User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  7
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Camera Upgrade Question

  1. #21
    Member
    Threadstarter
    MadMax1412's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Aug 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    63
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ameerat42 View Post
    MMax. In the interim with those UN-displayed attachments, I notice that the 1st and second
    are quite suitably focused. As before, you have an hour before they disappear as attachable
    assets. FWIW these too were taken at f/2.8. (I know camera selects f-stop in this mode.)

    Good luck attaching them.
    Yeah I had to dash to take my daughter to Netball, and have just got back and immediately came to try to fix it, but my editing of post option not there. I'll re-do them here and hope they work.

    Here is a photo using the Nikkor DX AF-S 35mm f/1.8G on a tripod. There’s no Anti-Vibration button on this lens, so it’s not a factor. I also used the timer so there’s no chance it was me pressing the button.

    Nikkor1.jpg

    Nikkor2.jpg

    The above photo might look ok, but if you zoomed in on the face on a PC, it seems "soft". I would like sharp photos especially around the eyes etc.


    This photo was taken hand-held using the Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 DI II, standing in the same spot as the tripod. From memory, the camera focused on the edge of her arms and legs (I remember seeing 3 squares flash in those spots)

    Tamron1.jpg

    Tamron2.jpg

    I just feel the face should be sharper. Don't forget that I'm an amateur, so I trust my camera to take sharp shots if I just want to grab it, put it in Auto or Portrait and take a quick family snap. Isn't that the point of cameras having those options?

    If anyone wants to download the original JPG or NEF file that came straight off the D90, the links are below:

    Nikkor JPG - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1T1...5rv76HGgz9gjKJ
    Nikkor NEF - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q3...F1q3UeQCrX0qlC
    Tamron JPG - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rH...atCSDhOhPjhaYp
    Tamron NEF - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qr...4F6K3olwLAeN5T

    Anyway, I'm off to bed. 3:30am starts means early to bed :-)

    Testing mentioned above will probably be done on the weekend, most likely Sunday due to morning sports for the daughter, housework and gardening etc on Saturday. No rest for the wicked.
    Last edited by MadMax1412; 16-05-2019 at 6:45pm.

  2. #22
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,508
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LOL! .. I used to dream of 3:30AM starts!

    .. anyhow. FWIW: I have a sneaking suspicion that your 35mm is backfocusing a little. That's a possible kind'a'sort'a maybe .. not even sure if I'm sure that I'm not sure. So don't take that to mean that it is.

    So I'll describe an easy test method for you to do.

    Re: soft/blurry images. Image is on the brighter side of the exposure range. Don't take that to me it's bright ... it's just brighter than 'ideal'.
    Note tho, there is technically no such thing as an idea exposure .. it's a moving target .. we decide what it an ideal exposure .. that is what you think is ideal .. maybe different to what I think is ideal .. etc, etc.

    Exposure can actually affect the 'sharpness' of an image. Sounds strange, but true. But it's not what you think .. that is, you can't make a crappy cheap lens look sharp by varying exposure.
    But you can make a sharp image look soft .. ish .. by exposing a tad too bright. \
    Contrast is one of the things we perceive as sharpness. So when an image has a bit more contrast, that usually equates in our imagination as a bit more sharpness. Obviously it's not the only way we perceive sharpness, camera shake/movement and obvious blurriness is of importance too, but sometimes an image looks soft, when it's really sharp enough .. and we think it's not sharp.
    Almost every lens we read up on in reviews that gets accolades for sharpness is also a contrasty rendering lens.
    But if a lens is less contrasty, say by design .. then many folks think it's not sharp. In fact it usually is ... PP by just adding a bit of contrast and dropping exposure can make the world of difference.

    I mentioned software primarily because your software use is obliterating all the exif data .. so we have zero idea of how your shooting your camera.
    I mentioned Nikon's ViewNX2 and CaptureNX-D, because no matter what you do, and what type of image your resizing/editing .. it doesn't remove any exif at all(unless you tick a small box for it to do so).
    Also(and this is the important part of my software commentary) .. Nikon's software allows you to edit the Picture Control settings AFTER the shot .. just like you do in camera.
    And your softness issue may well be just a camera setting issue .. ie. remember the comments just above re brightness/contrast and sharpness!

    So the basic idea(and what I've done over the years, and still do) .. take shot, open in ViewNX2(mainly). Sometimes CaptureNX2. Very rarely in CNX-D(but doing more of that now that it's getting better).
    Primary reason is the Picture Controls.
    Don't worry too much about Picture Controls and tone rendering for now, other than you use it to initially edit your image without actually editing it.
    This is basically what they are. pre editing .. editing! Think of it as the editing you don't do, to minimise the editing you may need too.
    All cameras do their internal tone editing .. every camera. Has too. There's no option. Even on raw files.
    Nikon software follows the camera settings. other software(ie. non Nikon brands) .. don't use Nikon's tone settings(ie. the Picture Controls).
    Other software also does pre editing tone editing .. also has too .. otherwise you really don't get an image. Other software(Adobe/Corel/Paint.net/etc) they all HAVE to add their tone edits to open the image. In other software this is called 'profile' or 'preset'.
    It's something that they all have to do. Nikon's Picture Control is exactly the same process .. just done how Nikon thought it best too. But you can edit this process to your liking.

    This is the main reason I recommend Nikon users to use Nikon's software .. makes editing so much more 'nothing' or less ... easier in many ways.
    FWIW: what I mean by my term makes editing 'so much more nothing' .. means that you can do some far out massively processed images by doing no editing at all.
    Sorry getting off topic here, but take it for granted that there is a lot of processing/tweaking ability in these in camera settings that you don't really need any other software like Corel or Paint.net .. etc.
    Only reason you need Nikon software it to edit the in camera settings.
    Only reason I mention this complex stuff is that it helps to find detail(remember exposure may have hidden detail/sharpness/contrast) .. so this stuff is handy to now about.

    As for the above images. #1 Nikkor lens .. looks OK .. just a tad bright(contrast) .. I'm sure I could cobble up some tweaks to make that image look sharper.
    #2 .. looks backfocused(but again this depends on far too many variables to say with certainty. Why does it look backfocused? look at the leaves behind girl .. her right ear .. our left shoulder. There's more edge detail in those leaves than in the girls eyes, mouth .. etc.

    I then downloaded the NEF files.
    First stop was to drop exposure(not brightness!).

    Nikkor2_ exposure edit only
    Nikkor-VNX2_-1.3_01.JPG
    With this image, the only change was -1.3Ev exposure in VNX2.

    Notice that her face looks less 'angel' like .. darker .. more lines(around mouth and cheeks .. more moody/contrast/etc.
    I have a 4K monitor .. very good quality and I can definitely say there's more detailed look around her eyes .. just with lower exposure.
    I'll add some very basic editing(will need a brightness increase to counter the darker moody feel with lower exposure) .. etc, etc.

    Nikkor2_proper edit
    Nikkor.JPG
    This one is a proper edit.
    Like I said, simple button pushing, choose Picture Control( I chose Portrait). Choose WB(I went shade or cloudy, but changed value to 7000K). Added some sharpness(+4). Added brightness(+4). Added contrast(+2)
    Set protect highlight (50). Set Protect shadows(35). Crop(this look longest to try to match your cropped image.

    I'll send you a PM with the view to get the Nikkor.NEF file back to you to load onto your PC. What I recommend you do, is download and install ViewNX2(for now).

    ViewNX 2.10.3 Download page
    Scroll down, click accept, click country region, etc, etc.

    The edits I've made in the NEF will only show up in VNX2(maybe VNX-D .. can't remember).
    You will then see the edits I made to the image .. a guide I suppose.
    I'll also explain how to do the testing for focus accuracy too.
    Also, reason for asking about tripod .. not to take shots like the one above with tripod .. for doing the simple testing .... when you can.
    Also important .. what model/brand tripod(will help me to explain more accurately for the test).
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC

    {Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N


  3. #23
    Ausphotography Regular Brigitte's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 May 2011
    Location
    Eastern Suburbs
    Posts
    1,422
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I also shoot with Nikon - D7000 and D7500 I would suggest you check out Steve Perry who uses Nikon - https://backcountrygallery.com/ his videos and e books are excellent. I got onto him when I learned how to do back button focus, this made a huge improvement to my photography. Also Auto modes leave the camera in charge not the operator. Try to get what you have working correctly before you rush in and buy new equipment. I'm not a professional and like you have learned through reading and practice.

  4. #24
    Former User Name : Alisha Poor Alisha Rawling's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Apr 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,017
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Um ok, I would have thought that that camera would have performed better, but many cameras were made in that kind of affordability but many even sony when made in that range performed exactly like that, yes blury, blury blury. I know I have owned hundreds of them in my little window of time so far taking photos all shit. most of them I could get better results on my phone. Mirrorless is expensive at the moment for what it is, but I don't know, anything entry level DSLR even old will kill that photo and end your bluryness issues straight away. I know it sounds like a stupid question and it is, anything possibly scratched or whatever on the lens that it is maybe hindering it's ability to correctly focus, you would be surprised but It's simple and people usually don't think it's that simple always thinking of a worse problem that is a mystery, oh it's this technical shit that I don't understand but yes something inside something scientific beyond my understanding, hahahahaha.
    Just go with whatever you want to do and feels right, even when everybody weighs up the pros and cons deep down people really already know what they want to do, and if it will help them. more you know about it the more it's already decided for you.
    Canon 1500D, 18-55mm, Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD. Your Multimedia Specialist. http://www.thatalisha.com/

  5. #25
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    16,159
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John King View Post
    IMHO you should be getting far better images than you are. Most superzooms are of (very) questionable image quality. ...

    This video should help to inform your decisions. It discusses the difference between huge prints made from images taken with a Canon 5D MkIV and an Olympus E-M1 MkII. Cut to the chase at about 9 minutes if you already know the other stuff.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn3yPl59ZM

    tl:dr - there is no discernible difference.
    Agree with John. I suspect your lens is the cause here. Spending your money on a new lens might well be what you need to do, rather than a new camera.

    Even look at something like the 50mm 1.4. It is a cheap lens in the scheme of things, but for portraiture, it is a doozie.

    Getting a new camera (and lens) might solve your problem, but you might be able to improve your photography without doing so.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  6. #26
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    16,159
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Another question as I have looked at your photos above and was trying to work out the cause.

    Do you have a filter screwed to the front of this lens? Like a UV filter for example.. as protection for the lens? If so, remove it and try again. UV filters serve no purpose other than to degrade image quality if the UV filter is not really high quality. UV flitering is not needed with digital cameras. It was needed for some film back in the day. Your lens front element is hardened and whilst it can break, it is not fragile and delicate and does not need protection.

    So let us know if you have a filter on the lens, remove it, and try taking photos again.

  7. #27
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,508
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ricktas View Post
    .....

    So let us know if you have a filter on the lens, remove it, and try taking photos again.

  8. #28
    Ausphotography Regular John King's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jan 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,015
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ricktas View Post
    Agree with John. I suspect your lens is the cause here. Spending your money on a new lens might well be what you need to do, rather than a new camera.

    Even look at something like the 50mm 1.4. It is a cheap lens in the scheme of things, but for portraiture, it is a doozie.

    Getting a new camera (and lens) might solve your problem, but you might be able to improve your photography without doing so.
    Good suggestion by Rick.

    My niece has a D90. They are a capable camera, and can take excellent photos. She has the cheap but good 18-105 kit lens on it. Good combo.
    Regards, john

    Galleries: https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/page/gallery/


    My galleries contain all sorts of stuff, not just some pretty pictures.

    ILCs: E-M1 MkII; E-M1; E-30; E-510; E-1
    Digital lenses: 14-42 EZ; 12-50 macro; f/4 12-100 Pro; 40-150R; f/4.8-6.7 75-300; f/1.8 25; f/2.8 25 pancake; f/2 50 macro; f/4 7~14; 11~22; 14~42; 14~45; 14~54 MkII; 40~150 MkI; 40~150 MkII; 50~200 MkI; EX-25; EC-14


  9. #29
    Member
    Threadstarter
    MadMax1412's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Aug 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    63
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ricktas View Post
    Another question as I have looked at your photos above and was trying to work out the cause.

    Do you have a filter screwed to the front of this lens? Like a UV filter for example.. as protection for the lens? If so, remove it and try again. UV filters serve no purpose other than to degrade image quality if the UV filter is not really high quality. UV flitering is not needed with digital cameras. It was needed for some film back in the day. Your lens front element is hardened and whilst it can break, it is not fragile and delicate and does not need protection.

    So let us know if you have a filter on the lens, remove it, and try taking photos again.
    Yes, I do have a Marumi UV filter on the front. I did this for 2 reasons (don't forget I'm no expert so try following advice I read) that UV filter will help make better looking colours and will protect lens. I will try some photos without it.

    Arthurking83, my tripod is an Optex t-560. I have got your PM's and will try doing the test shots soon. Given the above info/suggestion, I will have the UV filter off.
    Last edited by MadMax1412; 19-05-2019 at 1:58pm.

  10. #30
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,508
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMax1412 View Post
    Yes, I do have a Marumi UV filter on the front. I did this for 2 reasons (don't forget I'm no expert so try following advice I read) that UV filter will help make better looking colours and will protect lens. I will try some photos without it....
    Like Rick said, remove it. Further to that advice is to pack it away ... forever.
    Try taking all your images now without it.

    Arthurking83, my tripod is an Optex t-560. I have got your PM's and will try doing the test shots soon. Given the above info/suggestion, I will have the UV filter off.[/QUOTE]

    OK. searched that brand/model of tripod.
    I highly recommend that you keep the tripod as short as possible. If you have to elevate it to the same height as the focus target .. by placing it on some other thing that's solid(like a bench, verandah steps .. etc) and your focus target a bit lower to compensate for the lack of tripod height ... then better.

  11. #31
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    16,159
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMax1412 View Post
    Yes, I do have a Marumi UV filter on the front. I did this for 2 reasons (don't forget I'm no expert so try following advice I read) that UV filter will help make better looking colours and will protect lens. I will try some photos without it.

    Arthurking83, my tripod is an Optex t-560. I have got your PM's and will try doing the test shots soon. Given the above info/suggestion, I will have the UV filter off.
    Take the filter off and throw it... and try to take photos again.

    UV filters do nothing to protect your lens or improve your image quality (IQ). In fact the opposite. UV filters can and do degrade your image results. Looking forward to hearing what results you get once you remove that filter.

  12. #32
    Former User Name : Alisha Poor Alisha Rawling's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Apr 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,017
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah with Rick, that is a very obvious mistake, OMG! well hopefully that fixes things I'm betting 99% of the time it will anyway hehe.

  13. #33
    Ausphotography Regular junqbox's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    736
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    take a photo with a tripod and shutter delay to check whether its your handholding or the sharpness of lens

  14. #34
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,508
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by junqbox View Post
    take a photo with a tripod and shutter delay to check whether its your handholding or the sharpness of lens
    At the moment, it's looking that way(ish).
    From the OPs last image post, the first image was shot on tripod, came out good.
    Second image shot hand held, came out backfocused.

    I've sent the OP some instructions on how to do some simple tests to determine what the issue is.

  15. #35
    Member
    Threadstarter
    MadMax1412's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Aug 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    63
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok, so here's my test shots. The batteries were set up with the middle one closest, then the one to the right had it's front edge level with the back of the middle one. The one to the left of the middle had it's front edge level with the back of the 2nd one. Repeat with the last 2 with the one on the far left being the furtherest back. With the view finder shot, I put the focus on the one to the left in case it was forward focusing so it would show this by making the centre battery sharp. Live View unfortunately meant the whole set of batteries were in the focus box.

    Nikkor DX AF-S 35mm f/1.8G, UV filter off, on a tripod, using 5 second timer.

    Nikkor_ViewNX.jpg
    Nikkor_Live_View_Cropped.jpg
    Nikkor_View_Finder_Cropped.jpg

    Based on the View Finder shot, it looks like it back focused as the further-est battery (the one on far left) seems to be in focus looking at the test above the red swirl. The camera was very close to the batteries. From memory I would say 40cm. I would assume the back focus issue would be more if the distance to the subject was greater?? In other words, it looks like actual focus was about 3 battery widths (about 3cm) back from where the focus point was and subject was 40 cm away, so if subject was 2 metres away (eg full body shot), would the back focus be 5x greater distance away from where the focus point was set to (ie about 15cm)???

    Due to the limitations of only 5 photos per post, I'll wait until there's another post and then post the results for the Tamron lens.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •