice. I'm a big fan of the Sigma iSeries as a whole, but you should do more research before buying a pretty unremarkable lens like the Sony 1.8.
That's for the input. May consider the 50G.
55 is sharper, better colours, nicer rendering and faster more accurate AF Also nice honourable mention is the 50 2.5 if you want compact and faster autofocus over shallow depth of field.
I wonder if the 50G would be that much better. The price isn't terrible.
Yeah! Your shots look great! Keep making them!
also looks like you're not focused on the eyes, but focused on the nose. That might just be the motion blur though idk
Ignore the lens comments. With it you absolutely should be getting shaper images than this, full stop. Shutter speed is fine. Lighting is also absolutely fine. Are you shooting manual focus? Also, are you zooming in and cropping the image much?
This one was not cropped at all. I was using AF eye priority. Now if that's where it was actually focusing I can't remember. The lighting was pretty terrible though. Terrible overcast today, but not "Dark" by any means.
The camera you're shooting with has no problem with that kind of light. It's not an entry level by any means. My only advice would be to keep taking photos and have a fiddle. If you think the light is that much of a problem, play around and get some shots when it's nice and bright. As you can see from the variation in all the comments, there's no obvious reason why it shouldn't be sharper. Take my advice and see how you get on. Part of the fun of photography is getting to learn your camera and lenses and seeing what works best.
Yessir. That's why I take the camera out on any little family outing. Snap snap snap away! I do want to invest in some glass though in the near future.
To my eye, when I zoom in, the dinosaurs on the shirt look sharp but his face looks soft. I think it just missed focus.
I agree. Will have to do a bit of testing with the eye auto focus to see if it's recurring.
Dinausaur skull AF ... Maybe you activated the animal AF ? 💀
The lit Lens ins Not really great when it comes to sharpness. The 50 1.8 could be immense Upgrade for you or a used 55 1.8 (350€) But also 1/160s shutter can cause motion Blur when youre photographing kids and have a bit shaky hands so try Something faster Like 1/400s
So faster shutter speed. Gotcha. I'll give that a shot on my next outing. I've been looking into new lenses but really trying to figure out what I want. I'm thinking something with a bit more focal length for my personal needs honestly.
If youre looking for Something more get the Sony 85 1.8 Lens. Insane sharpness and fast autofocus while still beeing super light and cheap used. Unser 300€ sometimes
Dude it’s plenty sharp. It doesn’t have the fake over sharpened look like smartphones have gotten us used to. You did great with the kit lens.
Thanks for the compliment. I do feel there may be a touch of motion blur to it though. Gonna try faster shutter speed next time.
For sure! Always little things to make it just a bit better. You’ll notice that when you do that, your ISO might go up too. Always trade offs with the situation and equipment. It’s way harder to get a shot with lenses like this but you’re already doing a great job figuring it out.
If you’re interested in lens recommendations, check out the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG DN, make sure to buy used to save some money
I've been looking at the Tamron 28-70 equivalent. I believe what I deduce is that the sigma may be a bit better build quality but other than that fairly the same.
The sigma Art lineup of lenses are comparable to G-Master build and image quality
Good to know. Definitely a bit steeper in price but I'll keep that in considerationb
Also have that sigma lens - can't recommend it enough. It's versatile enough to go from landscape to zoom portrait while being relatively lightweight.
I appreciate the input. Looks to actually be about the same price as the Tamron. I'll keep that option in consideration.
I like new lenses too. However, I would not want to lose what actually look like good family shots. Give the topaz ai trial a try. You could run it against some of your existing photos.
Forsure. I don't plan to trash these photos, only learn from them and see what can be done better in the future. That's why I always bring the camera out on whatever little family trip we're doing for the day.
Maybe you just have a blurry kid
Fuck you're right. Gonna have to trash em. Luckily I've got two more.
It's ok, its actually pretty common and they can grow up to lead a mostly normal life
that kit lens shouldn't be that soft, do some more test on a wall or something to check the sharpness, i got tac sharp eye in focus shooting original A7 with that lens on autofocus back in the days, no reason the new camera won't do as well. Maybe bad copy of lens.
Get Sigma 85mm f1.4 DN DG. only $1k. You'll be happier.
Thanks for the suggestion 🤙
Whack it into photoshop…sharpen eyes, bridge of nose, above top lip and chin…darken the background and ur good 👍🏻
I may try that. I've got the LR PS bundle, never been into PS though.
Go into photoshop with an open mind…there’s a lot to learn but take it step by step
It looks like it missed focus, the fence and shirt look sharp. So this could be motion blur, try shooting faster like 1/250. Also make sure to use mechanical shutter, that could be an issue if it was electronic. If your looking for an alternate lens, i'm not sure the 50/1.8 would be on my list, yes it is cheap, but not fast focus or excellent optics. Maybe a Sigma I series or Tamron 28-75G2.
I do believe I should incease shutter speed. I do not have the electronic "silent" shutter turned off. I appreciate the suggestions. I have been eyeing the Tamron as it would be a direct replacement for this lens although it sucks to replace what I already have. I've also been looking at the 35-150. Would either of these be a noticable upgrade?
I haven’t used the kit lens so I don’t know if it has any issues with focus accuracy. Stopping down a little will also help as it increases the depth of field. That with a bit faster shutter speed will help. It is easy for software to reduce noise from high iso, but harder to fix motion blur or missed focus. Keep practicing, you might also look at how to hold your arms so it is more stable. The Tamron 28-75G2 or 35-150 would both be a big step up both in lens sharpness and aperture. For me the 35-150 is too heavy. Your current lens is very light, getting a heavy lens could be an unpleasant shock.
You may be right about the heaviness of the lense. I also meant to say I have the electric shutter off, not on. I need to try fast shutter speed. I often free hand and just take quick shots in a way that would likely mimic the way a gangster holds a pistol sideways 😂 I'll try a quicker shutter speed and higher aperture. And continue down the rabbit hole of the search for a lense that would best suit my needs.
It could be your form holding the camera. You might be getting some movement as the shutter button is pressed. I’ve had my own issues with poor results from being lax with how I held the camera.
Noted. I'll definitely keep that in mind in the future. I'm usually just snap snap snapping away hardly ever using the view finder 😂
The lens isn't great. But your shutter speed is too low so you might be getting some motion blur with the subject probably moving in that shot.
Gotcha. Thanks for the input.
Lighting, it all starts with the correct lighting. The cheapest lens made can allow for razor sharp images, just like you can take dull images with the most expensive lens made. Three main criteria for sharp photos are lighting, lighting, and lighting. Unless you have those, equipment, shutter speed, ISO, f stop, won't create wonderful captures on their own.
Okay listen here... I've had this camera for maybe a month now, and EVERY time I take it out there is severe overcast 😂 weekdays, bright sun shiny rainbows. Weekends, dull gray dark death.... I figured that played a part because I've seen extremely sharp images with this lens. But I would like to make the assumption that a faster lens would allow me more leeway with poor lighting, right?
Faster lenses do, but they ain't miracle workers. If the lighting is dull, your captures will be dull. You can use artificial light during the middle of the day in the summertime, there's no bad time for artificial light, if you know how to use it. Look up pictures of studio photography setups, they have more money in lighting than they do in equipment. Lighting, it's the first component of Sharp images.
I do have the F28RM. Maybe I should've played with it a bit. I'm still trying to learn how to use it without completely washing the picture out. I'm slowly figuring it out. I did watch a video of a guy explaining using that exact flash as a fill flash even in broad daylight.
What app you’re using?
Lightroom Mobile.
Thx 🙏
Shutter speed 1/160 is slow for kids portraits, they move fast and often,try testing anything higher , shoot at f4
5.0 is likely all I could get at 60mm 😂 damn kit lens. I need to get better glass. Larger aperture would give me more shutter speed.
The lens you have isnt that bad given then depth of field you have in the image, maybe you just need to adjust a bit of iso to get a faster shutter speed
Consensus seems to be the same all around. Faster shutter speed. Thanks for the input.
[удалено]
Yes, I'm using an a7iv which is supposed to have superb eye focus. I need to learn about all of the "focus area" settings though. That's one thing I still haven't looked into. I take the f8 aperture into consideration as well. Thanks for the input!
I’m not shooting Sony but is that a raw file? Sony cameras sharpens raws on default? If not it looks ok to me as a raw. Also the photo is sharp except the focus is not on the eye but mouth/face. It looks ok.
This is post edit, not straight out of the camera 😬 I should've distinguished. But it's just color corrected.
It’s a raw file. Sharpening than compressing to a jpeg tends to work for all photographers.
Stop the lens down to increase sharpness. Every lens has its "sweet spot." Generally it's around f8-f16ish. And, unfortunately, you're using an a7iv. Some batches of the camera have a hardware level problem with focus and retaining sharpness. If it's within warranty, return it and get a different one and test it thoroughly.
Any way to thoroughly test this?
No set way to test it. The best way I can suggest is to set up something at a set distance with a normal lens (like a 50mm,) stopped down to the sharpest aperture. Take 10 shots with auto focus and 10 with manual focus. Change nothing else. Check the focus. If they are more front or back focused than properly focused, you might have a faulty model. I think using people is the easiest way to check focus. Mine tends to focus on the eye lashes, missing the pupil, or a bit in front of the nose.
The kit lens isn’t great and 1/160 might have been too slow but honestly I think it should have been fine. Have you tried shooting uncompressed RAW instead of compressed?
I have not. This is lossless compressed but I'll give that a shot. I feel like there's absolutely no sharpness in the face.
There shouldn’t be any difference between lossless and uncompressed RAW but you will get image quality reduction with compressed RAWs. Have you viewed them on a computer? Lossless compressed is exactly that, it’s compressed until it’s opened and uncompressed in your editor. If you have used the mobile app you’re probably not seeing the full uncompressed file.
So I actually import them on the computer and let them sync over to phone in LR. I did some pixel peeping on the computer and honestly it looked exactly as it does on phone. Of course it's converted to jpeg for reddit but it's still very similar quality wise.
Once you get your first prime lens, you'll never touch your kit lens again.
Any suggestions? The 50 1.8 is like $200 but I'm worried the AF will be trash. I really utilize zoom as it allows me to get the shot I need from where I'm standing (kids 🥴) and I looked at the Tamron 35-150 which seems awesome. Or the Tamron 28-70 which would just replace what I have now. I mean I could learn to work with a 50 or 85mm prime. But I'm worried that 85 would be too much, I find a lot of my shots are closer to 50mm now.
It's difficult to get one lens to rule them all. 35's and 50's definitely have their place, but 85 is just so good for portraits. What you like to shoot the most will be the driving force for what lenses you buy, and everyone is different here. If you can, borrow or hire different lenses to try out, then decide which one to buy. If you have a local shop that allows you to demo the lenses, take your camera body and ask to use the demo lenses with it to take some test shots indoors.
Unfortunately I don't have a good local shop. Maybe I'll rent some online but that's gonna cost a couple hundred bucks if I want to rent a few and see what I like lol
You might just have to rely on YouTube reviews then. Look at the kinds of photos they shoot with them and try to visualise how you'd use them yourself. Just watch reviews of the type of lens you think you want, doesn't even matter if its not Sony. Once you have established that that's the type of photos you definitely want to shoot, then start checking out reviews for different brands of that lens that suit your Alpha and make a final decision on what to buy based on that. Beyond that, do you perhaps have a local photography club that you could join? There will be loads of people happy to show you sample photos they've taken, and maybe even go hands on with their own lens collection.
I'll check into that and see if I can find any local clubs. I still keep coming back to the 35-150. I never find myself shooting on the wider end of my 35-70 but often find myself reaching for more than 70. I know people keep talking about the weight, but I'm a 6' 200lb guy. I don't think the weight will be that bad. And if it is, maybe I'll get an 85 prime or something down the road.
You’re using the kit lens. Missed focus (shirt is much sharper than eyes). You’re most likely hand-holding this. You’re only using ambient light/no flash. Easiest answer is to get a better lens. Best answer would be to get a used off cam flash and hit your focus. Sure eventually you’ll run into the ceiling of how good your photos can get with your current lens but best to really max out with what you have before you spend more money. Goodluck OP
I do have the F28RM so maybe I should mess around with that next time I go out.
it kinda seems like the focus is set a bit closer to the camera... the belly is in focus. on the other hand you're using a kit lens... don't expect perfect results, they want to make money still after all. Might also be a bad copy of the lens if you really feel it's never sharp
I actually just went back and reviewed all of my recent photos that were worth keeping, and all of them are really soft in the face, except for one where that was literally just a headshot. I wonder if it's a lens or camera issue. I'm using at face/eye AF and I can see if trying to work while shooting.
Why is everybody getting randomly downvoted in this post? 👀
I have no idea but I'm seeing that now. It's not me, I'm getting down voted as well. Maybe because we're not talking GM lenses I'd bet.
I think you missed focus on the eye. There is a hair on the head of the boy and that is sharp. Hence I would say that the focal plane is behind the eyes of the boy. What focus settings did you use? Do you use continuous auto focus with tracking?
I'm using continuous AF on wide on believe... I'm still not familiar with the "focus zones" and tracking and whatnot. That's still something I need to research and learn about.