What contributes most to achieving a sharp image?

As your knowledge and ability in the subject of photography has increased, what did you find to be the factor that has contributed most to getting sharper images?

I have included a poll, but please feel free to elaborate on any cognitions that you had along the way relating to image sharpness.

EDIT: So I couldn't post my poll because there is a 15 minute time limit that I missed, so let's just discuss.

1) Good light. Even if a shot is technically sharp, if the light is bad and the subject is backlit or in bad shadows they will not look sharp.
2) Accurate focus. A 10mm miss in focus plane location is bigger than the difference in sharpness between the best L prime and the meanest kit lens ever made in sharpness.
3) Adequate DOF to cover the subject. One sees a heck of a lot of shots of people with just one eye in focus and such.
4) Good technique in handholding (or use a tripod) coupled with adequate shutter speed.

A lot of people here obsess about shooting charts and getting lenses with the nth degree of resolution, but it's worth noting that this performance will not show up in your photos without a lot of care. Handheld shots of moving subjects with marginal shutter speeds (like the 1/focal length rule of thumb) will never be as sharp as the lens is capable of.

Yes, to all mentioned so far plus - good lens, good sensor, proper PP.

I'd like to add post processing skills. All images need to be sharpened and there is a fine skill to achieving the optimum sharpness from an image without going overboard.

Agree to all above.
Know how your camera focus's. Using selective focus points and appropriately re-framing. Using correct point with al-servo. No scenes are flat....pick your point well! Recognize that you changing a little and change a lot.....like playing with 1.2 and just leaning forward after locking focus changes everything!!

In my short time doing this photography thing, understanding one's camera/settings is probably the first step towards sharp images.
Then stuff like lighting, atmospheric conditions, lens speed/shutter speed/ISO/aperture...y​ou know the simple stuff.

Probably the thing that contributes most is keeping the camera still and a decent shutter speed. (excluding panned shots )

JeffreyG wrote in post #11352792
1) Good light. Even if a shot is technically sharp, if the light is bad and the subject is backlit or in bad shadows they will not look sharp.
2) Accurate focus. A 10mm miss in focus plane location is bigger than the difference in sharpness between the best L prime and the meanest kit lens ever made in sharpness.
3) Adequate DOF to cover the subject. One sees a heck of a lot of shots of people with just one eye in focus and such.
4) Good technique in handholding (or use a tripod) coupled with adequate shutter speed.

A lot of people here obsess about shooting charts and getting lenses with the nth degree of resolution, but it's worth noting that this performance will not show up in your photos without a lot of care. Handheld shots of moving subjects with marginal shutter speeds (like the 1/focal length rule of thumb) will never be as sharp as the lens is capable of.

Would you say then that what people say that a lens is 'soft', it is often a result of insufficient light, inaccurate focus, inadequate DOF, camera or subject shake - or a combination of the above? Is there really such a thing as a 'soft' lens (meaning that the lens contributes to the lack of sharpness) or does the term 'soft' refer to the lens resolution?

In practice, do the differences between L lenses and non-L lenses have more to do with the build quality and (usually) maximum aperture?

frugivore wrote in post #11353421
Would you say then that what people say that a lens is 'soft', it is often a result of insufficient light, inaccurate focus, inadequate DOF, camera or subject shake - or a combination of the above? Is there really such a thing as a 'soft' lens (meaning that the lens contributes to the lack of sharpness) or does the term 'soft' refer to the lens resolution?

In practice, do the differences between L lenses and non-L lenses have more to do with the build quality and (usually) maximum aperture?

Go to the Canon web site and look at the details on their lenses. The "L" glass is manufactured to higher standards, some incorporate fluorite glass and coatings. Way too complex to explain here!

BTW, everything Jeff said is correct...

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …lay/Lens_Advant​age_Select

And look here too...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx

Way too much to learn, and after 40 years I'm still learning!

While some lenses are definitely softer than others (in that all other things being equal the image is less sharp) and there will inevitably be variation between examples of a given lens, in my opinion the vast majority of "is my lens soft?" posts are down to poor technique or inadequate knowledge. Obviously we all have to start somewhere, but like most tools, cameras and lenses seem to get a bad rap from beginners.

I think it's because modern photographic gear is so good (most of the time) at getting it right on its own. In the old days you'd have to be pretty lucky to get a really good shot without knowing very well what you were doing. Nowadays when a picture isn't very good, many people (but especially the beginners) will first assume the gear isn't doing what it should.

since I'm still fairly new to this (2 years as of this weekend!) here's where I've gained most in terms of sharpness.

1. Dialing in lens to camera body (7D). Aligning gear to work as a single unit made sense to me.

2. Light. Misfocus happens most when I tell the camera to use its tightest focus then shoot at something without enough contrast. Good example of not giving the camera a fighting chance to succeed.

3. Technique. When I first started shooting, 1/250 was required to get anything close to a sharp shot. Now, I can get handheld shots without an IS lens at 1/60 (not great, but good improvement) and still get sharp shots MOST of the time.

4. Tripod / shutter release. This is anybody's best chance at getting a sharp shot.

dave

frugivore wrote in post #11353421
Would you say then that what people say that a lens is 'soft', it is often a result of insufficient light, inaccurate focus, inadequate DOF, camera or subject shake - or a combination of the above? Is there really such a thing as a 'soft' lens (meaning that the lens contributes to the lack of sharpness) or does the term 'soft' refer to the lens resolution?

In practice, do the differences between L lenses and non-L lenses have more to do with the build quality and (usually) maximum aperture?

That's a huge topic really. For starters, I will agree that the ultimate degree of sharpness that you are looking at in test charts and such really only matters in technically flawless pictures. Miss focus my a hair, have a moving subject, shoot with anything other than super high shutter speeds and this type of tiny detail will not appear in the print.

There are also some defective (or just not as great as they could be) lenses out there.

And then there are better and worse lenses by design. Some Canon lenses are not real sharp under the best of circumstances (I once owned an EF 35-80 that was dull) but this doesn't apply to most of them. Most Canon primes are quite sharp as are almost all of their recent zoom lenses (other than the super zooms).

To me the appeal of most Canon L lenses are the features. The broad zoom ranges (24-105, 100-400) or the fast constant aperture zooms (16-35II, 24-70, 70-200/2.8 II). And the fact that these lenses are all sharp is kind of a given, but it does not mean that all non-L lenses are not as sharp.

Hogloff wrote in post #11352890
I'd like to add post processing skills. All images need to be sharpened and there is a fine skill to achieving the optimum sharpness from an image without going overboard.

You say all images need to be sharpened. Is this because the pixels of a camera are limited and so have less acutance than our eyes can detect?

frugivore wrote in post #11353507
You say all images need to be sharpened. Is this because the pixels of a camera are limited and so have less acutance than our eyes can detect?

It's not that. It's because all Canon DSLRs have what's called an "anti-alias" filter in front of the sensor, which purposely softens the image to avoid the jaggedy effect that you would otherwise get with a digitised image. The design intention is that you would then sharpen the image digitally, either in post-processing if you shoot RAW, or in the compression process in-camera if you shoot JPG. A straight RAW, or a JPG without sharpening will always look a bit flat and dull.

Higher shutter speed or tripod mount...

F/stop 1-2 stops smaller than maximum - the "sweet spot"...

Correct focus...

Top-line lens...

Relatively low ISO - prevents noise which destroys sharpness...

Correct sharpening in post-processing...