"Actual pixels" means what it says -- one pixel in the image is one pixel on
the monitor. No interpolation taking place, so a good way to judge an image.
But what do you mean by "efficiency"? Whether the camera focuses correctly
or how sharp is a correctly focused image? The latter is a very complex
topic, and not something that you can easily measure at home. Results will
depend on the lens quality, aperture setting, the low pass filter in front
of your sensor and the camera's image processing.
Unless you are taking a picture of a flat object, there is only one distance
that's in focus, and the rest is, by necessity, blurred to some degree. How
much depends on the focal length, the distance to the object and the
aperture (f #) setting.
A simple test for correct focusing is to arrange three cereal boxes (or
similar flat objects with fine print and some color), with the one on the
left 1" in front of the one of the center, and the one on the right 1"
behind. Open the aperture to the maximum (lowest f #), zoom or position the
camera to have all three boxes in the image, select a single point center
focus and place it on the center box. In the image you should see the center
box sharp and the other two blurred. If the left or the right box is the one
in focus, the focusing mechanism needs adjustment. Make sure your camera is
set to its highest resolution and lowest compression (if you are using JPG).
>I have a digital camera and I want to monitor the focus efficiency.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Peter
Peter Jason - 30 May 2007 03:02 GMT
At the moment I photograph buildings in town
which benefit from very sharp focus. I use a
zoom 7-14mm wide angle Zuiko lens.
The wide-angle properties are very good but
the focus is variable, which is strange
because wide-angle lenses have a focus
infinity point past about 3 feet, and I
always use a tripod.
Up until now I have not been using the "focus
bracketing" because this takes up too much
time & memory.
I am using 1/4 compressed jpgs, and
sometimes in the gloomy early mornings I need
exposures of many seconds.
> "Actual pixels" means what it says -- one
> pixel in the image is one pixel on the
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>>
>> Peter
Happy Traveler - 30 May 2007 05:44 GMT
Well, you might have received a much better focused (no pun intended)
response, if your original posting had some details of the equipment you are
using, what you are shooting, how you are processing the image, etc, etc. We
now know that it's a Zuiko 7-14 zoom used for architectural photography and
you are looking at relatively low compression jpgs. One can also guess that
you have it mounted on an Olympus DSLR, even though you are keeping that
detail confidential. Hopefully someone familiar with the Olympus system will
chime in -- I definitely am not. The only additional test that I can offer
in addition to what I already said is to mount a different lens on your DSLR
and see what happens. This may give you a clue whether the camera or the
lens is to blame. Or perhaps it's none of the above - could be the long
exposure, combined with wind or other source of tripod vibration. If your
early morning photographs are taken from a long distance, atmospheric
effects may be playing havoc too (though this is much more of a problem with
telephoto than with wide angle).
> At the moment I photograph buildings in town which benefit from very sharp
> focus. I use a zoom 7-14mm wide angle Zuiko lens.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> I am using 1/4 compressed jpgs, and sometimes in the gloomy early
> mornings I need exposures of many seconds.