Lack of detail- how to fix?

[Nixalba]

I am trying to figure out why my photos are always lacking detail, are noisy/fuzzy, as if I'm shooting high ISO.

Nikon D500, Nikon 55-200mm (at least for these two examples). Screenshot of images in Lightroom (1:1) shows shooting settings. The VR was turned -ON-
I always try to shoot low ISO and use a higher shutter speed to combat shake.

It doesn't seem to matter the lens I use (which is often the 55-200mm, or the Nikon 50mm f/1.4). In-camera settings are:
Active D-Lighting -OFF-
Auto ISO -OFF-
Picture Control -SD-

Lightroom usually sharpens to 40, I turned it down to 20.

I'm not sure what other settings to share.

 

[tirediron]

I don't see any lack of detail; what I do see is the use of medium tele focal lengths at short camera to subject distances with relatively large apertures causing shallow DoF; I suspect a lot of your perceived lack of detail is arising from the fact that large areas of the image aren't in critical focus.

 

[zulu42]

Are these photos cropped? What was the distance from camera to subject? I ran your settings for the first shot through an online DOF calculator. In the first shot, at 125mm and f/4.8 if your subject distance was 3 meters, your total DOF will be 11 cm. That isn't enough to have the whole head of the horse in focus.

I can't quite see enough detail in your screenshots to tell if that is the only problem you're having with sharpness, but a DOF calculator is a good place to start.

 

[Nixalba]

I took screenshots of unedited photos. SOOC raw files.
He was definitely more than 3 meters away from me in most of the photos. I always try to focus on the eye/face
Zoomed out, they look good, but when I zoomed to 100% I can see noise (or pixelation?). I seem to get the same pixelation when using a 50mm (I'll find examples for that lens)

 

[SquarePeg36 7]

all raw files require some post process sharpening to bring out detail. Have you used an unsharp mask? Are they still weak?

 

[Nixalba]

50mm is much better, but I do still see a tad bit of fuzziness. This image was also shot in brighter light. Is it just a matter of smaller aperture?

 

[Designer]

Is it just a matter of smaller aperture?

Proper exposure is first, then lens attributes second, then settings third, and finally photographer's camera-holding techniques.

Yes, sometimes a lens is better at smaller apertures, so some simple testing is in order for you to find out where the "sweet spot" is on any particular lens.

1. exposure
2. what lens?
3. aperture and shutter (for DOF)
4. good technique
5. a tiny bit of sharpening in post

 

[Trever1t]

both examples are extremely underexposed. Getting images to "pop" starts with good lighting, natural or not.

 

[Derrel]

First off: turn VR to _______OFF_______ at 1/500 or faster! Seriously...it can cause a feedback loop, and give awful results. 1/2500 with VR set to ON is just asking for trouble. You are, quite possibly, making your images less-sharp by regularly shooting at fast speeds with VR set to ON. All About Nikon VR | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

I myself ruined MANY images in the summer of 2002 by leaving VR set always to ON on the 70-200 VR-G.


Secondly: when shooting things like a horse, you need more depth of field to get at least "acceptable" focus. Third: the 55-200 is a consumer-grade lens, and at f/4.8 it's not all that good. The lens is in fact, an average to decent performer, but it's not "crisp" in the way that a good prime or a $1,699 to $2499 zoom is. I shot one on my ex-wife's D40 and the lens is only average to decent.

 

[480sparky39 38]

First off: turn VR to _______OFF_______ at 1/500 or faster! Seriously...it can cause a feedback loop, and give awful results. 1/2500 with VR set to ON is just asking for trouble. You are, quite possibly, making your images less-sharp by regularly shooting at fast speeds with VR set to ON. All About Nikon VR | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan
.......

This. VR is not a set-and-forget tool. Use it only when it's needed. 1/500 with a 55-200 is not one of those times.

 

[greybeard33 5]

I have the 55-200 and wide open it is pretty soft especially on the edges. Mine is best at f/8-f/11. I also have a f/1.8 and a f/1.4 50mm. They are best at f/5.6-f/8 but are more than usable wide open. Here is a link to a depth of field calculator. This should help you understand this a little more.
Online Depth of Field Calculator

 

[jcdeboever]

I had one when I shot with a D3300 back I the day. The lens is average. Mine had a sweet spot of f/8. Definately turn off VR when not using slower shutter speeds. My Fujifilm 55-200 smokes it in spades. I use it the same way as the Nikon. The only time I use it wide open is if I am close to the minimum focus distance.