Cant stay focused!

[sovietdoc]

:addpics:

 

[Overread]

I would try two things :

1. Focus on the eyes using the AF-L to hold focus then recompose the shot

2. Use manual focus

This method can work, but remember you can end up moving the focus off the subject this way. Think of the focus as a sheet of paper parallel to the front of the lens. If you change the direction of the lens the sheet of paper also moves, if it moves to far you can end up with the depth of field no longer covering the point you focused on to start with.
Thus with his focus and recompose method you also have to check focus before you shoot. (hence the use of manual focus to correct)

what does IQ stand for?

IQ stands for image quality and mostly refers to the sharpness as well as overall performance of the image created.

f10 should be fine for DOF. what was your shutter speed?

My settings were..
1/13, f10, iso lo. 0.3, 185mm

You're probably getting motion blur, try shooting around f/4 or 5.6, ISO 400ish, set the lens closer to 70mm, and set the active focus point on the eye and you should be getting much better results.

1+ to that advice - I agree use a bigger aperture ( smaller f number) and let more light into the camera to let your shutter speed increase. Generally speaking you don't want your shutter speed to be slower than 1/focal length of lens and you also don't want super slow speeds when shooting a subject that has motion (even slight motion).

1) Auto-focus is useless

2) Auto-focus is useless

3) Auto-focus is useless

1.) Wrong

2.) Wrong

3.) Depends

Most DSLRs don't have a good way to manual focus. There's nothing in the viewfinder to show the focus (other than a tiny image...).

No, it is useless!

Really now......

Can we keep him as pet?

 

[benlonghair]

Assuming you're talking about the 70-300vr.

The autofocus isn't useless. It isn't great but it's not useless. You need to learn that a) you will need a shutter speed of like 1/150 (or 1/300+ if it's the non-VR) to get sharp pics in any light and b) the autofocus isn't accurate so you need to manually override it once you're close.

Look at this (Scroll down and to the right to the bird). That's taken with the 70-300 on a cloudy day. ISO 200, 1/320, f/5.6.

It can be done, but you have to pay attention and realize that sometimes it's best to just put your camera away because you're just gonna be frustrated.

 

[asheeants]

My first advice is to post some example shots here along with the details of the settings you used for them. That gives us a solid idea of what you are producing and what the problem is in your shots - descriptions are good certainly, but without a photo a well it leaves far to many variables for us to be able to give you a more focused answer.

Here are the shots. Now remember these are only test shots, nothing fancy and I am a noob, so be nice. hah Also, shes sitting in her jumper, I know its a distraction again just a test shots.

1.

2.

3.

4.

 

[Overread]

Eyes look in focus to me from those shots - its motion blur that you have as well as probably handshake when shooting as slow as 1/13sec.

 

[benlonghair]

Ya, those are pretty good for being that slow a shutter speed.

 

[asheeants]

Eyes look in focus to me from those shots - its motion blur that you have as well as probably handshake when shooting as slow as 1/13sec.

I'm guessing its motion blurr bc the camera is on a tripod and I'm using a wireless remote.

 

[Overread]

Yep motion blur it is then if you've taken those steps to avoid camera shake

 

[SrBiscuit]

if you want that SUPER crisp razor sharp focus, youll need something with better optics. as far as those pics, and the lens used...seems like it's focused fine.

 

[asheeants]

Assuming you're talking about the 70-300vr.

The autofocus isn't useless. It isn't great but it's not useless. You need to learn that a) you will need a shutter speed of like 1/150 (or 1/300+ if it's the non-VR) to get sharp pics in any light and b) the autofocus isn't accurate so you need to manually override it once you're close.

Look at this (Scroll down and to the right to the bird). That's taken with the 70-300 on a cloudy day. ISO 200, 1/320, f/5.6.

It can be done, but you have to pay attention and realize that sometimes it's best to just put your camera away because you're just gonna be frustrated.

That is what I'm looking for. The whole bird is perfectly focused. I am still so overwhelmed by the balance between shutter, aperture, & iso. I'm just not experienced enough to know how to shoot properly in manual. I still have a lot to learn and work on for sure. I was hoping to know enough to get some good results this weekend. We'll see..

 

[asheeants]

Eyes look in focus to me from those shots - its motion blur that you have as well as probably handshake when shooting as slow as 1/13sec.

Oh and since I was in app priority, the shutter is a lil diff for each. Ranging from 1/13-1/25

 

[benlonghair]

That is what I'm looking for. The whole bird is perfectly focused. I am still so overwhelmed by the balance between shutter, aperture, & iso. I'm just not experienced enough to know how to shoot properly in manual. I still have a lot to learn and work on for sure. I was hoping to know enough to get some good results this weekend. We'll see..

You have no idea how much post processing I did on that image. It was an awful image when it came out of the camera. Under-exposed, soft, the background blur was ugly as sin. I put probably 2 hours into PPing that.

With digital photography, much more than with film photography, you, as an enthusiastic amateur, have a lot more options in how an image is processed. There was a thread yesterday and the day before that was about this.

The difference between digital imaging of today and film imaging of 15-20 years ago is that the user did not see most of the processing that was done to their image. When you dropped off a roll of film, the film got processed to make some extent and then the image itself was processed. Now you, the photographer, are responsible for that. Instead of having to be semi-pro to develop your own images in your darkroom, you are thrown into the world of digital processing. There's a lot to learn about it.

Working the camera is easy. The digital darkroom stuff is difficult.

(As a side note, those photos you posted could be great with a little unsharp mask and some curve adjustments._

 

[asheeants]

That is what I'm looking for. The whole bird is perfectly focused. I am still so overwhelmed by the balance between shutter, aperture, & iso. I'm just not experienced enough to know how to shoot properly in manual. I still have a lot to learn and work on for sure. I was hoping to know enough to get some good results this weekend. We'll see..

You have no idea how much post processing I did on that image. It was an awful image when it came out of the camera. Under-exposed, soft, the background blur was ugly as sin. I put probably 2 hours into PPing that.

With digital photography, much more than with film photography, you, as an enthusiastic amateur, have a lot more options in how an image is processed. There was a thread yesterday and the day before that was about this.

The difference between digital imaging of today and film imaging of 15-20 years ago is that the user did not see most of the processing that was done to their image. When you dropped off a roll of film, the film got processed to make some extent and then the image itself was processed. Now you, the photographer, are responsible for that. Instead of having to be semi-pro to develop your own images in your darkroom, you are thrown into the world of digital processing. There's a lot to learn about it.

Working the camera is easy. The digital darkroom stuff is difficult.

(As a side note, those photos you posted could be great with a little unsharp mask and some curve adjustments._

Thanks that does make me feel better. I do however need a crash course on editing. If I can turn one of my photos into something sharp like your bird pic I am well on my way. hah I don't have photo shop, is there anything I can download that would give me some good results?
Thanks again!

 

[benlonghair]

GIMP is a good place to start. 100% free and (I would guess) can do 90% of what PS can do.

If you decide to start shooting in RAW (which gives you much more leeway when editing) you can get UFRaw to convert your images.

They both take some getting used to but produce nice images once you figure them out. As far as I know, there are some instructional videos on youtube on how to use GIMP.

 

[benlonghair]

Here's a little demo. You can do much more than this because this is such a low resolution image and has only just so much data.

Original:

Down & Dirty edit (++Brightness, +contrast, levels moved in and gray point moved left, unsharp mask)