>>3552682THESE ARE USING VERY HIGH JPEG COMPRESSION TO EVEN BE ABLE TO FIT THE FILE SIZE LIMITATIONS AND STILL RETAIN EXIF (since Photoshop won't let you preserve exif with the old export dialog that let's you be more granular with the compression). These are all like 6 or 7 out of 12 on the compression quality just to fit. That absolutely is going to smear away fine details. That being said:
>The clouds on the right look like cutouts.The clouds looking like cutouts is probably just due to sloppy processing. I just boosted the clarity slider to like 40 because I didn't feel like altering tone sliders for more contrast.
>The rocks in the foreground on the left look like they are doubled up.That's just the funky bokeh of a kit lens superzoom.
>The grass in the foreground is a mushy mess of noise. There's no noise in that pic, they're out of focus.
>There is no detail anywhere in the entire shot.Yes, it's quite soft all around, that's why I typically sell kit lenses. That said, it's a very low contrast scene, I brightened up the exposure significantly. The sun was basically on the horizon. I think that's like -4EV? So yeah, a kit lens superzoom might struggle a bit. I don't even know where the focus point is, I think I had it on all points focus and just let it do it's thing. I can't find anywhere that's in focus.
This one
>>3552655 is the same lens in full sun and focused properly and it's nicely sharp where the focus point is and chromabs are very well controlled.
Pic related is a pretty good representation of what that lens can resolve. I'd say that's acceptable to very acceptable for a kit lens, especially a superzoom. If you disagree, put your money where your mouth is and show an equivalent shot of a superzoom from a full frame camera.
Also:
>pixel peeping a kit lens superzoomOk, dork.
