Poor technique or lens/camera issue?

<p>Not sure if I'm doing something wrong, or if I have an issue with my camera lens. On some shots (not all), I'm getting a weird ghosting type of issue along certain edges (see example below). At first I thought it was chromatic aberration, but since it's not colored at all I don't believe that's it. Anyone have insight as to what could be causing it?<br>

Body: Nikon D5100<br>

Lens: Nikkor 55-200mm/4-5.6G<br>

<img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5494/14125516719_4d80132e1e_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>It looks like camera shake. Slow shutter speed.... I have this issue all the time, my hands are not steady enough :o(</p>

That is motion blur; i.e. camera shake, not surprising when you use 190mm @ 1/45 sec.

<p>If you didn't use a tripod or support the camera firmly in some other way, then the fault is almost certainly down to camera shake.</p>

<p>A shutter speed of 1/45th of a second is far too slow (long) to reliably hand-hold at close to 200mm on a DX camera. Suggest you buy a tripod or raise the ISO speed considerably for such shots.</p>

<p>Looks like some kind of 'ghosting' due to camera shake to me. I've never used this lens, but reading up on it (it <em>is </em>the VR version, right?) this lens seems to be considered a somewhat lacklustre performer overall. I think you've certainly moved out of its 'comfort zone' in this shot - specifically by using it at 190mm (reported to be soft and with focusing issues) and fully open at f5.6, where it certainly <em>will</em> be soft. Some users are unhappy with its VR performance: since you've used 1/45" (I'm assuming handheld?) maybe what you are seeing is some kind of VR artefact? If it's on a tripod and VR is still accidentally on, then there is your answer...</p>

<p>Oh, if it is <em>not </em>the VR version, then you need a minimum of 1/300" to handhold it on DX (the so-called 1/f rule x 1.5). In this case we're talking severe camera-shake. Actually if that's the case then I think you've done a pretty good job to keep the artefacts to what we can see here!</p>

<p>Hope that helps - and welcome to photo.net!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Time dig out the old tripod .</p>

<p>@ 1/45 a tripod isn't going to help you. I reckon that this is <em>subject</em> movement...esp if it's the VR version*. Stable camera.....moving bird.</p>

<p>The direction seems to be about 45 deg top right>bottom left.......is this tree swaying?</p>

<p>* If it's <strong>not</strong> the VR version (or it's turned off) then 1/45 is too slow for unaided handheld shooting.</p>

<p>Another vote for camera shake especially if it is not constant. If you use Photoshop CC you can compensate for this to some degree. Ultimately the cure is stabilization with a tripod.</p>

<p>-O</p>

Since there are more defined edges, this is more like camera shake rather than subject movement. Subject motion is

usually more smeared.

Could be nisen-broken, a blur with repeating

patterns rather than smooth out of focus blur.

 

I've seen similar st-st-stuttering blur with

stabilized cameras and lenses at slow shutter

speeds. The sensor or optical stabilization tries

to compensate for camera shake and produces

stuttering blur rather than the more familiar

smooth blur. I have some photos where I've

deliberately exploited that quirk, but none are

with Nikon gear.

>>"nisen-broken"

 

Oh, auto-correct, you do make me laff. I suppose

that's appropriate for broken bokeh, or brokeh.

<p>There's nothing more curvi-linear than a swaying tree....the ones I know don't tend to vibrate...:-)</p>

<p>Is this the VR version? <em><strong>If</strong> </em>it is and it's switched ON, and the user is fairly stable, the 3 stops VR gets the 'camera' to 1/360th which <em><strong>should</strong></em> be OK, maybe not perfect, for this lens at 190mm. (see above for better maths!)</p>

<p>I have the D5100 and use it as my travel camera. You can easily up the ISO to 800. That would give you a shutter speed of 1/200s. Going to ISO 1600 you might get 1/500s. The sensor is pretty good up to ISO 2000. Turn the VR off if going to 1/500s.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>My first though is what many have suggested - camera shake. My second though was - why shooting at 1/45s. that's way too slow.<br>

I suggest trying again at a far faster shutter speed. Many would have a problem holding the camera steady at that shutter speed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Turn the VR off if going to 1/500s.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting tip - not considered this before. Found the original PNet thread about this issue - like Michael Alger, I would have thought that the VR system should handle the transition by itself, but it seems otherwise. Never noticed anything myself, although I've never looked hard (using a D700 attached to the 70-300 AF-S G VR II). Perhaps my standards were lowered by using my rather poor 70-300 IF-ED with an F80 for so long: it <em>surely was</em> a bad copy when finally stuck on a digital body!</p>

<p>Wow, thanks for all the great responses. I did have VR on, and was resting the lens lightly on the rail of a deck. It could have been camera shake due to pressing the shutter, or as others suggested the branch may have been moving slightly. I was thinking camera shake mostly manifests itself as a blurry image, but I can see where certain conditions would cause what I was seeing.<br>

I sincerely appreciate everyone's input, especially since I wasn't expecting much of a response at all! Thanks again!</p>

<p>Resting the camera on a fence rail makes sense unless a vehicle goes by at that instant, then vibration might set in on the rail producing camera shake.</p>

<p>Brett, I own the combo you are using. Since these modern DSLRs do just fine <a href="/photo/17736925">at higher ISOs</a> I would trade a higher ISO with it's minor increase in noise levels for a sharper photo. In this case ISO 800 would have allowed a shutter speed of 1\180 sec., likely enough to have eliminated the camera shake. (I too believe it's camera shake) Best, LM.</p>

<p>I echo Len, and I would also go to f 8. Many zooms are better stopped down from their widest f stop.</p>

<p>Thanks Len and Steve! </p>

<p>To those that own the VR version, what experiences have you had with regard to min handholdable shutter speed at various focal lengths? I know what the manual says, but what's realistic?</p>

<p>Mike, I still use the old rule of thumb which states you should use the reciprocal of the focal length for the minimum hand holdable shutter speed. IE: 200 mm = 1\200 sec, 55mm = 1\60 sec. With VR this gives me 2 or 3 stops of wiggle room. Some of us are more shaky than others so if one is very steady of hand this rule can be relaxed to suit. Best, LM.</p>

<p>So 1/45 whilst resting on a fence post is not ideal @ 190mm but..:-)</p>

<p>1/45 becomes 1/360 with VR, which is plenty fast enough for 190mm...add the steady fence post and this still looks like tree sway to me.</p>

<p>VR only corrects camera movement, not subject movement....so still camera but moving tree!</p>

<p>Mike, Yah, I would have expected that @ 1\45 sec. & resting on a fence post whether VR is ON or OFF the shot should exhibit little or no unsharpness due to camera motion. Hand held, or with much longer shutter speeds the scenario would likely be different. Could indeed be subject motion. Best, LM.</p>

<p>My experience with VR is that it is not that dependable. If I hand hold a long lens, 200mm, 300mm or so, and my shutter speed is down to 1/50 sec, I can take 5 consecutive images and the results can be all over the place. VR can do wonders in some cases and not much in some others, in successive frames under identical conditions. That is why in such cases, I would shoot a few more image samples so that I have several choices to pick a good one from.</p>

<p>Some of the newer VR can do a better job, such as the recent 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR and the 80-400mm AF-S VR. But it is still a matter of percentages. When you have only one image sample, it is a meaningless discussion.</p>