out of focus images with my D90

[PhotoXopher]

I see it more in the second two than the first... and to me it looks more like motion blur than out of focus.

 

[itznfb]

I see it more in the second two than the first... and to me it looks more like motion blur than out of focus.

Yep.. I get that type of blur from using VR while propped. No auto-tripod mode on the 70-200 :thumbdown:

After saying that I went back and re-read your OP and saw you were using lenses with VR and had your camera propped on a fence. If you were shooting with VR on this is probably your problem. VR is there to reduce camera shake basically and if you have your camera steady the VR will actually cause camera shake. So turn it off and try again.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

it's called depth of field, something your canon point and shoot can't really do. at these web sizes, they look sharp and in focus.

 

[lance70]

Thanks for all the help, sounds like lack of DOF is the main thing going on there and then my lenses are not great. Plus I have tons to learn still lol, I have never turned off the VR before, didn't realize that would cause problems either, thanks.

 

[PhotoXopher]

At F/9 depth of field shouldn't be an issue, should it?

 

[lvcrtrs]

Go into your menu and set your sharpness level to 7 (9 is the highest, i believe default is 5). This will not affect your AUTO side of the dial, just A, P, M. At work so I can't tell you exactly where but I thnk it's within your Picture Controls.

 

[itznfb]

At F/9 depth of field shouldn't be an issue, should it?

Absolutely not. Especially since the bridge of the tigers nose less than an inch away from his eyes is the most in focus point of the shot. In the sharpened version of the shot you can see the blur around his head and eyes caused by the VR.

One thing I really like about the D300s over the D90 is that I can actually see this type of blur on the LCD and turn off VR if it caused an issue.

 

[dhilberg]

At F/9 depth of field shouldn't be an issue, should it?

It depends on how close the subject is to the lens and where the point of focus is. In the first photo I see that it was shot with a focal length of 62mm. That means the tiger is pretty close (yikes). I'm not surprised its head is in focus, while the back end is out of focus. That's simply shallow depth of field at work. Depending on the length of the animal and how close it is to the lens, it may be impossible to stop down enough to get it entirely in perfect focus.

Hard to tell on web sized images, but they all look plenty sharp to me. I don't see any motion blur.

 

[IgsEMT]

In default setting, both 18-105 and 18-200 are soft lenses. In Camera Picture Profiles reassess your profile - neutral and portraits are very soft in default followed by standard. On my D90 and D300 I shoot in Standard - Saturation1, Sharpness 5 (2-7 based on flavor is good), ADL at Normal. Images are as crisp as I expect them to be.
I used to shoot at Vivid but didn't like the flavor of color, Landscapes didn't do it for me either. Monochrome, I boosted sharpness to 5 as well.
The camera is great, it is UNLIKELY that output is poor b/c of camera's fault most likely user is to blame.
Good Luck

 

[KmH]

I see it more in the second two than the first... and to me it looks more like motion blur than out of focus.

Yep.. I get that type of blur from using VR while propped. No auto-tripod mode on the 70-200 :thumbdown:

After saying that I went back and re-read your OP and saw you were using lenses with VR and had your camera propped on a fence. If you were shooting with VR on this is probably your problem. VR is there to reduce camera shake basically and if you have your camera steady the VR will actually cause camera shake. So turn it off and try again.

Interestingly, Nikon does not recommend turning off VR if the rig is mounted on a monopod, only if mounted rigidly on a tripod.

From the 18-200 lens users manual. It says the same thing for any Nikon lens that has VR

"• When the lens is mounted on a tripod, set the vibration reduction ON/OFF switch to OFF.
However, set the switch to ON when using a tripod without securing the tripod head, or when​

using a monopod."

 

[itznfb]

I see it more in the second two than the first... and to me it looks more like motion blur than out of focus.

Yep.. I get that type of blur from using VR while propped. No auto-tripod mode on the 70-200 :thumbdown:

After saying that I went back and re-read your OP and saw you were using lenses with VR and had your camera propped on a fence. If you were shooting with VR on this is probably your problem. VR is there to reduce camera shake basically and if you have your camera steady the VR will actually cause camera shake. So turn it off and try again.

Interestingly, Nikon does not recommend turning off VR if the rig is mounted on a monopod, only if mounted rigidly on a tripod.

From the 18-200 lens users manual. It says the same thing for any Nikon lens that has VR

"• When the lens is mounted on a tripod, set the vibration reduction ON/OFF switch to OFF.
However, set the switch to ON when using a tripod without securing the tripod head, or when​

using a monopod."

It actually makes a huge difference (at least in my experience) where the camera/lens are stabilized. If you rest the longest 1/2 of the lens only on a fence and the body is still relying on your hand held stability then VR is useless and it cannot compensate for the ratio of movement between the front element and the body. It also kind of sounds like that is taken from the "Active" VR setting? I'm not sure why it would specify tripod with unsecured head unless they were talking about panning.

I've found the more stable camera/lens in general the more VR has a negative impact. I've become pretty good at hand holding my 70-200 and the majority of the time I'm able to produce significantly sharper images without VR. If I rest the hood on a rock or fence the VR pretty much ruins the shot.

 

[DScience]

Since this is a jpg and already sharpened my default action for RAW files still over sharpened a touch but you can see just a simple touch get rid of the softness. Definitely wouldn't call it an out of focus issue though.

I would listen to itznfb on the D90. As someone who has owned 4, he can tell you whether it's the camera or other factors.

 

[itznfb]

Since this is a jpg and already sharpened my default action for RAW files still over sharpened a touch but you can see just a simple touch get rid of the softness. Definitely wouldn't call it an out of focus issue though.

I would listen to itznfb on the D90. As someone who has owned 4, he can tell you whether it's the camera or other factors.

Do you really want to make yourself look like an idiot again?

 

[DScience]

Do you really want to make yourself look like an idiot again?

I am sorry you took it the wrong way itznfb, but I am being 100% serious. :hug::

For someone who as owned 4 D90's, I think you are a perfect person to judge whether or not the camera has a flaw. Am I wrong in this assumption?

 

[itznfb]

Do you really want to make yourself look like an idiot again?

I am sorry you took it the wrong way itznfb, but I am being 100% serious. :hug::

For someone who as owned 4 D90's, I think you are a perfect person to judge whether or not the camera has a flaw. Am I wrong in this assumption?

IF you're being serious then my apologies.... but no, I don't think even having over 200,000 clicks on D90's makes me any more qualified since I've never actually had an issue as described by the OP.... other than just missing the focus on the shot.