Point Focus Issue on D800...please help.

[rmbphoto]

Did a portrait session, shooting with my D800, 85MM 1.4 Lens. Basic headshot set-up with a single SB700 speed light and small shoot-through umbrella. Shooting at ISO 100, at f 2.2 and 1/250. Shooting outdoors on a tripod with auto-focus.

My problem is that for every shot, I had the Point Focus on my subject's eye (his face was squared up to the lens, not turned or tilted), but for just about every shot the eyes look soft when magnified in Lightroom. The focus sharp on his sideburns - a good couple inches (depth-of-field wise behind his eyes. I know I was shooting fairly wide open, and that occasionally there is going to be some blur for subject movement, camera shake, etc...but as I was shooting on a tripod at a fast shutter speed in good light, and being careful about camera shake, I don't know why the focus was off for so many of the shots. I wasn't even locking focus and recomposing...just lining up the Focus Point on the eyes and shooting. It's not soft enough for most people to notice, but hey, I want the eyes to be tack sharp.

Any ideas?

 

[KmH]

What focus mode and focus area mode was the camera set to, and which of the 51 AF points were you using?

Is the 85 mm f/1.4 a Nikon lens or a 3rd party lens? If it's a Nikon lens, which Nikon 85 mm f/1.4? The AF-D or the AF-S G?
Have you used the AF Fine-Tune D800 feature with that lens? (page 338 of your D800 user manual).

Doing a head shot using f/2.2 makes the total DoF extremely shallow, about 0.2 feet or 2.4 inches, half in front of and half behind the point of focus.
Also, fast prime lenses generally do not deliver their sharpest focus until they are stopped down 2 or more stops.
F/2.2 is only a 1 and 1/3 stop smaller aperture than f/1.4

 

[D-B-J]

What focus mode and focus area mode was the camera set to, and which of the 51 AF points were you using?

Is the 85 mm f/1.4 a Nikon lens or a 3rd party lens? If it's a Nikon lens, which Nikon 85 mm f/1.4? The AF-D or the AF-S G?
Have you used the AF Fine-Tune D800 feature with that lens? (page 338 of your D800 user manual).

Doing a head shot using f/2.2 makes the total DoF extremely shallow, about 0.2 feet or 2.4 inches, half in front of and half behind the point of focus.
Also, fast prime lenses generally do not deliver their sharpest focus until they are stopped down 2 or more stops.
F/2.2 is only a 1 and 1/3 stop smaller aperture than f/1.4

I'm going to guess it's a D lens and needs some AF fine tune.

Jake

 

[crimbfighter]

I have the same problem with my D800. Though for me it's more like 50% of my images end up missing focus by about two inches to the rear. AF fine tune doesn't help, because it seems to be more a lack of consistency with the AF system. I've noticed it does it far less when using wide angle lenses than telephoto. My Sigma 35 f/1.4 for example NEVER misses, but my 85 and 70-200 miss quite a bit. I've done lot's of tests at home, and can't seem to find anything consistent, other than it seems to miss equally with almost all my lenses..

My next step is going to be sending it in to Nikon with all my lenses to have them test the AF system and see if there is a calibration issue with the body, or my lenses, or both...

 

[shadowlands]

I have the same problem with my D800. Though for me it's more like 50% of my images end up missing focus by about two inches to the rear. AF fine tune doesn't help, because it seems to be more a lack of consistency with the AF system. I've noticed it does it far less when using wide angle lenses than telephoto. My Sigma 35 f/1.4 for example NEVER misses, but my 85 and 70-200 miss quite a bit. I've done lot's of tests at home, and can't seem to find anything consistent, other than it seems to miss equally with almost all my lenses..

My next step is going to be sending it in to Nikon with all my lenses to have them test the AF system and see if there is a calibration issue with the body, or my lenses, or both...

Yuck!!! Pain in the ___!!!

 

[Braineack]

fine tune your issues lenses.

 

[Derrel]

F/2.2 with FLASH??????????????? WUT????? It's no wonder that there are critical sharpness issues, using an 85mm lens at that wide an aperture. Last sunday I did some AF fine tune tests with a bunch of my lenses at distances of 7 and 10 feet. 200/2, 80-200/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 85 1.4 AF-D, 85 1.8 G, 135 DC and 105mm DC Nikkors, 70-300 VR-G, 50/1.8 G series...and I can tell you one simple thing. If you want to shoot portraits, and NOT have focus 'issues", you had best set the f/stop to f/4.8 or f/5.6. Otherwise, there's a very,very good chance you will miss critical focus more times that you would like to. I have known this for years. I like to shoot flash portraiture at f/7.1 with an 85mm lens, so I can get the nose in focus, the forehead in focus, and also have the EARS not big rendered as big, ugly, OOF blobs...

Using f/2.2 indoors or outdoors with flash is just asking for trouble, no matter what brand or model the 85mm lens is. Unless you are a good 25 feet back, f/2.2 is a very risky aperture in real-world portraiture situations that have any degree of fluidity to them. This is not considering AF fine tune: this is with a lens that is DEAD-ON in terms of AF fine tune. There just is not enough depth of field to always get critical sharpness now that we are shooting on 24- or 36-million pixel full frame cameras! Consider that if the AF fine tune is dead-on, but the focus system picks up say, the forehead hair of a woman, or her bangs, or curled hair she has...your subject's eyes at f/2.2 can easily be rendered quite "soft".

If that happens, the best thing to do is to make a selection of the soft area, feather it about 5 pixels, then use the SHARPEN command, fade that to 40%, and repeat that step two, or three times, deselect, then apply Unsharp Masking, and reduce the image size a bit, down to say 18 megapixels or less. Either that or kill-file that image entirely.

 

[Braineack]

Using f/2.2 indoors or outdoors with flash is just asking for trouble, no matter what brand or model the 85mm lens is. Unless you are a good 25 feet back, f/2.2 is a very risky aperture in real-world portraiture situations that have any degree of fluidity to them. This is not considering AF fine tune: this is with a lens that is DEAD-ON in terms of AF fine tune. There just is not enough depth of field to always get critical sharpness now that we are shooting on 24- or 36-million pixel full frame cameras! Consider that if the AF fine tune is dead-on, but the focus system picks up say, the forehead hair of a woman, or her bangs, or curled hair she has...your subject's eyes at f/2.2 can easily be rendered quite "soft".

pretty sure I shot my 85 1.8G at f/2.2 for this shot: https://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/14918074989/in/photostream/lightbox/

outdoors, with 2 flashes

THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN Dof.

 

[Derrel]

Using f/2.2 indoors or outdoors with flash is just asking for trouble, no matter what brand or model the 85mm lens is. Unless you are a good 25 feet back, f/2.2 is a very risky aperture in real-world portraiture situations that have any degree of fluidity to them. This is not considering AF fine tune: this is with a lens that is DEAD-ON in terms of AF fine tune. There just is not enough depth of field to always get critical sharpness now that we are shooting on 24- or 36-million pixel full frame cameras! Consider that if the AF fine tune is dead-on, but the focus system picks up say, the forehead hair of a woman, or her bangs, or curled hair she has...your subject's eyes at f/2.2 can easily be rendered quite "soft".

pretty sure I shot my 85 1.8G at f/2.2 for this shot: https://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/14918074989/in/photostream/lightbox/

outdoors, with 2 flashes

THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN Dof.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/14918074989/in/photostream/lightbox/

Yes, very thin DOF, and a very stilted, affected, ugly rendering of your personage. Nose? Wyyyyyy out of focus. Draws horible attention to the nose. And the ears? ugly rendering on them, two big, pinkish, OOF ear-flaps seen against a dark background, courtesy of the flash illumination on you. hair? A tiny smidge of hair in focus at the verrrry front-most portion of your hair, but only in the center of the frame. Overall, an ugly rendering of you. In this shot, all that comes through is the gimmickry of a nearly wide-open aperture. The subject has been subsumed by a bad photographic decision. An 85mm lens is designed to be used as a beauty lens. The above shot is quite ugly in its rendering. Hence my opening:F/2.2 with FLASH???????????WUT?????

 

[Braineack]

Good thing I was only just messing around I just wanted to see if it could be done at 1/160, took going down to ISO 50 and using very low flash power.

But I have to agree, the dof is WAYYYYYYYYYYY too thin and that image is cropped a great deal. like substantially. I believe the original shot was down to my waist and there was plenty of room above my head, making it all that worse.

 

[Derrel]

Good thing I was only just messing around I just wanted to see if it could be done at 1/160, took going down to ISO 50 and using very low flash power.

But I have to agree, the dof is WAYYYYYYYYYYY too thin and that image is cropped a great deal. like substantially. I believe the original shot was down to my waist and there was plenty of room above my head, making it all that worse.

GREAT example picture you posted! And by the way, I didn't want to come across as being critical of you or your personal appearance, but it is a fantastic example you kindly linked us to, of what realllllly thin depth of field with that focal length of lens looks like. F/2.2 at head-and-shoulders magnification just looks...well, not pretty...it's not a good way to show a person's face in an appealing way. With the nose so prominently OOF, and the ears also so wildly out of focus, and the hair mostly all OOF, it's just...well, I call it gimmicky. it does not look "pretty", or "smooth", or "elegant" or any other favorable adjective. That kind of wafer thin depth of field really calls a lot of attention to the camera technique, and I find that it interferes with my appreciation of the subject, as well as the lighting, and expression, and in general, everything. I dunno...I know a lot of people like it, but I find it gimmicky to see ultra-shallow depth of field portraits unless they are done with a truly expert touch. Yet even then, that fingernails on blackboard aspect still rears its ugly head oftentimes. It's hard to say why I feel ultra shallow DOF is gimmicky, but I feel the same way about selective coloring, overcooked tone-mapping, Dutch tilt, and gratuitous faked tilt/shift effects; technique that rises above subject matter is something I'm not fond of generally.

 

[Braineack]

Yeah even at f/4 the same shot my nose and ears were still OOF. That shot was actually at f/2.8, seems I lost the EXIF when I brought it into PS to clean up my complexion.



Plenty of shots I took at f/2.8 were OOF and only my sideburns were in. But I was also not behind the camera to really direct where it was nailing focus.