Do Cameras Lose Sharpness Over Time?

SamirD

I've been really wondering this lately when reviewing shots. I'm not sure if it's because my cameras have truly worn out or if I've just learned to see details.

I have four cameras, an Olympus e20n, two Sony DSC-F828, and a Panasonic DMC-FZ20. None of these cameras are known for having the sharpest lenses, especially the Sony. But lately, it seems that even the Panasonic, which has the best lens in my lineup, isn't as sharp as it used to be. Each of these cameras has taken at least 40k shots.

I know the Olympus has a function they recommend running once a year to find dead pixels on the sensor, but after Olympus repair messed up the metering and focus on the camera, I think the sharpness issue is related to their repair versus the sensor.

I know zoom lenses lose their sharpness over time at the ends due to use, which could contribute to issue. But would it be this bad? Do sensors lose their touch over the years? Any input appreciated. Personal experiences really welcome! :clap

ziggy53

When someone mentions that "all" their cameras are suffering, I have to wonder how they are being reviewed?

In particular I have seen CRT monitors loose their sharpness and that will affect all images viewed on the monitor.

May we see some sample images showing before and after problems, preferably with full EXIF?

BTW, I have some very old lenses, primes and zooms, and they do not display a general loss in sharpness just because of age.

Some have developed internal problems like mildew which definitely impact image sharpness, but that's because they were improperly stored or they were consistently used in an environment which caused the mildew. Some are lenses I purchased with the problem for prices which allow repair. (2 - Pentax 500mm, f4.5 primes which I bought for a very fair price, for instance.) Some are lenses given to me. I have 1 lens that suffers from delamination of glued elements, but it's not a lens I commonly use.

I have some zoom lenses from the 1970s that still test OK, but I don't use them because I now have better lenses available. Optically they are still in pretty much the same condition as when they were young. Lens formulas, especially zoom lenses, continue to improve as do manufacturing tolerances.

brvheart

just a thought here - is this when viewing a print or on a monitor? If Print disregard, if monitor - have you adjusted the monitor etc?

SamirD

Thank you very much for the quick response.

For review, I use a particular LCD monitor. I used to use a Toshiba Tecra 8100 laptop that had an even better LCD on it, but because SM has become so much more system intensive, this laptop can't be used to do this efficently. I also have Eizo and Nanao CRT monitors that were top of the line and were over $1500 about 10 years ago. These were always well-reviewed in the desktop publishing publications. I don't use these for review because they are not color calibrated to my cameras and can be much further off color-wise than the LCD. But I can look at an image on them quickly to double check focus, dof, etc.

I'll have to dig to find good before and after examples. I literally have shot 250k photos and will have to comb through them. Luckily, I should have these already on SM, so a full EXIF will be available.

I know that SLR lenses typically won't lose their capabilities, but since these cameras are all aimed at consumers and have built-in lenses, I don't think the rules that apply to SLR lenses will apply to these. I have a real feeling that these aren't built to the quality levels of individual lenses. I think the Olympus is the only exception to this. It has ED glass and was aimed at pros, not consumers.

SamirD

brvheart wrote:

just a thought here - is this when viewing a print or on a monitor? If Print disregard, if monitor - have you adjusted the monitor etc?

Monitor. I've actually never seen a real SM print yet.

The monitors aren't calibrated. The laptop I used to use for review can't handle SM anymore, so I've had to use the only other LCD I have. The CRT in front of me runs too high a resolution to be effective at reviewing the images off SM (I have the sized locked to Medium).

Here's an example of an image I'd not to happy with. It came from the newer of the two Sony cameras, f3.5 at 1/60, so shake shouldn't have been an issue.
http://huntsvillecarscene.smugmug.com/gallery/9302906_SMU8D#621916818_Wubto

Here's a shot from 2005 from the same Sony camera for comparison. The material of the seat is leather, so that makes a bit of difference and it's f2.8 at 1/60, so it has a bit more light and a slighly shallower dof.
http://huntsvillecarscene.smugmug.com/gallery/6725869_2sGGo#429617478_tVUWz

ziggy53

SamirD wrote:

...

Here's an example of an image I'd not to happy with. It came from the newer of the two Sony cameras, f3.5 at 1/60, so shake shouldn't have been an issue.
http://huntsvillecarscene.smugmug.com/gallery/9302906_SMU8D#621916818_Wubto

Here's a shot from 2005 from the same Sony camera for comparison. The material of the seat is leather, so that makes a bit of difference and it's f2.8 at 1/60, so it has a bit more light and a slighly shallower dof.
http://huntsvillecarscene.smugmug.com/gallery/6725869_2sGGo#429617478_tVUWz

It's a little hard to see at these image sizes but it almost looks like the first image is back focused a bit. Is that possible?

LongStreet

Do Cameras Lose Sharpness Over Time?

No, but Photgraphers do!

Seriously, I too have some very old equipment. I've never experienced nor heard of a decrease in sharpness sue to age alone.

SamirD

ziggy53 wrote:

It's a little hard to see at these image sizes but it almost looks like the first image is back focused a bit. Is that possible?

I think that is a real possibility.

I started using spot focus/metering since a lot of shots were missing focus when set to the auto multi-point pattern. If it's metering the back of the passenger compartment, then at that dof, there is a good chance that the closer objects would be out of focus. That was actually going to be my experiment when shooting this weekend--use multi-point again for interior shots.

But from what I'm gathering from the responses in this thread, is that none of you have had deteriorations in digital equipment over time? This is contrary to the results I'm getting from general Internet searches.

run_kmc

SamirD wrote:

I think that is a real possibility.

I started using spot focus/metering since a lot of shots were missing focus when set to the auto multi-point pattern. If it's metering the back of the passenger compartment, then at that dof, there is a good chance that the closer objects would be out of focus. That was actually going to be my experiment when shooting this weekend--use multi-point again for interior shots.

But from what I'm gathering from the responses in this thread, is that none of you have had deteriorations in digital equipment over time? This is contrary to the results I'm getting from general Internet searches.

Unless something happened to the glass (ie, scratches, fungus, something happened to the coating, the lens was dropped, you were using it as a volleyball at the beach and sand got inside, someone accidentally broiled it at 350 for three hours) a lens won't "lose sharpness".

Modern digital bodies, unless something traumatic happens to them, last as long as their shutter, and that can be replaced at that point. Unless the shutter breaks, or light is leaking in, 50 year old film cameras will pretty much perform the way they always have.

Marketing departments everywhere would have you think otherwise.

SamirD

run_kmc wrote:

Unless something happened to the glass (ie, scratches, fungus, something happened to the coating, the lens was dropped, you were using it as a volleyball at the beach and sand got inside, someone accidentally broiled it at 350 for three hours) a lens won't "lose sharpness".

Let's see...never dropped hard, but a few 1 foot tosses with its' case onto a cushy car seat. They have been exposed to extremes of temperature and humidity, sometimes being left inside a locked car for hours at a time, or worked in 90+ heat with 90+ humidity for hours on end, or some light rain without a proper chance to dry off before being put back into their case. Would this be enough abuse to qualify?

run_kmc

SamirD wrote:

Let's see...never dropped hard, but a few 1 foot tosses with its' case onto a cushy car seat. They have been exposed to extremes of temperature and humidity, sometimes being left inside a locked car for hours at a time, or worked in 90+ heat with 90+ humidity for hours on end, or some light rain without a proper chance to dry off before being put back into their case. Would this be enough abuse to qualify?

No.

Well, maybe. A lot of things will be visible to the naked eye, though. If you look through the lens and don't see anything, there's probably nothing there. If water gets in there, it will be visible to the naked eye. Fungus is visible to the naked eye.

I guess my point is that glass doesn't really degrade. Coatings can degrade, the mechanical parts can break, but clean glass is clean glass, no matter the age.

ziggy53

One problem with fixed lens cameras, digicams and P&S, is that it's very hard to see fungus when it starts because you cannot view directly through the lens. With dSLR lenses you can remove them and project a tight beam of light which will show dispersion caused by degrading conditions like fungus and mold. Working with fixed lens cameras you cannot perform the same test.

With a digicam or P&S camera mold and mildew are mostly visible as a loss in contrast in the resulting images. The best way to diagnose changes on a camera like the Sony F828 is to try to replicate a shot from years before and review any image differences.

I see good contrast in the linked "bad" image, but it does look like the camera focused to the rear of the intended subject.

I would be willing to bet that part of what's going on is that when the camera was new to SamirD, he shot more images, not trusting the system, yielding more selection. (We all do this and it is part of human nature not to trust something new.) As time went on and the camera seemed to be working well, fewer images were being taken because of a generalized trust in the camera.

I suggest that reverting to taking more images, even duplicate images of the same view, and trusting the camera less by purposely reviewing (chimping) the important images before moving on to the next scene, the keeper rate will improve.

So, take more pictures and don't trust the camera as much to get it right in a single image. I think the overall number of keepers will increase, although sorting times will also increase.

chrisjohnson

Don't know that much about photography but do know a lot about electronics. Electronic systems can get tired as time goes by. Normally a circuit designer will stay well within the tolerances but you can expect slight changes in performance over time until one day they stop working altogether.

I fear that with the emphasis on reviews of new products that we find in camera marketing/purchasing decision that it is sometimes tempting to exceed tolerances in the early days of a new model. Especially given the fierce competition around relatively minor issues. It would be better to review models again when they have been in mass production for a while and component choice and circuit design have settled. I remember when I worked for a major consumer electronics manufacturer that products going to review would be hand picked and pre-sorted - the serial production would be more manufacturable and optimized for profit margin including service costs (more reliable).

Personally I will never buy a high value electronic product that is new on the market. Others buy immediately and enjoy life on the bleeding edge.

In the old days, when mechanical-optical components were the most important, you could rely on cameras lasting a lifetime if stored properly. Nowadays it is not so simple.

SamirD

ziggy53 wrote:

One problem with fixed lens cameras, digicams and P&S, is that it's very hard to see fungus when it starts because you cannot view directly through the lens. With dSLR lenses you can remove them and project a tight beam of light which will show dispersion caused by degrading conditions like fungus and mold. Working with fixed lens cameras you cannot perform the same test.

With a digicam or P&S camera mold and mildew are mostly visible as a loss in contrast in the resulting images. The best way to diagnose changes on a camera like the Sony F828 is to try to replicate a shot from years before and review any image differences.

Good information, and a great idea. It will take some time to setup a shoot to dupe an old shot, but is very doable.

ziggy53 wrote:

I would be willing to bet that part of what's going on is that when the camera was new to SamirD, he shot more images, not trusting the system, yielding more selection. (We all do this and it is part of human nature not to trust something new.) As time went on and the camera seemed to be working well, fewer images were being taken because of a generalized trust in the camera.

I suggest that reverting to taking more images, even duplicate images of the same view, and trusting the camera less by purposely reviewing (chimping) the important images before moving on to the next scene, the keeper rate will improve.

So, take more pictures and don't trust the camera as much to get it right in a single image. I think the overall number of keepers will increase, although sorting times will also increase.

Because this camera was my second Sony f828, I actually picked it up and was shooting like normal. I never even detected the well documented 'purple fringe' issue until after a few years. I was just never that particular on quality until recently after seeing a lot of 5ds shots with a 50 1.8 prime. Once you get used to seeing quality shots like that, you start to question what you have. I'm actually trusting the camera less today than when I first bought it, doing a lot of chimping as I shoot if time allows it.

I reviewed older images by the Sony to find them a bit soft, but it seems the newer ones are even softer, almost to the point of lacking sharp focus.

One technique I plan to start using is zooming to somewhere in the middle of the camera's range since that's where most zoom lenses are their sharpest. That and trying to stay with apertures like f4-f5.6. If a shot is not sharp then, it will never be.

Miguel Delinquento

Samir,
Tony's point below is a good one: when is the last time you had an eye exam? Eye strength deteriorates signficantly faster than any digital equipment.

None of my digital or film-based cameras and lenses have changed in their level of performance. My eyes, unfortunately, have, though at my age things have leveled out.

M

LongStreet wrote:

Do Cameras Lose Sharpness Over Time?

No, but Photgraphers do!

Seriously, I too have some very old equipment. I've never experienced nor heard of a decrease in sharpness sue to age alone.

ziggy53

I wonder if the hologram AF is on on both Sony F828 cameras? I found that if the hologram AF was off the autofocus was a lot less reliable for the F828.

SamirD

ziggy53 wrote:

I wonder if the hologram AF is on on both Sony F828 cameras? I found that if the hologram AF was off the autofocus was a lot less reliable for the F828.

It's always on. People love seeing that laser shoot out of the camera, lol. It's also the best focusing system I've ever seen in pitch dark.

SamirD

Miguel Delinquento wrote:

Samir,
Tony's point below is a good one: when is the last time you had an eye exam? Eye strength deteriorates signficantly faster than any digital equipment.

Good point, but my eyes have had the same prescription for over 20 years now. I'm actually an idea candidate for lasik, but I'm waiting on seeing what the long term side effects are--retinas detaching, etc.

ziggy53

SamirD wrote:

... It's also the best focusing system I've ever seen in pitch dark.

I agree.

BigAl

SamirD wrote:

I never even detected the well documented 'purple fringe' issue until after a few years. I was just never that particular on quality until recently after seeing a lot of 5ds shots with a 50 1.8 prime. Once you get used to seeing quality shots like that, you start to question what you have.

I think you've answered your own question here. You've just become more critical after seeing results from better equipment.

SamirD

BigAl wrote:

I think you've answered your own question here. You've just become more critical after seeing results from better equipment.

I would agree with you, except that when I look at photos taken by the same camera from years ago, I don't find them off as much.

run_kmc

SamirD wrote:

I would agree with you, except that when I look at photos taken by the same camera from years ago, I don't find them off as much.

Either that lens is getting weaker or you're getting... getting stronger...