Being an engineer myself, the technical aspects of photography came easy but shooting creatively takes more work for me. My wife who is very creative but not technical can take my camera after I have been shooting and come out with soft images. Even holding the camera correctly is a skill that needs to be worked on - even more since you are coming from a p/s camera. Basically, your left hand supports the lens from the bottom, your right hand holds the body of the camera and actuates the shutter and you're pressing the camera viewfinder to your eye/forehead firmly and aiming - and make sure you have made your diopter adjustment as well. Sounds like a lot more than just pressing the shutter but if you're not holding the camera correctly you will get blurry images. Even your eye dominance will change how you hold the camera. On top of all of that you need to balance shutter, aperature and iso to get a correct exposure and all that it means. There is a lot to be learned. When I bought my first dslr, my wife made up her mind that it was broken because our pictures weren't any better and I had to shoot another camera side by side to prove to her that our camera was ok. There's a lot to learn, take your time, your camera is more than capable of delivering great results.
I am posting two crops from the set of RAW photos I posted earlier. DPP settings are 6 for sharpening, light fall-off correction and Auto Lighting Optimizer set to Standard, no other changes or modifications.
I was trying to also post the full 21 MP JPEGs to Flickr, but I'm limited to 10MB per file, so I'll try to figure something else out.
Based on the first photo, it seems like the right bird (further behind) is more in focus than the one on the center AF point (yes, left bird was the AF point, DPP confirms it). Looking at the second picture, the leafs feel "oveprocessed" and "unsharp" but the only process has been lighting and DPP's sharpening of level 6. Nothing in the second picture leaps out in crispness or clarity, even in the focal plane of the bird (i.e. even at f/5.6).
I'm trying to borrow a decent tripod & other set of lenses to check it out.
"I'm trying to borrow a decent tripod & other set of lenses to check it out."
This is your next logical step. You may also want to use a focus test chart/sheet for the test too. This will pinpoint the actual focus location easier.
Just google AF focus test chart, you should find one and print it off to use.
Just looking through my own pictures, it seems "short" subjects also focused better (sometimes much better) with the 17-40 than some my landscapes where the focus is far away or infinity.
From reading comments about MFA, this leads me to believe the body is out of spec since I see focus errors with both lenses, but lets wait for the tripod shots to confirm.
1/125ss sometimes is a bit slow for me to shot in concert( that's what i do) depending on the lens you are using. But you said you have the IS ON and that should not be a big problem. Shooting birds are not exactly an easy task either. Try shooting at a chair or a table, something big and stationary. Also for the photo you posted you did used the center AF BUT you have to move the camera to recomp the photo and that can be a user induced error too.
I am posting two crops from the set of RAW photos I posted earlier. DPP settings are 6 for sharpening, light fall-off correction and Auto Lighting Optimizer set to Standard, no other changes or modifications.
I was trying to also post the full 21 MP JPEGs to Flickr, but I'm limited to 10MB per file, so I'll try to figure something else out.
Based on the first photo, it seems like the right bird (further behind) is more in focus than the one on the center AF point (yes, left bird was the AF point, DPP confirms it). Looking at the second picture, the leafs feel "oveprocessed" and "unsharp" but the only process has been lighting and DPP's sharpening of level 6. Nothing in the second picture leaps out in crispness or clarity, even in the focal plane of the bird (i.e. even at f/5.6).
I'm trying to borrow a decent tripod & other set of lenses to check it out.
Looks to me like your lens is backfocusing. The area between the two bids appears to be the most in focus.
With that said, the focus does not look super sharp. Your tests with a tripod should be informative. You might also try increasing the ISO to allow a faster shutter speed say 1/400 or so. Perhaps your hand holding technique needs improvement.
jerrykur wrote:
Looks to me like your lens is backfocusing. The area between the two bids appears to be the most in focus.
With that said, the focus does not look super sharp. Your tests with a tripod should be informative. You might also try increasing the ISO to allow a faster shutter speed say 1/400 or so. Perhaps your hand holding technique needs improvement.
+1
Henry,
Did you focus and recompose for that shot? Although the AF point displayed is on the bird to the left but maybe the focus point originally obtained on that shot was more on the greenleaves between the two birds. Still though, even that area is not that sharp, which may indicate camera/lens movement.
I suspect you mean well, but no one would be wise to click a link to a .zip file these days. There is no way of knowing what is in the file and you could be downloading bad stuff.
Better to post some crops in jpg form directly into your message or, if you need to show a ton of them to make the point, post them directly in a web page elsewhere.
Thanks.
Some general ideas about "sharpness" issues:
1. RAW files will not be all that sharp until you sharpen them in post. It is necessary, not optional, that you sharpen them. (In-camera jpgs are sharpened unless you specifically switch off the sharpening.)
2. At 100% magnification most photographs will not appear to be razor sharp - this is actually normal. With extraordinary care and the right lenses you can sometimes get photographs that actually appear rather (but not totally) sharp at 100% but this isn't the rule. However, these photographs will often make excellent prints at even some relatively large sizes. (A 5D2 image viewed at 100% on the screen is - depending on your monitor - the equivalent of looking very, very closely at a print that might be 4 or 5 feet wide.)
3. Speaking of which, do take the opportunity to closely view prints of that size some time. Try to visit a museum or gallery displaying fine photographic prints and I think you may discover that up close some very excellent prints are a bit less sharp than you might imagine.
4. If you think you have an equipment problem - and this is always at least a possibility - do some testing that eliminates other variables. Put the camera on a tripod, use mirror-lockup and a remote release, focus on a subject with good contrast and that is flat and parallel to the sensor. Try shooting it a varying focal lengths and apertures. A simply check for front/back focus is to let the lens AF, shoot a frame, switch AF off, and then manually focus a tiny bit closer for the next frame and a bit further for one more. (This is not the best test but it is useful.) If you can get good sharpness with these tests the issue is probably not your equipment.
5. Use some care in shooting. Pay attention to where the AF points fall and which ones light up. Be cautious about the focus/recompose technique if you shoot at very large apertures. Be aware that the large apertures - especially on longer focal lengths - can make perfect focus technique more critical since there is less margin for error with the narrower depth of field. Also be aware that at the largest apertures there will naturally be, in virtually all cases, some decrease in sharpness.
6. When you start inspecting 100% magnification crops, also be aware of the effect of diffraction blur. As you stop down your lens to smaller apertures the maximum resolution of the image begins to decrease as diffraction blur begins to increase. With very close inspection you will likely begin to notice this degradation in sharpness much beyond about f/8 on a cropped sensor camera and perhaps after about f/16 on a full frame camera.
?? A .zip file is just that, a compressed folder of files - opening them, you can see for yourself if they are .cr2 or not. If it's loaded full of .exe's or .scr's, then don't open them.
jeremy_clay wrote:
?? A .zip file is just that, a compressed folder of files - opening them, you can see for yourself if they are .cr2 or not. If it's loaded full of .exe's or .scr's, then don't open them.
Yes, YOU understand that. But not everyone does. Also note that you can manually add whatever suffix to a file of whatever type - the CR2 at the end does not necessarily guarantee that the file is actually a .cr2 file internally.
Downloading .zip files of unknown content from an unknown source is not a good idea. Posting images in .zip form via a link here is - despite likely good intentions - not only a bad idea but is also completely unnecessary and also not the typical method of sharing photos in these forums.
Better methods for this purpose include:
1. Adding a link ending with ".jpg" that embeds your file in your post. The whole image is generally not required, a cropped section from the 100% magnification image should do the trick.
2. Posting the images on your own external web site and directing visitors to view them there.
1. No I did not focus and recompose in any of my shots (opening the RAW shows the center focus is squarely on the bird for example).
I agree with the comment about back focusing in the bird picture, looking at more pictures (ones that were not posted) both my L lenses seem to be off and they vary depending on how far I am from the subject. Closer to the subject the images seem visibly better.
2. Several people have mentioned posting JPEGs, I'll continue to do that.
The RAW files are available if anyone feels the need to see what the image looks like before sharpening. I realize it could be "dangerous" to open a foreign zip-file, but anti-virus software should catch any malware. Those who have the same equipment can better comment if the RAW looks they way they expect before sharpening (that was my original thought).
3. I appreciate the comments about RAW processing, I was definitely aware they need to be sharpened and that in-camera JPEGs have already done this step.
I've actually designed JPEG encoders and decoders in hardware and I know much about the format and image processing in general.
4. I usually tried to shoot at f/8 to get better sharpness out of the lens (at least the 17-40), but some shots for "artistic" tastes are at a lower f-stop.
5. Not that I really care about the opinions of unhelpful people but is there something in particular yauyi that makes you think I'm "unworthy"? I'm not taking pictures at 1/8th of a second wondering why they are blurry, I'm looking at 2.5K+ shots and don't see any of the accutance I've seen demonstrated with others' 5D.2 + 24-105.
Vivek wrote:
Thanks Master Yi, next time I have a problem I shall seek you out
Give the guy a break; he is new, but he wants to learn and that is a good thing.
-- Vivek
+1
Why don't you try focusing on a stationary inanimate target manually with Live View at 100%? Then turn AF on and reshoot. Comparing the two will tell you if its an AF issue. To do this properly, you should put the camera on a tripod/flat surface, use a cable/remote release or the 10sec internal timer and use Mirror Lock-up. This will cut any induced vibrations to essentially zero.
Looking at that image, however, it seems that the bird on the left is not covered with the center AF point, which falls more on the group of leaves in the middle and that area is indeed sharper/more in focus than the left bird. Maybe you recomposed after getting the AF point without realizing it.... It happens and no biggie, BTW.
Looking at the sample image in the post above (and assuming that it is the whole image and not a 100% magnification crop) this is the sort of thing that can really test an AF system. Of course, the camera/lens could be backfocusing - and you should test that using a more straightforward target to either confirm or eliminate that possibility.
However, here the the bird is not in the center of the frame so if the center point activated... well, I'm surprised that it focused on the foreground foliage/bird rather than the distance OOF subject. I'm guessing that either several points activated or that a non-center AF point was used. In a shot like this the compromise could well be a point other than the primary subject you were thinking about. (Unfortunately, Canon hasn't yet invented a mind-reading AF system - I could sure use one! :-)
In the former case (multiple AF points activated) the camera has to "make a decision" about what do do with focus. It could easily have picked a compromise distance, say, midway between AF points that picked up the left bird and some more distant foliage.
If a single point was used - e.g. you manually changed settings to do this - it probably would not have been the center point. A problem is that the point - especially a non-center point - can sometimes pick up and AF on stuff next to your intended subject. Here for example, it might have actually AF'ed on the sharp leaves just above and to the right of the bird.
If this is a 100% crop - it is probably sharp enough as is to make a pretty fine print and the small OOF would not likely be noticeable.
In any case, I'd carefully test the lens for front/back focus using a much less complex subject.
1. I set the camera to single-point AF, center and intentionally disabled auto-AF selection.
2. The bird pics posted earlier are 100% crops taken from the sharpened RAW output, processed by DPP; sharpness setting 6.
3. Here is a crop taken from DPP showing the focus point on the bird (pic with two bids); this is a screen capture that I saved as a JPEG, best quality. The screen cap is unsharpend, so you can see more or less what it looks like raw as well.
I remember this shot well, the idea was to get the bird in focus and use a lower aperture for blurring. It doesn't disprove that I did a focus+recompose (accidentally) but even the second shot with just the static bird and the upper focus point isn't much better. The same mistake twice when I was intentionally trying to get the bird in focus?
3. Here is similar crop showing the upper AF on the bird, screen cap from DPP saved as JPEG.
