What am I missing here... (Warning: Noob Question)

[Austin Greene]

Hey everyone!

Again, thank you for all the great advice, I'll be rereading all the comments and taking notes on suggestions. As for the photos, I thought I would be able to get out and take some yesterday, but we've had a storm move in and its set to be dark, gloomy, and rainy for the next week, and I don't have anywhere to really take a proper indoor photo. I will get out as soon as I can, take some more photos with the lens, and I will revive this thread at that time

Thanks again!

Toga

 

[FMPS]

I read thur your post, to be honest...I think you need to read your camera manual. It sounds like you want someone to tell you how to take great photos with your gear, but that's something you must learn how to do. May I suggest taking a basic class, or attend a weekend work shop

Mobile Photography

 

[Beast95]

...too long of a shutter time for a certain focal length or simply missing the focus entirely.

I do agree with this. On your camera, since it has a smaller sensor (which mine does too), here's the rule that I generally use to make sure I get a fast enough shutter speed:

Take your focal length (in mm) and multiply it by 2. That should be the minimum shutter speed you use to get rid of camera shake. This was a hard concept for me to get used to at first too, so don't worry about it.

EXAMPLES:
300mm x 2 = 1/600sec minimum shutter speed
75mm x 2 = 1/150sec minimum shutter speed
18mm x 2 = 1/36sec minimum shutter speed
127mm x 2 = 1/254sec minimum shutter speed

(You will find the approx. focal length # printed on your lens as you zoom in and out. It will vary depending on how far in or out you are zoomed.)

NOTE: You will have to round numbers like 1/254. It would work fine at 1/250. As long as your relatively close. Just like in stead of 1/36, you'd probably be fine at 1/30. Whatever floats your boat!

CAUTION: These only work to get rid of camera shake. They may or may not work for motion blur. I usually use around 1/640 to 1/2000 for moving subjects.

If you want to read articles about these things, I recommended Ken Rockwell's website (kenrockwell.com) because that's where I went to read about these things and he's got decent articles. I'd give you links but, well, I'm on my phone right now haha. If you do go to his site, there's a search bar in the top right corner, type in something relevant like "camera shake", I don't know.
BUT, ignore his rants about how Canon sucks, he's strongly opinionated, it doesn't mean anything.

Best of luck to you! If you need any help or have questions with what I just talked about, feel free to ask!

 

[Austin Greene]

Hey everyone,

So here is an example of what I was talking about from two crops...

1. 1/100, f/5.6, Evaluative Metering, 300mm, ISO 100, AF right on the head

2. 1/80, f/10, Evaluative Metering, 300mm, ISO 100, MF right on the head.

You can see pretty clearly that number two is sharper. Both photos were taken on a tripod with a two second delay, with the same white balance preset, and in both photos the bird was perfectly still. You can also see that there is some noise in photo one for whatever reason. Both photos were taken from almost exactly the same distance away.

So what can you all gather from this? I almost wonder if the lens is backfocusing, only because it seems that every photo I manually focus with is consistently sharper, even when the AF point is right where I want it.

 

[Beast95]

1. 1/100, f/5.6, Evaluative Metering, 300mm, ISO 100, AF right on the head

2. 1/80, f/10, Evaluative Metering, 300mm, ISO 100, MF right on the head.


So what can you all gather from this? I almost wonder if the lens is backfocusing, only because it seems that every photo I manually focus with is consistently sharper, even when the AF point is right where I want it.

Tripods definately help with camera shake blur but they dont totally fix it. I still recommend using higher shutter speeds at 300mm. That would be 1/600th without a tripod, but your around 1/80th or 1/100th. What if you were to turn the ISO to 200 or even 400? It wouldnt add hardly any noise but it would allow a much higher shutter speed. I am no expert so I cant say for sure, but its worth a shot.

Also, it still could be the lens. A way to test this would be to take a few pictures of lights or something. I've done this before. If you take pictures of lights with those same settings and they make short lines or appear to move, it is camera shake. If not, then it is not camera shake.


Also, since the second shot is sharper, it may be because its at f/10 instead of f/5.6. What if you tried autofocus at f/10? And the second is still a little blurry. You could just try another lens? Or remove any filters that may be on the front of the lens. Also, there may be grime that built up on the front of the lens, have you tried cleaning it?

Again, I am no expert but im just doing my best to try and help

 

[unpopular]

Sharpness is overrated

 

[manaheim]

That's weird. Definitely looks like camera shake. TBH I've done very few long focal length shots on tripods, so I don't know...

A nature photographer would be best here.

Overread would be a good one to talk to.

 

[Austin Greene]

1. 1/100, f/5.6, Evaluative Metering, 300mm, ISO 100, AF right on the head

2. 1/80, f/10, Evaluative Metering, 300mm, ISO 100, MF right on the head.


So what can you all gather from this? I almost wonder if the lens is backfocusing, only because it seems that every photo I manually focus with is consistently sharper, even when the AF point is right where I want it.

Tripods definately help with camera shake blur but they dont totally fix it. I still recommend using higher shutter speeds at 300mm. That would be 1/600th without a tripod, but your around 1/80th or 1/100th. What if you were to turn the ISO to 200 or even 400? It wouldnt add hardly any noise but it would allow a much higher shutter speed. I am no expert so I cant say for sure, but its worth a shot.

Also, it still could be the lens. A way to test this would be to take a few pictures of lights or something. I've done this before. If you take pictures of lights with those same settings and they make short lines or appear to move, it is camera shake. If not, then it is not camera shake.


Also, since the second shot is sharper, it may be because its at f/10 instead of f/5.6. What if you tried autofocus at f/10? And the second is still a little blurry. You could just try another lens? Or remove any filters that may be on the front of the lens. Also, there may be grime that built up on the front of the lens, have you tried cleaning it?

Again, I am no expert but im just doing my best to try and help

I really appreciate all the insight! I will try to turn the ISO up next time, I just generally don't like to from an IQ standpoint, but I think with something like this it would have its place since I could use a higher shutter speed. For the second photo, I will try again sometime with AF to see what happens. As for the lens, I don't use any filters on it, and the glass is perfectly clean

Toga

I read thur your post, to be honest...I think you need to read your camera manual. It sounds like you want someone to tell you how to take great photos with your gear, but that's something you must learn how to do. May I suggest taking a basic class, or attend a weekend work shop

Mobile Photography

I appreciate the response, but I don't believe thats the problem here. I've read the manual over twice, and it has yet to provide me with anymore answers. If you think I'm wanting someone to tell me how to take good photos, I'm not. I am asking for any ideas people might have from their own experience, seeing as how I haven't been in this long enough, as far as whats causing the loss of sharpness I've mentioned and documented. You can't get that kind of information out of any manual.

 

[Overread]

70-300mm type lenses are softer at their longer end, sadly this means shooting f5.6 at 300mm is not ideal and really you want to stop down at least one stop from wide open to try and claw back the sharpness. You can already see in the second shot that the sharpness (at least on the beak) is a noticeable improvement.

1/100 and 1/80 are also really risky shutter speeds, even small motions from the subject are likely to cause blurring in shots such as these (good shooters can get sharp shots slow when panning the shots, but that is for motion work not static).

Also check that your diopter is set correctly, if you are manually focusing and the point of focus is still not on that specific spot it might be your diopter or a lens fault. Setting the diopter is easy, just aim the camera at any clear, monocolour surface (eg white wall) and make sure the lens is set to fully out of focus - then just adjust the diopter wheel on the side of the viewfinder, to show the AF boxes and general displayed details in the viewfinder as sharp.

If there is a small error on the focusing it might explain why a short like 1, where its a profile shot with most of the subject in a single plane, is softer because the point of sharpness is just infront of it.

 

[Austin Greene]

70-300mm type lenses are softer at their longer end, sadly this means shooting f5.6 at 300mm is not ideal and really you want to stop down at least one stop from wide open to try and claw back the sharpness. You can already see in the second shot that the sharpness (at least on the beak) is a noticeable improvement.

1/100 and 1/80 are also really risky shutter speeds, even small motions from the subject are likely to cause blurring in shots such as these (good shooters can get sharp shots slow when panning the shots, but that is for motion work not static).

Also check that your diopter is set correctly, if you are manually focusing and the point of focus is still not on that specific spot it might be your diopter or a lens fault. Setting the diopter is easy, just aim the camera at any clear, monocolour surface (eg white wall) and make sure the lens is set to fully out of focus - then just adjust the diopter wheel on the side of the viewfinder, to show the AF boxes and general displayed details in the viewfinder as sharp.

If there is a small error on the focusing it might explain why a short like 1, where its a profile shot with most of the subject in a single plane, is softer because the point of sharpness is just infront of it.

Thanks for the excellent reply Overread! I've written down all of your suggestions and really appreciate the great advice!

Case closed

 

[o hey tyler]

Take your focal length (in mm) and multiply it by 2. That should be the minimum shutter speed you use to get rid of camera shake. This was a hard concept for me to get used to at first too, so don't worry about it.

EXAMPLES:
300mm x 2 = 1/600sec minimum shutter speed
75mm x 2 = 1/150sec minimum shutter speed
18mm x 2 = 1/36sec minimum shutter speed
127mm x 2 = 1/254sec minimum shutter speed

While this is generally a good rule. I feel like these figures are a bit overzealous. I shoot full frame cameras, and I have my shutter speed as 1/focal length at the bare minimum. Sometimes, if I have support I can go a few stops slower. I don't think it's totally necessary to go 2x the focal length (even on a 1.6x body) if you practice proper camera holding.

I think if you're shooting with a 50mm lens on a crop frame camera, you can often get by with 1/60 or 1/80s just fine. I know I did when I was using a crop frame camera w/ a 50mm.

Other factors will play a role, like if you have a grip on your body... Which can stabilize your camera a significant amount.