Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2014 · Question for the masses - FOCUS

  
 
John Skinner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


The first body coming from film here was a D1x. Since then I've owned nothing but the pro line of the Nikon bodies. I find picking up one of the prosumer models to be a tad confusing at best, and wanting to light them on fire at the worst times.

I got the wifey a D7100 for Xmas last year and as usual.. She doesn't use it much. Our Son was in a 9 game season this year which prompted her to take an interest and shoot with me. I have to tell you guys.... This is sucking really bad. I don't know if this is a case of 'just how good this body is', or, something is seriously out-of-whack here. I'm going to drop a single photo on the thread.. It's clear that with no fast movement in this shot, SOMETHING should be crispy. But in the 400+ images she took, I'm struggling to find just 1 image that is got any crispy goodness to it.

I'll post the interior exif too.





Windows exif info












full size and he's standing still.




Nov 08, 2014 at 11:20 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


What lens? Looks like a 70-300 or 80-400 by the EXIF focal length and listed apertures.

The D7100's AF system is excellent. But the sensor is absolutely brutal on lenses and technique. Like the D8x0 series you absolutely need to have everything nailed down hard to get a truly crisp shot.

What both images look like is nailed focus on a lens simply not delivering what the sensor demands, especially since the lens appears to be wide open.

This is exactly what I'd expect from the 70-300's or the 80-400D on a D7100. Offhand this looks exactly like a 70-300D or 70-300G non-VR under-delivering.

Put a 70-200VR or an 80-400G on the same body and I suspect the answer would be different. Also the JPEG's out of the box suck. Trenchmonkey's probably got a recipe for good D7100 JPEG's by now.

Quite frankly, Nikon's 24MP no-AA DX bodies require a very high level of technique and very good glass to deliver due to the demanding sensors. Which is difficult for an inexperienced photographer to deliver. I really do wish Nikon still made a 16MP consumer body just so I could recommend it to beginners (I currently recommend the 24MP AA DX bodies over the newer ones to beginners just for the more forgiving sensors).



Nov 08, 2014 at 11:58 PM
M_J_Helin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


Looks like lens issue to me. Similar to my ol' 55-200 after I accidentally dropped it..


Nov 09, 2014 at 03:21 AM
Two23
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


I've had good luck with the D7100 shooting high school football, even at night under lights. I'm using a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR, which is a perfect match for that camera. I find it astonishing that you are only looking at one factor here--the camera. I can tell you the camera is PERFECTLY capable of making superb daylight shots like those attempted above. Now, exactly what lens were you using on this great camera? And, exactly how much experience does your wife have shooting this sort of thing? Not sure if you're aware, but cameras aren't at all magic. You have to know what you are doing to get good results, and the lens is more important than the camera.


Kent in SD



Nov 09, 2014 at 03:25 AM
gfinlayson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


From what I'm seeing, nothing looks wildly front or back-focused. Focus would seem to be OK, but sharpness is a whole different matter. The D7100 sensor has the equivalent pixel density to a 54MP full-frame sensor, so it's even more demanding of glass than the D800!

The in-camera picture control settings might help out a bit if you up the sharpening, but you're really needing some better glass to see what that sensor can truly deliver....

Photo below was from a Christening service the other week with a Sigma 24-105 wide open, minimal sharpening in Lightroom - 25, 1.0, 25, 0. Even at ISO 2000, this sensor delivers detail and sharpness.








Edited on Nov 09, 2014 at 08:44 AM · View previous versions



Nov 09, 2014 at 05:47 AM
John Skinner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


This was more or less the responses I imagined that I would get..

ALL very valid points and certainly avenues to look into now. I'll throw a 300 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 on this and take it out this week.

I should probably look into what settings she has for 'jpeg' shooting set into play. I'll post images Mon or Tues and see what the tale of the tape is.



Nov 09, 2014 at 07:01 AM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


Have your wife try 4 or even 5X FL, and see if the IQ doesn't improve.
Those shots are 390mm and 248mm FOV respectively so technique
will impact results, regardless of settings. VR might have been on and
not settled in. Many reasons worth looking into BEFORE blaming the lens.

Here's the much maligned 70-300 VR on a 'demanding' D800...handheld & SOOC







Nov 09, 2014 at 07:01 AM
jhinkey
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


Hard to tell anything about lens sharpness with such small images on the web. Post some full size/resolution images then we can really tell what's going on.


Nov 09, 2014 at 08:26 AM
gfinlayson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


To be fair, the VR settings mentioned by Will didn't occur to me. If VR was on at 1/640s, then that could add to image softness. If it's the 70-300 VR your wife was using, sharpness improves at 300mm by stopping down a little too. It's not at it's best wide open at 300mm. FWIW, here's the corresponding SOOC JPEG for the above shot. WB is a little funky (mixed daylight and fluorescent which was corrected in the RAW).

Picture Control settings are:
Portrait
Sharpening +6
Contrast +1
Brightness 0
Saturation +1
Hue 0
High ISO NR OFF

Not a prescriptive list of settings, but a reasonable starting point for adjusting to taste.





© gfinlayson 2014




Nov 09, 2014 at 08:43 AM
lara_ckl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


Wild guess: Is it possible she's shooting at AF-A or AF-S and not AF-C.


Nov 09, 2014 at 09:04 AM
ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


John Skinner wrote:
This was more or less the responses I imagined that I would get...



People asked what lens...
The lens is the consumer 55-300mm f4.5-5.6G, VR off, AF-A, AF area mode "Auto"

Suspecting that this isn't a camera body problem.

I didn't even like results with my 70-300mm VR on my D7100. I gave it to my sister for her D60.
Seemed dark, and produced results more or less like the two images posted.

The 70-200mm VR1 is cheap now, and a stellar lens for this body, it's what I use when i don't have the new 80-400mm VR on it. I'd find one of those. You don't need to go much further down the path to find the problem.

Three great lenses for this body:
70-200mm VR1 f/2.8G
300mm f/4.0 AF-S
80-400mm "G" (Mainly bright light though)

I've got plenty of examples from all.






Edited on Nov 09, 2014 at 09:27 AM · View previous versions



Nov 09, 2014 at 09:14 AM
gfinlayson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


Hmmmm, the 55-300 doesn't have a stellar reputation as a sharp optic.......


Nov 09, 2014 at 09:24 AM
Ryder
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


Another don't blame the lens idea. I think what people often perceive as sharpness issues is also related to lighting, contrast and pop factor or "crispy" as you call it. The examples you give suffer a bit in all categories. Be more careful about the background and light for contrast and separation. Your subjects are not separating from the background and are basically in shadows. Where you choose to stand on a given day and shot selection is important.


Nov 09, 2014 at 09:33 AM
M_J_Helin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


gfinlayson wrote:
Hmmmm, the 55-300 doesn't have a stellar reputation as a sharp optic.......
Yep, a decent lens but doesn't really deliver the resolution at the long end. Also autofocus is sloooow and bokeh is nervous.

Other than that, a good lense for those who are in tight budget. But certainly a lense that's not on par with the body in question.



Nov 09, 2014 at 09:57 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


Ryder wrote:
Another don't blame the lens idea. I think what people often perceive as sharpness issues is also related to lighting, contrast and pop factor or "crispy" as you call it. The examples you give suffer a bit in all categories. Be more careful about the background and light for contrast and separation. Your subjects are not separating from the background and are basically in shadows. Where you choose to stand on a given day and shot selection is important.


Given the optic, blaming the lens is correct, although you're not wrong. The lighting in the second shot in particular is poor.

But even simply stopping down a stop would have helped immensely with these shots. An average lens, being pushed very hard (wide open at the weakest portion of its range, with difficult lighting and on an unforgiving sensor) is simply not going to bring home the shot.



Nov 09, 2014 at 10:22 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


trenchmonkey wrote:
Have your wife try 4 or even 5X FL, and see if the IQ doesn't improve.
Those shots are 390mm and 248mm FOV respectively so technique
will impact results, regardless of settings. VR might have been on and
not settled in. Many reasons worth looking into BEFORE blaming the lens.

Here's the much maligned 70-300 VR on a 'demanding' D800...handheld & SOOC


The 70-300VR's a fair bit better lens than the other 70-300's. If you'll note I suggested this was a 70-300D or G non-VR. The VR is actually quite a good lens (not the best 70-300 on the market, that's Sony's G, but still an excellent bit of glass that can match the 70-200VR1 in a lot of circumstances).




Nov 09, 2014 at 10:24 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


M_J_Helin wrote:
Yep, a decent lens but doesn't really deliver the resolution at the long end. Also autofocus is sloooow and bokeh is nervous.

Other than that, a good lense for those who are in tight budget. But certainly a lense that's not on par with the body in question.


Actually the 55-300's a poor choice for anyone on a budget. The shorter 55-200VR's optically better and cheaper and a used 70-300VR is often available cheaper and is also better.



Nov 09, 2014 at 10:26 AM
jay tieger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


Some work/technique in the computer would help....photography doesn't end with the camera...it can't do it all...

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/538/cXrFry.jpg



Nov 09, 2014 at 10:37 AM
ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


^^
I gotta say, even just taking the first uploaded image and running it through my standard Capture NX2 adjustments makes it a completely different photograph. I didn't bother playing with Adobe CS6 because I saw what I wanted. I'm sure I'd get the same result.

There's so little information given by the original poster unfortunately, I would guess that the camera settings are the same as right out of the box. Which may mean jpeg "Normal" not "Fine", average sharpening, etc. etc. etc....

Get this body tuned properly, put a very good lens on it, and it will be amazing.

Also, bear in mind, pictures like those posted above are generally more than acceptable for the average consumer who buys the kit and just clicks away for Facebook. People on this forum have (properly) much higher expectations, which this body can deliver when it's tuned correctly.



Nov 09, 2014 at 11:40 AM
KankRat
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Question for the masses - FOCUS


The above looks a whole lot better. ^^^
i have the 70-300 VR. it's much sharper at f8 than wide open.

Am I wrong, the first shot loooks like some motion blur and a lack of DOF? I think #20s left hand looks in focus. Where is the focus point?



Nov 09, 2014 at 11:59 AM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.