I am now officially out of my mind with this and I seriously considering ditching digital altogether. I didnt have near this much trouble with film!!!
I cannot consistantly achieve sharp images!!! I had lots of trouble last year and thought it might be my eyes or my lens or the camera, both cameras (a D70 & D200). This year I was going to be sure of getting sharply focussed, crisp images.
This year, I rented a Nikor 200-400 AFS-Vr lens along with a gitzo 1410 aluminum tripod (The HEAVY Suhkrr!!!) I also rented the wimberly II gimbal. (All from "Borrow Lens.com")
I took it out to the swamp for my anual shoot of the sandhill cranes, and once again,..... way,.. WAY!!,.. too many soft images!!
I carted a 10-15 lb sandbag with me to hang from this already BIG, HEAVY, tripod, shot with & w/o a cable release, adding my mass to the lens tripod combo!! All of this on a subject sitting perfectly still on a nest, with shutter speeds between 1/90th to 1/1000 of a sec. After ALL that, only about 1 out of every 20-30 or so shots turns out looking superbly sharp, with maybe another 1-2 in that number rating 3 or 4 stars for sharpness (5 of course, being superbly crisp) All the rest,.. half or better are 2 stars & below ,.. utterly unusable. I am not counting the shots with obvious subject movement. I'm referring to simply soft shots.
I've used the AF exclusively, all with this lensl mounted firmly on the tripod. I even tried a couple of VR shots with it on the tripod! No consistant results either way. Nothing I've tried makes things obviously better or worse. And shutter speed is absolutely no predictor of sharpness!!! Some of my sharpest images were shot at 1/250 or less, and many of the worst at 1/500th and above. Some, up to 1/1,000th. All with the lens mounted on this monster tripod.
NOW,.. to make matters worse, I tried a test in the back yard. This time I hung 2,.. TWO!!, - 15lb bags from tripod center, (30lbs total) on soid dirt & grass, not marshy muck. Using AF, VR on VR off while on the tripod aimed it at my bird feeder and shot goldfinches sitting on the feeders perch. Same iffy,.. inconsistant results from 1/90th to 1/500th. with maybe 1 or 2 out of 93 images that would get 4 stars for sharpness. The rest all 3 stars. & below. (none made it to 5).
And the final kick in the keister is, I just now grabbed this D200 & lens combo, zoomed to 400 (600mm equivalent) aimed it at the feeder thieving squirell in my yard and with *active* vr on, hand held,... HAAND HELD!!!,... at 1/500th of a second,.. got more 4 star "sharp" results than when using it at 1/250th on a weighted down, rock solid tripod!!!!
Does this make any sense to anyone because It doesn't to me??? What am I missing??!!
I'm sick of missing great shots because they're too soft. I rented all this equipment because after adding 15lbs of weight to my old 1328 studex tripod and my 300mm f2.8/D200 combo I was getting more shots in the 4 & 5 star sharpness range. (Not a whole lot more, and not as many 5's as I figured I should be getting, but definately more of them)
So i figured,.. equipment & maybe technique was my problem!! Had to be,.. right??
Now, who knows!!
Please,.. please,.. please somebody have an answer. I'm ready to give up,.. for real. I've wasted too much time, effort, & money on this already! I actually got more sharp shots last week with the lighter 1328 tripod, and my manual focus 300mm lens on the same camera body. BTW,.. those soft shots were throughout the zoom range of the 200-400 lens. so its not just the difference between my technique on a 300mm lens and a 400mm.
ARRRGGGGHH!!! (...Sound of me pulling out whats left of my hair!!!)
I thought i should also mention that I cionsidered that maybe it was the software.. I've benn simply moving my images from the card & copying them to a folder and opening CS3 bridge. I thought maybe the nikon NEF's needed Nikon software to render them properly.. So I went and downloaded Nikon transfer & used it to transfer some of the same images off of the CF card and opend two fo them side by side in bridge. They are identical, no difference whatsoever!!
I am so frustrated and depressed over this mess u wouldn't believe!!!!
CT
Posted by David Bostedo on April 28, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Craig - I'm sure you've probably heard all of this before, but here are a couple of ideas off the top of my head. Maybe they'll help :
1) Perhaps there is actually something wrong with your camera? Have you tried other bodies?
2) Maybe your lens is out of spec...have you tried other lenses?
3) That lens at 400 mm wide open will tend to have some softness.
I'd suggest doing studio type tests. Take something with fine detail (a lot of people use crisp new money), and tape it to a very well lit wall. Set your camera up making sure it's sensor is parallel to the wall, and make some test shots with different parameters. If you can't get this sharp at high shutter speeds, there's either something wrong with the camera/lens, or, well, I don't know what else. Digital WILL require some sharpening due to the anti-aliasing filters over the sensor. Of course, as you said, you're getting some that are much sharper than others, so I don't know what would cause that. At high shutter speeds, things should almost have to be sharp some place in the photo, even if there's some back or front focus. If you can't take an image at, say, 1/2500s and f/11 with a good lens, I would think there's probably something wrong with your equipment.
Do you know anyone else that you think gets sharp shots? Could you try their setup/equipment and vice-versa? It might point you in the right direction.
Posted by Paul Inglis on April 28, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Hi Craig,
Having shot using both the D200 and the 200-400mm VR I can say that both are excellent performers and produce outstanding sharp images! Not a consolation in your position though!
Soft images can be caused by a number of issues; with either the lens or body. Try the same lens on a different body and the same body on a different lens to determine which is really at fault! I really think determining which is a fault will make life much more bearable for you!
1. If it is lens send it back and get a replacement.
2. If the body is faulty send it to a Nikon service centre for repair!
Off the top of my head, so late a night (it is here anyhow!) I would say you are suffering from either front or back focusing issues!
Sorry I couldn’t help more! If anything springs to mind I post more info in the morning!
Posted by Basil Greber on April 28, 2008 at 6:47 PM
I think you're focusing too much on making your tripod heavier. I don't think this is the issue here. So, IMO, you should try to break down the problem into subproblems. These are:
--- Body:
- Sensor o.k.? - yes, seems so, as you get sharp images. Some.
- AF module o.k.? - unknown, test AF accuracy with different lenses under controlled conditions (indoors, stationary subject, f/1.4 or f/2.8 lenses most suitable); compare to MF results
--- Lens:
- VR o.k.? - Try on tripod with VR off and mirror up (I think the 200-400 VR has 1st generation VR, switch off on tripod anyway!); compare handheld shots with VR on and OFF (does VR produce any benefits?)
- Optics o.k.? - Seems so, since you're getting good shots.
- AF accuracy o.k.? - compare results using MF and AF with that said lens.
Just some suggestions... I don't think this is a digital issue. Maybe you're scrutinizing the shots more than with film, though.
Craig - have you tried turning the VR system OFF when mounted on the tripod? I believe that Nikon recommends VR for hand-held only; otherwise, the camera is trying to compensate for "vibrations" that aren't really there.
Posted by Todd Caudle on April 28, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Sounds like you're doing lots of variety in the field and getting uneven results. Since some of your shots are "5" sharp, then sharp images are possible. Do a controlled test with a newspaper taped up on a wall, or go outside and find a building with a brick wall that fills the frame, and see how inconsistent the images are, and if there's any pattern. And as Rick and others said, tripod on = VR off. A friend of mine came back from Africa with some photo safari images that were just stunning. That is, until you enlarged them. They were all fuzzy from him not knowing to turn off IS while on a tripod.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on April 28, 2008 at 8:22 PM
The only other thing I can add is to repeat all tests with manual focus. Also, deliberately reset the diopter adjustments on the camera and bring it back to "correct", as viewed through the viewfinder, during the manual focus test (if it has adjustments). Let someone else do the manual focus test as well, to eliminate your eyes from the equation. Don't forget mirror lockup. Can you temporarily borrow a second body to repeat everything exactly? Maybe bribe a friend with dinner to help.
What do prints look like? There is definitely a tendency to overexamine the digital files, far beyond anything you ever did with film.
Could you also post something "typical" here as well, maybe a 400 x 600 pixel crop that should have been in focus?
Posted by John Mumaw on April 28, 2008 at 11:20 PM
An image sample or a link to one would be most helpful.
Posted by Lon Overacker on April 29, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Craig,
I have no experience with dslr or the stated sharpness issue, but have you checked out Darwin Wiggett's recent article here on NPN? It may not be good news, but may shed some light on your issue.
I hit the rack early last night as I intended to head out to the swamp again early this morning. So I'm just now getting to reply.
I'm going to take my 300mm manual focus with me today also and I will check this lens out on the same heavy tripod rig to see if it's ratio of #4 & 5 sharpies improves. That should tell me somethiing one way or the other,.. I hope!!
I don't have a room big enough and well lit enough to test these lenses in doors, and using flash for the tests would seem to negate the possability of checking for camera shake. What with the short duration & all. I like the brick wall idea, and I will take a shot at testing them that way when I get the chance.
Also, later today I will try to upload a few images to let the experts here evaluate them & see if that sheds any light on the problem.
As for diopters,.. last year I posted this problem and I thought it probably was my eyes. So I started fiddling wiht the diopter & as I mentioned in the first post,.. after adding weight to my lighter tripod. My ratio of sharp images improved BUT,.. I forgot to mention that I also zeroed out my diopter setting. I counted the # of clicks between the extremes & set it right in the middle. The viewfinder grid does not look quite as sharp to me as when I set it for my vision, but my manual focus "sharp" keepers ratio improved a bit! When a freind set my diopter for his vision, I could not tell when anything was in focus the viewfinder was so blurry.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 29, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Craig - I wonder if part of the reason you're going in circles is that you're doing things you shouldn't to try to fix the problem. For instance, you should have the diopter set for whatever looks best to your eye. Then if manual focusing isn't sharp, it may indicate poorly calibrated equipment (and Darwin's article, mentioned above, also comes into effect here). If you adjust the diopter so the viewfinder is blurry to account for other things that are out of whack, manual focusing may improve; But it's not really how it should be done, and might be masking the real problem.
Of course, the diopter setting doesn't really change anything about focusing - only what you see in the viewfinder. The focusing should be the same. And that doesn't explain anything about why auto-focus shots would also be soft.
Posted by Basil Greber on April 29, 2008 at 8:47 AM
I don't have a room big enough and well lit enough to test these lenses in doors, and using flash for the tests would seem to negate the possability of checking for camera shake.
Yep, and this is exactly what you want. You want to be able to exclude camera shake completely from the equation for your lens/optics, lens/AF and camera/AF tests. You need to separate things to locate the problem. Otherwise, your setup is just a black box that spits out sharp or blurry images, and you'll forever be trying to fix things that aren't broken, not knowing what's going on.
A prime lens, esp the 300 2.8 is almost always going to be sharper than a zoom. The 200-400 is one of the best examples of a zoom that has almost prime-like IQ, your tripod and head seem to be rock solid, and you are getting some good results handheld. So I am going to venture a guess that there is a mechanical malfunction somewhere. Are the results at 200 any better? Are you positive that the softness is motion blur as opposed to a focus issue? If your lens is either front focusing or rear focusing in auto mode, then it is possible that it needs calibration. Just my two cents.
After reading all of this it also occurred to me that the lens or camera might be back- or front-focusing and needing recalibration. The standard test for this is to take a ruler and angle it away from the camera. Then duplicate whatever tripod/lens/camera setups you've been using and aim the focus point at a specific number/hashmark on the ruler and fire away.
You'll know if the focus point is spot on if the number you focused on is the sharpest part of the image.
I was consistently getting more soft images than I thought I should while using a 400 prime lens to capture perched birds. Turns out it was back-focusing, so the birds were ending up mostly just in front of the focus plane. Recalibration solved that problem. And it was the camera that needed the recalibration. The lens was fine. Other times it might be the lens that needs the recalibration. The easiest way to separate whether it's camera or lens is to do those test shots by switching out your lenses and cameras and noting which performed how.
Posted by Kent Staubus on April 29, 2008 at 10:00 AM
No one is asking what software and how he is applying Unsharp Mask?
Kent in SD
Posted by Toni Lankerd on April 29, 2008 at 10:08 AM
This is probably a stupid suggestion, but...could it possibly be the sandbags on the tripod that are causing the problem? Have you tried using the tripod without them?
Posted by Steve Foss on April 29, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Uh, Craig, what software are you using, and how are you applying unsharp mask?
Posted by Basil Greber on April 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I don't think the USM is the culprit here. He gets some shots that are as sharp as he wants them to be... if it were a problem of "all shots are soft", yes, then sharpening could be a problem, but if he gets greatly inconsistent results with the same lens, I don't think that's where we have to look for the cause...
Basil
Posted by Don Bartram on April 29, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Occasionally I have gotten extremely sharp images directly from the camera even without using a sharpening routine. On average though, just evaluating uncorrected images could give the ratio that you have stated.
Wow!! Lots of replies!! Thank you all for wanting to help!
I don't know where to begin, I've just returned from the field and this time things are even worse than before. Earlier this month I shot some images with the D200, old 1328 gitzo & my 300mm f2.8. They were pretty good. At least there were a fair no. of sharp keepers Today, nothing I shot with that combo is any good. The shots with the 200-400 Zoom have a few fairly sharp shots, but the majority are not. Some of them look really Awfull!! (I'll post a few when I can) Many of these are so bizzarely unsharp even at shutter speeds of 1/1000 to 1/2000th. 2 years ago I was having this same problem with my D70.
So to answer those that have asked about different lens camera combo's,.. Yes it occurs with a variety of cameras, lenses and focusing stratagies.
That was the whole reason for renting the Auto focus lens. I was just about convinced that the problem had to be my eyes, but last year when I came to this conclusion, I took my F3 & the 300mm back to shoot a woodpecker that I was having this problem with with digital cameras. I set up using film and at ISO settings of 1/2 what I got with the digital. My shutter speeds were slowwer, and I had more sharrp shots.
My F3 doesn't have any diopter adjustment, so after that I just Zeroe'd out the diopters on my d200 instead of trying to adjust them, and using it with my 300mm i got more sharp shots. (not lots, just more)
Well, all of those settings are still the same on my camera, and with the Auto focus, it shouldn't matter anyway. nad I still can't predict the results of any given shot at any given shutter f-stop combo.
I tried the test withthe newspaper last year. I had to do it outdoors and the results were inconclusive. It was windy, light kept changing and the news print didn't seem to look really sharp regardless. I will try again with the money idea. At least the detail on a us bill is very fine & crisp. I should be able to determine something from that.
I cannot for the life of me concieve of what could be wrong enough with 2 different cameras and lenses and yet have it come and go like it is.
I do understand that RAW files with look softer than completely proocessed & USM'd files & prints, but I am comparing RAW to RAW's viewing them in bridge, checking the sharpness with the magifier (loupe tool?) and they don't measure up.
Even in RAW, you still have to be able to tell which ones are sharp enough to bother keeping and which one are too soft to be kept. Everything I judge to be 2 stars or less in sharpness I toss. I've kept the 3 stars because I think they might be borderline, or it might just be that they're RAW & unprocessed yet. (yes I've considered that as well) Even so, even If that IS in fact the case, and the 3 stars are actually perfectly usable images. Where do these 4 & 5 star sharpies I get fit in?? If that level of sharpness is possible in a RAW, un-USM'd file, why would anyone settle for the 3 stars??!! (i Promise I will post 1 or 2 of those type files also for comparisiion,.. please be patient as I am a bit overwhelmed witht the number of shots I have and to sort through and how many of them are so bad)
Unfortunately my old printer died and the new one I have is not printing very well. Can't dial in the calibration & colors and now I understand that it may be that my CS-3 version & the printer drivers might not be fully compatible, so I'll have to deal with that as well. BUT, it means I don't have any rpints to evaluate those 3 star images.
Whew!! thats all for today. I'm finding this all to depressing at the moment & I need to finish evaluating the shots I took today. I'm not looking forward to that!!
I will follow up on this post tonight or tommorrow!! Thanks agian for all responding!! I'm gonna go cry now!!
Well, craig, now I'm interested to see some samples of "sharp" and "in between" and "unsharp" images you've got.
It could be that pixel peeping them is throwing you off, pushing you down a path you don't need to be on. I've got some images that print sharp as a tack that don't look sharp at all when I pixel peep them at 100 percent or higher. Because as digital photographers we can get up close and personal to our images on our own computers, we can magnify in our minds potential defects in the image, including sharpness.
Unless I missed that you've been making prints of your examples, I think that might not be a bad next step. The print will tell a truth that the computer monitor will not. When I have doubts about what I'm seeing on the screen I make an 8x10 print on my home photo printer so I can decide what's REALLY up with that!
Posted by Dan Borzynski on April 29, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Could you possibly borrow a friends setup, complete with lenses, similar bodies and tripod? PLEASE don't take this as sarcastic, but I am just trying to remove you from the equation. If images shot with their equipment is just as (un)sharp, it would indicate that the problem is either with your technique or the sharpness really is a nonissue.
Don't do the sharpeness test outdoors. It will introduce another variable into the equation that is completely out of your control. Also, be sure there are no air currents, such as from heating or cooling (turn them off) or from open window. Do it indoors with full flash. The flash will minimize any effects of vibrations, camera movement or subject movement.
I know how frustrating this can be. I've shot with a diopter out of wack for a weekend, and it took me a week to figure out why, and also with a dead sharp macro lens that developed looseness issues in the elements and later, the barrel.
EDIT: Hmmm, as I think about it, backfocussing or front focussing might be on the right track, especially combined with handholding. There my be enough small movement on your part to accidently get the shot right, especially if you are shooting wide open, or nearly so. It is odd, though, that this would be universal with all of your gear.
EDIT (part II): You don't happen to still have one of your film bodies, would you? It might not hurt to run a roll or two through them to see what happens...
I think Todd had the right advice. You want to perform the test under controlled conditions, rather than in the field. If you can't do it indoors, shoot the side of a building, a fence, or any other flat subject you can place the camera parallel to and shoot hands-off. You want to eliminate gear factors. If you get sharp images from the gear under controlled conditions then technique is the obvious culprit and where you want to focus your attention (no pun intended).
Ok, Here is the first set. I thought I'd start with a sample of what I consider my 4 or 5 star keepers. This is the best I get.
Both from last week, both shot with D200 & my 300mm f2.8 EDIF, at 1/180th sec on the (smaller) Gitzo 1328 Studex. No processing, no sharpening except what ACR does when It opens the image. (I believe it's 25% by default) I cropped both to give a closer view, the first is about a 60% crop, the second is to give you a better idea of the detail present in the face. These accurately represent the RAW file for sharpness & clarity as I see them in CS3, Bridge. Just converted to 8 bit & ssaved as medium quality Jpegs.
Here is a sample of what I've been getting & this is only a 2 star reject. It was shot a week later withthe same D200 but with the 200-400 @ 550mm & a 1/500 of a sec. on the much bigger & sturdier 1410 tripod. The auto focus was centered on the birds neck or breast on this one. It looked sharp in the viewfinder!!
As you can see, nothing is in acceptable focus, not even the grasses fore or aft of the bird. This is pretty typical of many of the shots I'm getting using a 4 gig card holding 200 or more. 95% plus, pure crud.
And this is a tight crop of the face of one of the oness I've been refering to as "Iffy"! This is what I call a 3 star. I don't know for sure if its fixable or not, but I seriously suspect it isn't. This is typical of most of what I get actually. Initially it looks ok in the preview/thumbnail window, but with the loupe tool checking the eyes & other details,.. It's just way too soft!! This is what type of quality my best poses & exposures end up like, with the occasional 4 or 5 star tossed in just to frustrate me further!!!!
BTW, I'm wondering how you could manage to shoot at 550mm with a 200-400mm lens, but I assume that was on top of an extender.
I think for a lens with focal length f, you need to shoot atleast 1/f or faster, so in your case it should've been 1/550 or faster. But even then, extenders aren't supposed to be top quality anyways, and then it is questionable if you will get any sharp shot at that shutter speed without welding your camera to a fixed object.
The only suggestion I can make is to shoot at 1/800 or faster at high ISO settings.
Also, I don't know if you have a cable release and mirror lockup for your D200, but that would be a big factor in these cases.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on April 30, 2008 at 6:55 PM
The first two look like the lens was focussed on the lower neck, not the head.
The third one I think the focus was on the body.
The last one doesn't look all that bad. Not dead, pin-sharp, but decent. I think it will sharpen up reasonably well.
What I am seeing in those shots is the focus is not quite at the point you want it at. Whether that is the camera, the lens or you is not clear at the current moment. Spend an evening or day going through ALL of the testing suggestions made above. This has to be done if you want to resolve this.
Posted by John Mumaw on April 30, 2008 at 11:53 PM
First and last look fine to me for an unedited, unsharpened image.
Every digital image needs to be sharpened to one degree or another.
I imported the first and last into PS, adjusted Levels, corrected the color cast and sharpened them, and they both look great!
Learning a good digital postprocessing workflow is mandatory for getting the very best from your images.
Thanks again to all who have replied & attempted to help me solve this dilemma. I truely do appreciate it.
Having said that, I does seem as if I may have been a little unclear about the problem. It's not so much about whether or not those shots I feel are "iffy" in sharpness can be fixed. "THE" issue is that no matter what I do,.. how, where, & what part of comp. I've chosen to focus on,.. the vast majority of the images are way too soft. Even if the last image I've posted here Is one that it turns out is typical of a "sharp" pre-processed RAW file & for digital, is a keeper,.. I don't get nearly enough of them on a 400, 800, or 1200+ image count shoot. Out of that number of images, less than 5 or 10% fall into the iffy 3 star or better sharpness catagory, with the 4 & 5 star typically less than 2% of the total,.. That's evaluating the shoot for acceptable sharpness only, NOT for overall artistic merit, like pose, compostition, lighting, action whatever.
Those considerations are moot in my present situation, because any images that could have passed muster for those criteria,.. are too soft!! Often I will not get a single 4 or 5 star keeper on a 2 or 4 gig card.
Now, I'm not a currently a "Pro", but I was once. I shot weddings & portraits some 12-13 years ago. I've been serious about camera's for more than 15-20 years. I do know how to focus a camera, (or at least I used to know how!!) All of the sudden, (with digital anyway),.. Images come out soft or blurred even when the shutter speed or apeture used should have insured that something!! in the frame should have been sharp, even if I missed focus slightly. All of this is happening even when the subject is like the one posted,.. a large, stationary, often COMPLETELY still subject and shutter speeds more than fast enough to eliminate subject or camera movement. This was occurring all the time with my manual focus lenses, with my D70 & then my D200. (This was why "I" thought "eye" might just be the problem)
I tried several times to run some tests, but the results were inconclusive. By that I mean using only manual focus lenses, I got a small number of shots that appeared reasonabley sharp, but once again there appeared to be no ryme or reason to which ones were good or bad. I got somewhat sharp results at slow shutter speeds & soft images with fast shutter speeds, and vise versa in the same test!! Some looked like missed focus, others like subject/camera movement, even when that shouldn't have been possible!!. But, now it's occurring with a supposedly "Superb" 200-400 auto focus lens I rented!! Hence, my inscessant ranting here and my utter and complete abject misery & confusion!!!! ( I wasn't kidding when I said I was about ready to quit!!! Not just digital but photography all together. I just can't stand the constant, crushing dissapointment when I think i've gotten something really, really good, only to open it up & see it's a soft, blurry, mushy mess!!!)
Anyway,..
Ashutosh Rajekar
...I'm wondering how you could manage to shoot at 550mm with a 200-400mm lens,
Ashutosh, the D200 has a 1.5x magnification factor,.. It's a 300-600 f4 on this camera.
John Mumaw
First and last look fine to me for an unedited, unsharpened image.
Every digital image needs to be sharpened to one degree or another. ...adjusted Levels, corrected the color cast and sharpened them, and they both look great!
John, I figured the first one would, it looked pretty sharp in PS & was one I considered a "keeper", but the last one "looking great" suprises me. In CS, the detail around the eye & face looks W-a-a-y too soft too me. (although I have to admit, it doesn't look near as bad posted here as it did opened in CS) I really need to find & post an image that falls into the "superb", ultra sharp, catagory so you can all see exactly what I mean when I say "occasionally in all this mess I get 1 or 2 really sharp images"
The problem is that there are so few of them and I have thousands of digital images that I haven't fully edited to sort through,.. it's hard to find one. (after reviewing the first 5 or 600 soft, blurry, rotten images, I often quit trying to edit them out of frustration & depression)
Oh well!! It's supposed to be raining & thunder storms today, so since I'll be indoors & the chicks haven't hatched yet anyway, I'll take a shot at performing those focus tests today!!
I will let you all know the resuts as soon as I can !
If your keeper rate is that low I'd suggest sending it to Nikon and having it checked out. Could just need a focus adjustment. That way you know where the problem is.
Just to make sure, are you by any chance using a teleconverter with the 200-400? To me the image that you posted at "04/30/08 at 11:53 am PDT" looks like it has been degraded by a teleconverter...the bokeh (background blur) is very weird to my eye.
I was told by Nikon staff once that only one of the converters is designed to work well with the 200-400 VR...I think it's the 1.7x. So if you were using the 1.4 or the 2x it would degrade your image quality and give you softer images.
And if you're not using a converter, it may mean that there's something wrong with your copy of the 200-400. I've only used the 200-400 once, but from my experience and the excellent things I've read about it, the lens should be doing better than that. Can you find a way to test another 200-400 and compare?
I was suspecting you needed a visit to the optometrist till I looked at the image with the wider view and the trees in the background. The whole DOF can be seen, and none of it is in sharp focus, even if you went ahead and applied USM. If it was a front or back focus calibration issue, then some part of that image would be in focus, even if it wasn't what you wanted in focus.
Now I'd say to send it to Nikon along with some sample images.
I occurs to me to ask if you're using a shutter release of some sort. I've experienced results like yours when I used long lenses and no release, almost without regard for shutter speed and details of my tripod. I was first concerned that your tripod head was too flexible, but the Wimberly should have fixed that if you had balanced the weight of the camera/lens properly. Back to the shutter release question.
Discussion
37 repliesI cannot consistantly achieve sharp images!!! I had lots of trouble last year and thought it might be my eyes or my lens or the camera, both cameras (a D70 & D200). This year I was going to be sure of getting sharply focussed, crisp images.
This year, I rented a Nikor 200-400 AFS-Vr lens along with a gitzo 1410 aluminum tripod (The HEAVY Suhkrr!!!) I also rented the wimberly II gimbal. (All from "Borrow Lens.com")
I took it out to the swamp for my anual shoot of the sandhill cranes, and once again,..... way,.. WAY!!,.. too many soft images!!
I carted a 10-15 lb sandbag with me to hang from this already BIG, HEAVY, tripod, shot with & w/o a cable release, adding my mass to the lens tripod combo!! All of this on a subject sitting perfectly still on a nest, with shutter speeds between 1/90th to 1/1000 of a sec. After ALL that, only about 1 out of every 20-30 or so shots turns out looking superbly sharp, with maybe another 1-2 in that number rating 3 or 4 stars for sharpness (5 of course, being superbly crisp) All the rest,.. half or better are 2 stars & below ,.. utterly unusable. I am not counting the shots with obvious subject movement. I'm referring to simply soft shots.
I've used the AF exclusively, all with this lensl mounted firmly on the tripod. I even tried a couple of VR shots with it on the tripod! No consistant results either way. Nothing I've tried makes things obviously better or worse. And shutter speed is absolutely no predictor of sharpness!!! Some of my sharpest images were shot at 1/250 or less, and many of the worst at 1/500th and above. Some, up to 1/1,000th. All with the lens mounted on this monster tripod.
NOW,.. to make matters worse, I tried a test in the back yard. This time I hung 2,.. TWO!!, - 15lb bags from tripod center, (30lbs total) on soid dirt & grass, not marshy muck. Using AF, VR on VR off while on the tripod aimed it at my bird feeder and shot goldfinches sitting on the feeders perch. Same iffy,.. inconsistant results from 1/90th to 1/500th. with maybe 1 or 2 out of 93 images that would get 4 stars for sharpness. The rest all 3 stars. & below. (none made it to 5).
And the final kick in the keister is, I just now grabbed this D200 & lens combo, zoomed to 400 (600mm equivalent) aimed it at the feeder thieving squirell in my yard and with *active* vr on, hand held,... HAAND HELD!!!,... at 1/500th of a second,.. got more 4 star "sharp" results than when using it at 1/250th on a weighted down, rock solid tripod!!!!
Does this make any sense to anyone because It doesn't to me??? What am I missing??!!
I'm sick of missing great shots because they're too soft. I rented all this equipment because after adding 15lbs of weight to my old 1328 studex tripod and my 300mm f2.8/D200 combo I was getting more shots in the 4 & 5 star sharpness range. (Not a whole lot more, and not as many 5's as I figured I should be getting, but definately more of them)
So i figured,.. equipment & maybe technique was my problem!! Had to be,.. right??
Now, who knows!!
Please,.. please,.. please somebody have an answer. I'm ready to give up,.. for real. I've wasted too much time, effort, & money on this already! I actually got more sharp shots last week with the lighter 1328 tripod, and my manual focus 300mm lens on the same camera body. BTW,.. those soft shots were throughout the zoom range of the 200-400 lens. so its not just the difference between my technique on a 300mm lens and a 400mm.
ARRRGGGGHH!!! (...Sound of me pulling out whats left of my hair!!!)
Craig
I thought i should also mention that I cionsidered that maybe it was the software.. I've benn simply moving my images from the card & copying them to a folder and opening CS3 bridge. I thought maybe the nikon NEF's needed Nikon software to render them properly.. So I went and downloaded Nikon transfer & used it to transfer some of the same images off of the CF card and opend two fo them side by side in bridge. They are identical, no difference whatsoever!!
I am so frustrated and depressed over this mess u wouldn't believe!!!!
CT
1) Perhaps there is actually something wrong with your camera? Have you tried other bodies?
2) Maybe your lens is out of spec...have you tried other lenses?
3) That lens at 400 mm wide open will tend to have some softness.
I'd suggest doing studio type tests. Take something with fine detail (a lot of people use crisp new money), and tape it to a very well lit wall. Set your camera up making sure it's sensor is parallel to the wall, and make some test shots with different parameters. If you can't get this sharp at high shutter speeds, there's either something wrong with the camera/lens, or, well, I don't know what else. Digital WILL require some sharpening due to the anti-aliasing filters over the sensor. Of course, as you said, you're getting some that are much sharper than others, so I don't know what would cause that. At high shutter speeds, things should almost have to be sharp some place in the photo, even if there's some back or front focus. If you can't take an image at, say, 1/2500s and f/11 with a good lens, I would think there's probably something wrong with your equipment.
Do you know anyone else that you think gets sharp shots? Could you try their setup/equipment and vice-versa? It might point you in the right direction.
Having shot using both the D200 and the 200-400mm VR I can say that both are excellent performers and produce outstanding sharp images! Not a consolation in your position though!
Soft images can be caused by a number of issues; with either the lens or body. Try the same lens on a different body and the same body on a different lens to determine which is really at fault! I really think determining which is a fault will make life much more bearable for you!
1. If it is lens send it back and get a replacement.
2. If the body is faulty send it to a Nikon service centre for repair!
Off the top of my head, so late a night (it is here anyhow!) I would say you are suffering from either front or back focusing issues!
Sorry I couldn’t help more! If anything springs to mind I post more info in the morning!
--- Body:
- Sensor o.k.? - yes, seems so, as you get sharp images. Some.
- AF module o.k.? - unknown, test AF accuracy with different lenses under controlled conditions (indoors, stationary subject, f/1.4 or f/2.8 lenses most suitable); compare to MF results
--- Lens:
- VR o.k.? - Try on tripod with VR off and mirror up (I think the 200-400 VR has 1st generation VR, switch off on tripod anyway!); compare handheld shots with VR on and OFF (does VR produce any benefits?)
- Optics o.k.? - Seems so, since you're getting good shots.
- AF accuracy o.k.? - compare results using MF and AF with that said lens.
Just some suggestions... I don't think this is a digital issue. Maybe you're scrutinizing the shots more than with film, though.
Basil
What do prints look like? There is definitely a tendency to overexamine the digital files, far beyond anything you ever did with film.
Could you also post something "typical" here as well, maybe a 400 x 600 pixel crop that should have been in focus?
I have no experience with dslr or the stated sharpness issue, but have you checked out Darwin Wiggett's recent article here on NPN? It may not be good news, but may shed some light on your issue.
Lon
I hit the rack early last night as I intended to head out to the swamp again early this morning. So I'm just now getting to reply.
I'm going to take my 300mm manual focus with me today also and I will check this lens out on the same heavy tripod rig to see if it's ratio of #4 & 5 sharpies improves. That should tell me somethiing one way or the other,.. I hope!!
I don't have a room big enough and well lit enough to test these lenses in doors, and using flash for the tests would seem to negate the possability of checking for camera shake. What with the short duration & all. I like the brick wall idea, and I will take a shot at testing them that way when I get the chance.
Also, later today I will try to upload a few images to let the experts here evaluate them & see if that sheds any light on the problem.
As for diopters,.. last year I posted this problem and I thought it probably was my eyes. So I started fiddling wiht the diopter & as I mentioned in the first post,.. after adding weight to my lighter tripod. My ratio of sharp images improved BUT,.. I forgot to mention that I also zeroed out my diopter setting. I counted the # of clicks between the extremes & set it right in the middle. The viewfinder grid does not look quite as sharp to me as when I set it for my vision, but my manual focus "sharp" keepers ratio improved a bit! When a freind set my diopter for his vision, I could not tell when anything was in focus the viewfinder was so blurry.
Of course, the diopter setting doesn't really change anything about focusing - only what you see in the viewfinder. The focusing should be the same. And that doesn't explain anything about why auto-focus shots would also be soft.
Yep, and this is exactly what you want. You want to be able to exclude camera shake completely from the equation for your lens/optics, lens/AF and camera/AF tests. You need to separate things to locate the problem. Otherwise, your setup is just a black box that spits out sharp or blurry images, and you'll forever be trying to fix things that aren't broken, not knowing what's going on.
Just MHO.
BG
You'll know if the focus point is spot on if the number you focused on is the sharpest part of the image.
I was consistently getting more soft images than I thought I should while using a 400 prime lens to capture perched birds. Turns out it was back-focusing, so the birds were ending up mostly just in front of the focus plane. Recalibration solved that problem. And it was the camera that needed the recalibration. The lens was fine. Other times it might be the lens that needs the recalibration. The easiest way to separate whether it's camera or lens is to do those test shots by switching out your lenses and cameras and noting which performed how.
Kent in SD
Basil
I don't know where to begin, I've just returned from the field and this time things are even worse than before. Earlier this month I shot some images with the D200, old 1328 gitzo & my 300mm f2.8. They were pretty good. At least there were a fair no. of sharp keepers Today, nothing I shot with that combo is any good. The shots with the 200-400 Zoom have a few fairly sharp shots, but the majority are not. Some of them look really Awfull!! (I'll post a few when I can) Many of these are so bizzarely unsharp even at shutter speeds of 1/1000 to 1/2000th. 2 years ago I was having this same problem with my D70.
So to answer those that have asked about different lens camera combo's,.. Yes it occurs with a variety of cameras, lenses and focusing stratagies.
That was the whole reason for renting the Auto focus lens. I was just about convinced that the problem had to be my eyes, but last year when I came to this conclusion, I took my F3 & the 300mm back to shoot a woodpecker that I was having this problem with with digital cameras. I set up using film and at ISO settings of 1/2 what I got with the digital. My shutter speeds were slowwer, and I had more sharrp shots.
My F3 doesn't have any diopter adjustment, so after that I just Zeroe'd out the diopters on my d200 instead of trying to adjust them, and using it with my 300mm i got more sharp shots. (not lots, just more)
Well, all of those settings are still the same on my camera, and with the Auto focus, it shouldn't matter anyway. nad I still can't predict the results of any given shot at any given shutter f-stop combo.
I tried the test withthe newspaper last year. I had to do it outdoors and the results were inconclusive. It was windy, light kept changing and the news print didn't seem to look really sharp regardless. I will try again with the money idea. At least the detail on a us bill is very fine & crisp. I should be able to determine something from that.
I cannot for the life of me concieve of what could be wrong enough with 2 different cameras and lenses and yet have it come and go like it is.
I do understand that RAW files with look softer than completely proocessed & USM'd files & prints, but I am comparing RAW to RAW's viewing them in bridge, checking the sharpness with the magifier (loupe tool?) and they don't measure up.
Even in RAW, you still have to be able to tell which ones are sharp enough to bother keeping and which one are too soft to be kept. Everything I judge to be 2 stars or less in sharpness I toss. I've kept the 3 stars because I think they might be borderline, or it might just be that they're RAW & unprocessed yet. (yes I've considered that as well) Even so, even If that IS in fact the case, and the 3 stars are actually perfectly usable images. Where do these 4 & 5 star sharpies I get fit in?? If that level of sharpness is possible in a RAW, un-USM'd file, why would anyone settle for the 3 stars??!! (i Promise I will post 1 or 2 of those type files also for comparisiion,.. please be patient as I am a bit overwhelmed witht the number of shots I have and to sort through and how many of them are so bad)
Unfortunately my old printer died and the new one I have is not printing very well. Can't dial in the calibration & colors and now I understand that it may be that my CS-3 version & the printer drivers might not be fully compatible, so I'll have to deal with that as well. BUT, it means I don't have any rpints to evaluate those 3 star images.
Whew!! thats all for today. I'm finding this all to depressing at the moment & I need to finish evaluating the shots I took today. I'm not looking forward to that!!
I will follow up on this post tonight or tommorrow!! Thanks agian for all responding!! I'm gonna go cry now!!
Craig
It could be that pixel peeping them is throwing you off, pushing you down a path you don't need to be on. I've got some images that print sharp as a tack that don't look sharp at all when I pixel peep them at 100 percent or higher. Because as digital photographers we can get up close and personal to our images on our own computers, we can magnify in our minds potential defects in the image, including sharpness.
Unless I missed that you've been making prints of your examples, I think that might not be a bad next step. The print will tell a truth that the computer monitor will not. When I have doubts about what I'm seeing on the screen I make an 8x10 print on my home photo printer so I can decide what's REALLY up with that!
Don't do the sharpeness test outdoors. It will introduce another variable into the equation that is completely out of your control. Also, be sure there are no air currents, such as from heating or cooling (turn them off) or from open window. Do it indoors with full flash. The flash will minimize any effects of vibrations, camera movement or subject movement.
I know how frustrating this can be. I've shot with a diopter out of wack for a weekend, and it took me a week to figure out why, and also with a dead sharp macro lens that developed looseness issues in the elements and later, the barrel.
EDIT: Hmmm, as I think about it, backfocussing or front focussing might be on the right track, especially combined with handholding. There my be enough small movement on your part to accidently get the shot right, especially if you are shooting wide open, or nearly so. It is odd, though, that this would be universal with all of your gear.
EDIT (part II): You don't happen to still have one of your film bodies, would you? It might not hurt to run a roll or two through them to see what happens...
Guy
Both from last week, both shot with D200 & my 300mm f2.8 EDIF, at 1/180th sec on the (smaller) Gitzo 1328 Studex. No processing, no sharpening except what ACR does when It opens the image. (I believe it's 25% by default) I cropped both to give a closer view, the first is about a 60% crop, the second is to give you a better idea of the detail present in the face. These accurately represent the RAW file for sharpness & clarity as I see them in CS3, Bridge. Just converted to 8 bit & ssaved as medium quality Jpegs.
As you can see this image is plenty sharp before anything is done to it in CS3!!
As you can see, nothing is in acceptable focus, not even the grasses fore or aft of the bird. This is pretty typical of many of the shots I'm getting using a 4 gig card holding 200 or more. 95% plus, pure crud.
BTW, I'm wondering how you could manage to shoot at 550mm with a 200-400mm lens, but I assume that was on top of an extender.
I think for a lens with focal length f, you need to shoot atleast 1/f or faster, so in your case it should've been 1/550 or faster. But even then, extenders aren't supposed to be top quality anyways, and then it is questionable if you will get any sharp shot at that shutter speed without welding your camera to a fixed object.
The only suggestion I can make is to shoot at 1/800 or faster at high ISO settings.
The third one I think the focus was on the body.
The last one doesn't look all that bad. Not dead, pin-sharp, but decent. I think it will sharpen up reasonably well.
What I am seeing in those shots is the focus is not quite at the point you want it at. Whether that is the camera, the lens or you is not clear at the current moment. Spend an evening or day going through ALL of the testing suggestions made above. This has to be done if you want to resolve this.
Every digital image needs to be sharpened to one degree or another.
I imported the first and last into PS, adjusted Levels, corrected the color cast and sharpened them, and they both look great!
Learning a good digital postprocessing workflow is mandatory for getting the very best from your images.
Having said that, I does seem as if I may have been a little unclear about the problem. It's not so much about whether or not those shots I feel are "iffy" in sharpness can be fixed. "THE" issue is that no matter what I do,.. how, where, & what part of comp. I've chosen to focus on,.. the vast majority of the images are way too soft. Even if the last image I've posted here Is one that it turns out is typical of a "sharp" pre-processed RAW file & for digital, is a keeper,.. I don't get nearly enough of them on a 400, 800, or 1200+ image count shoot. Out of that number of images, less than 5 or 10% fall into the iffy 3 star or better sharpness catagory, with the 4 & 5 star typically less than 2% of the total,.. That's evaluating the shoot for acceptable sharpness only, NOT for overall artistic merit, like pose, compostition, lighting, action whatever.
Those considerations are moot in my present situation, because any images that could have passed muster for those criteria,.. are too soft!! Often I will not get a single 4 or 5 star keeper on a 2 or 4 gig card.
Now, I'm not a currently a "Pro", but I was once. I shot weddings & portraits some 12-13 years ago. I've been serious about camera's for more than 15-20 years. I do know how to focus a camera, (or at least I used to know how!!)
I tried several times to run some tests, but the results were inconclusive. By that I mean using only manual focus lenses, I got a small number of shots that appeared reasonabley sharp, but once again there appeared to be no ryme or reason to which ones were good or bad. I got somewhat sharp results at slow shutter speeds & soft images with fast shutter speeds, and vise versa in the same test!! Some looked like missed focus, others like subject/camera movement, even when that shouldn't have been possible!!. But, now it's occurring with a supposedly "Superb" 200-400 auto focus lens I rented!! Hence, my inscessant ranting here and my utter and complete abject misery & confusion!!!!
( I wasn't kidding when I said I was about ready to quit!!! Not just digital but photography all together. I just can't stand the constant, crushing dissapointment when I think i've gotten something really, really good, only to open it up & see it's a soft, blurry, mushy mess!!!)
Ashutosh Rajekar
Ashutosh, the D200 has a 1.5x magnification factor,.. It's a 300-600 f4 on this camera.
John Mumaw
John, I figured the first one would, it looked pretty sharp in PS & was one I considered a "keeper", but the last one "looking great" suprises me. In CS, the detail around the eye & face looks W-a-a-y too soft too me. (although I have to admit, it doesn't look near as bad posted here as it did opened in CS) I really need to find & post an image that falls into the "superb", ultra sharp, catagory so you can all see exactly what I mean when I say "occasionally in all this mess I get 1 or 2 really sharp images"
The problem is that there are so few of them and I have thousands of digital images that I haven't fully edited to sort through,.. it's hard to find one. (after reviewing the first 5 or 600 soft, blurry, rotten images, I often quit trying to edit them out of frustration & depression)
Oh well!! It's supposed to be raining & thunder storms today, so since I'll be indoors & the chicks haven't hatched yet anyway, I'll take a shot at performing those focus tests today!!
I will let you all know the resuts as soon as I can !
Thanks again,
I was told by Nikon staff once that only one of the converters is designed to work well with the 200-400 VR...I think it's the 1.7x. So if you were using the 1.4 or the 2x it would degrade your image quality and give you softer images.
And if you're not using a converter, it may mean that there's something wrong with your copy of the 200-400. I've only used the 200-400 once, but from my experience and the excellent things I've read about it, the lens should be doing better than that. Can you find a way to test another 200-400 and compare?
Now I'd say to send it to Nikon along with some sample images.