Here I go again!!!! I sent my camera back to Canon a few months back for this issue, but they sent it back in the same condition. I don't think they understood what the problem was, so I am sending it back.
The issue is that the images are nice and sharp if I am shooting non-moving objects. When I shoot people, they are mostly soft and need lots of PS processing.
If you own a 40D and do not have this problem, could you please post a photo prior to any editing? I would like to compare.
What focus mode are you using on moving objects? And where are you focusing? I've never had an issue with my 40D. Always sharp, even for fast sports.
I guess this is people so it counts: with 70-200 at 2.8 IS http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj126/thebicyclecafe/IMG_0496.jpg
MC Mullins wrote:
Here I go again!!!! I sent my camera back to Canon a few months back for this issue, but they sent it back in the same condition. I don't think they understood what the problem was, so I am sending it back.
The issue is that the images are nice and sharp if I am shooting non-moving objects. When I shoot people, they are mostly soft and need lots of PS processing.
If you own a 40D and do not have this problem, could you please post a photo prior to any editing? I would like to compare.
Thanks,
Mary
Mary
Can you post samples with EXIT intact for all to help you out? You can provide a link, or host it elsewhere.
I think you have a black splotch problem in the BG. Your highlights are also blowing out badly.
1. It was meant to be a joke.
2. What exactly is a splotch? A blend of spot and blotch?
3. Where do you see the problem?
4. I know the highlights are blown but considering all aspects of the frame, I think it is exposed well.
OP what you describe doesn't make sense. what is the exif for the image you posted? are you shooting at slower fstops for the non moveing objects (ie f8) and wide open for the people? what shutter speeds are you useing ? and are the people pictures taken at much closer range to the sharp non people?
any of the above can have an effect on the result.
Mary,
I see camera/lens movement as well as not enough depth-of-field on your shot. It seems like your focus point is more on the left eye of the girl or even on the ribbon on her hair and the baby in front of her is well outside the focus plane. But still camera/lens movement kind of "ruined" the shot.
nah, at 1/320 any camera shake would be frozen. It's the shallow DOF that is doing that- the baby is not in the focal area. You had enough light, you could have easily shot f/11 or so and gotten both subjects in focus.
orangefirefish wrote:
nah, at 1/320 any camera shake would be frozen.
Depending on her camera holding technique and how steady she is, it cannot be ruled out completely. That's why people resort to tripod for this kind of situation.
Furthermore, Mary, your image would benefit more from putting the focusing point to the object closer to the camera in addition to using a smaller aperture. The DOF tends to extend slightly in the back than in the front of your focusing plane. You should be able to download or look up a DOF scale on the internet by "googling" that keyword. This being said, I kind of like shallow DOF portraits of two or more people as long as you keep the areas you want to be in focus (eyes in case of portraits) in approximately the same focusing plane. Enjoy phototgraphy and take a lot of pictures of your kids as they grow fast!
Nevertheless, I agree with AGeoJO. There is a slight directional component to the blur if you look at the girl's eyes, not so evident on the more-blurred baby. It's not impossible, I guess, that it was subject motion. The points about DOF and where to focus are good ones.
Seeing the full shot gives a better indication that it's an aperture/DOF issue. The focal point is clearly at or slightly behind the middle of the older childs head. As mentioned above, focusing more on the front child, with a wider aperture, would help remove the blur.
MC Mullins wrote:
I really don't think I was shaking that bad................
Mary C
Mary,
I am not saying that you were shaking, let alone shaking terribly. It seems my remarks were taken out of context . A barely perceptible and ever so slight movement could be enough to cause that. I couldn't help it but I believe that had you used a tripod the image would have benefitted from that, well, the insufficient DOF will remain, of course. Again, people use tripod, sometimes combined with the mirror lockup feature, and a remote shutter release for critical shots to prevent exactly that regardless of the shutter speed. If you want to get the most out of your system...., well, you get my drift.
