D850 photo hazy and blurry

Hello, I just started doing some photography.

I got D850 and Nikkor 200-500mm 5.6.

I took some practice shots. And as I zoom in, the detail of the photo is lacking severely. It looks hazy and blurry.

 

Can anyone give me any advice to get clearer and sharper images please?

 

The photo was taken @500mm f/5.6, 1/2000th, ISO-2000

Also I used a tripod too. So I do not believe that I had a shaky shot.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by jiwooseok

I didn't notice blur due to camera shake, but notice that you shot wide open, which is often not the sharpest aperture to shoot at....usually stopped down about 2 stops produces the sharpest photos...film and digital. ISO 2000, rather than base ISO will also degrade the image somewhat introducing digital noise. Did you use a lens shade...there seems to be some flare in the shot. In your settings, did you introduce any sharpening. Most digital images need at least a touch, either in camera or in post processing.

What tripod and head--that is a pretty heavy camera/lens combination. Also, a 500 mm lens at f/5.6 won't have much depth of field.which seems to be part of your issue.

A little dab will do ya

I own the lens but not the camera. Several things come to mind. Firstly, you had the combo on a tripod and VR on - that's a no-no. Secondly, AF fine tune is turned off - it has been my experience with recent bodies (I used D810 and D500) that ANY lens with a focal length above 300mm needed AF fine tune adjustment to bring things into proper focus at a given distance. Your flower is about 24m from the camera - even a needed small deviation from the correct AF parameter will result in soft images. I am not sure what you actually focused on as the flower is not in the center of the image. To do this testing/adjustment you need a better target than a small flower in a tree - something that certainly won't move and has provides better contrast to the AF module. And you need to have it in the center of the image. The first thing you should do is put the combo back on the tripod, turn off VR and focus via live view - that takes possible AF fine tune issues out of the equation and shows you what the lens is truly capable off. If you can't get a decent image focusing that way (either via AF or manually) - then pack up the lens and send it back. Pay also attention to the atmospheric conditions - haze or shooting over a heated surface (which creates turbulence) can negatively affect image resolution. The two images you provided to me look like AF fine tune is needed though. You are also at the far end for AF fine tune distance - which should be at least about 25x the focal length; that's about 12.5m or at most 50x the focal length or 25m. I prefer to do both, starting close and then moving farther away.

 

The D850 provides the means to do an Auto AF fine tune - that's something worth trying (and repeating a few times). A method that I prefer is called the "(green) dot method" - google it. It's a bit tedious but has worked for me (although it requires patience and a few repeats).

 

but notice that you shot wide open, which is often not the sharpest aperture to shoot at....usually stopped down about 2 stops produces the sharpest photos

That old rule of thumb doesn't hold for many new lenses (especially not tele ones) and certainly not when attached to high-MP camera bodies. For the 200-500, stopping down one stop improves things a little - you have to pixel-peep at high magnification to see the differences. For the 500 PF, the difference is even smaller. Both these lenses should produce entirely useful results wide open; I only stop the 500PF down if I need more DOF or have the luxury of more than enough light. My preferred aperture on the 200-500 is f/7.1. Two stops down from wide open gets you already into the region where diffraction starts to rob you of resolution.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Dieter Schaefer

This isn’t bad. You’re 90% there. I’d try a slight stop down, do AF fine tune and sharpen your raw files in post. With a new camera it always helps to take a variety of shots and experiment with sharpening settings to get a feel for how it will behave.

Shot through a window by any chance?

 

What's the black vertical obstruction to the left of the frame?

 

There's also air turbulence to take into account. This can easily take the edge off sharpness when you have 50ft of air between camera and subject. This happens quite readily if there's a temperature interface - like shooting from a warm interior to the cold outside through an open doorway.

Looks like there was a layer of glass in front of the lens, perhaps with some condensation or grease on it. Maybe a window or a UV filter? Or perhaps the front element of the lens was not clean?

 

Since you said you just started doing photography, we should also clarify that you are not surprised by the blurriness of the out of focus areas in front of and behind the tree. Those are meant to be blurry.

It would help if we got some feedback from the OP giving more detail of exactly how the images were taken.

 

Otherwise this just goes into the 'X files' unsolved cases annals.

Did you shoot raw or JPEG? what's the dark on the borders? Were you shooting through a window? That certainly could degrade the image. Where did you focus? How did you focus (single point?). The camera may not have focused where you wanted. Did you have VC on? I don't know Nikons, but that's a no-no with many lenses. How far away was the plant? That affects depth of field. As SCL said, ISO 2000 is going to cost you in terms of image quality.

 

It's good that you are asking about what you can do. That's very high-end equipment for someone starting out, and many newbies falsely assume that good equipment produces good images. It's good that you aren't falling into that trap. Ansel Adams supposedly said that the most important photographic equipment is the 12 inches behind the viewfinder.

Looks as if the OP is willing to start threads, but not engage with anyone that answers!

 

I think we might be wasting our time.

It would help if we got some feedback from the OP giving more detail of exactly how the images were taken.

Indeed, though some of answers can easily be obtained by looking at the EXIF.

Did you shoot raw or JPEG?

JPEG Fine*

Where did you focus?

Lower right portion of the red flower; AF area covers portion of the red and the buds below it, more than half the AF area is on the background.

How did you focus (single point?)

AF-S, single area.

Did you have VC on?

Already answered in my post above - yes.

How far away was the plant?

Also answered in my post above - about 24m or 80ft according to the EXIF - which as we know isn't all that accurate in reporting distances.

 

Shot through a window by any chance?

That's an important question to answer - it's moot to discuss air-turbulence or AF fine tune if the OP took the image while shooting through a window. Or whether having VR on while mounted on a tripod has an effect. Or whether the tripod itself induced vibrations resulting in a blurry image (in that context it would be important to know how the shutter was released - hopefully without touching the camera (unless a long shutter delay was selected)).

Edited September 22, 2020 by Dieter Schaefer

Looks as if the OP is willing to start threads, but not engage with anyone that answers!

 

I think we might be wasting our time.

I'm not trying to waste anyone's time. I'm reading and running. I have a full time job that keeps me occupied. Sorry I couldn't be more responsive.

What tripod and head--that is a pretty heavy camera/lens combination. Also, a 500 mm lens at f/5.6 won't have much depth of field.which seems to be part of your issue.

I bought a tripod from amazon GEEKOTO AT24EVO and Fluid Head, Pangshi VT-1510

 

I didn't notice blur due to camera shake, but notice that you shot wide open, which is often not the sharpest aperture to shoot at....usually stopped down about 2 stops produces the sharpest photos...film and digital. ISO 2000, rather than base ISO will also degrade the image somewhat introducing digital noise. Did you use a lens shade...there seems to be some flare in the shot. In your settings, did you introduce any sharpening. Most digital images need at least a touch, either in camera or in post processing.

I didn't use the lens shade because I was shooting from inside the house through the window.. And also I don't think i introduce any sharpening and I know how to introduce in the settings.

Shot through a window by any chance?

 

What's the black vertical obstruction to the left of the frame?

 

There's also air turbulence to take into account. This can easily take the edge off sharpness when you have 50ft of air between camera and subject. This happens quite readily if there's a temperature interface - like shooting from a warm interior to the cold outside through an open doorway.

I did shoot through window.

That is a blind.

Did you shoot raw or JPEG? what's the dark on the borders? Were you shooting through a window? That certainly could degrade the image. Where did you focus? How did you focus (single point?). The camera may not have focused where you wanted. Did you have VC on? I don't know Nikons, but that's a no-no with many lenses. How far away was the plant? That affects depth of field. As SCL said, ISO 2000 is going to cost you in terms of image quality.

 

It's good that you are asking about what you can do. That's very high-end equipment for someone starting out, and many newbies falsely assume that good equipment produces good images. It's good that you aren't falling into that trap. Ansel Adams supposedly said that the most important photographic equipment is the 12 inches behind the viewfinder.

it was JPEG.

It's a blind.

It was through a window.

I focused on the flower. single point.

I did have a VR on. I don't know what VC is..

I think i was about 100 ft away?

 

Thank you all.

If you're shooting through a window, expect some degradation. After all, that isn't optical-quality glass. Moreover, the farther from the sensor, the more dirt will show.

Sorry, in the nikon world, it's VR. Check the instructions for your lens. Many lenses need to have this turned off when on a tripod.

Shot through a window - you need to redo the test without the window; no conclusions about the lens can be drawn from the shots you already took.

 

I have strong doubts about that cheap tripod being up to the task.

A fluid head for under $34 isn't going to support that camera and lens adequately at all. Combine that with shooting through a window and I would say that your results were remarkably good.

Shot through a window - you need to redo the test without the window; no conclusions about the lens can be drawn from the shots you already took.

 

I have strong doubts about that cheap tripod being up to the task.

Which tripod would you recommend?

A fluid head for under $34 isn't going to support that camera and lens adequately at all. Combine that with shooting through a window and I would say that your results were remarkably good.

Do you have a recommended fluid heads?

Which tripod would you recommend?

Unfortunately, that's a question that's not so easy to answer. Tripods are always advertised on what load they can handle - there's no standard and those numbers mean very little. What is important is how a tripod is constructed and how it can dampen vibrations induced by the camera, wind and other influences (hanging some weight from the tripod center can increase stability and help dissipate vibrations (unless that weight starts swinging by itself). Carbon fiber does better than aluminum in terms of damping; it also makes for a lighter tripod. Wood would be even better - but not many want to deal with the weight. How many leg sections is important for stability (the fewer the better - but the downside is a larger tripod when folded). Not having a center column also makes for a sturdier tripod. How big a tripod one needs is determined by the maximum focal length of the lens one wants to use on it - not only because longer teles tend to be heavier but because of their large magnification vibrations affect image quality more. For 500mm, I would recommend one of the Gitzo Systematic Series 3 as a minimum - or equivalent ones from RRS, Induro, Feisol or FLM. A good tripod will cost you - expect $600 - $1200 or more. In addition to a good tripod, you also need to apply the correct long-lens technique. When using a long tele one often does not have the luxury to lock-down the tripod head solid as one often needs to follow some motion. There are then a few tricks to apply to get the lens/camera rig as stable as possible - like pushing down on the lens, pushing one's head against the camera and one's leg against the tripod. I mostly shoot handheld as carrying and setting up a tripod is often too cumbersome. I only tend to use one for those occasions when I know I will be mostly stationary and wait for some time for some action to take place.

 

Long teles are usually put on gimbal heads - another $500 or thereabouts expense. The Flexshooter is a more recent alternative - it replaces a gimbal and a traditional balllhead with one device. I have not used a fluid head for still photography (and I don't do video) - so I can't help there.

I didn't use the lens shade because I was shooting from inside the house through the window.

There you go!

Window glass is not optical quality.

That tripod looks like a copy of the "3-legged Thing" design. I was reasonably impressed with the 3-legged thing after a brief examination of one at a trade show. Vibration was very well damped.

 

Not impressed enough to actually buy one though. My Manfrotto and Gitzo collection of tripods do all I need (they're one and the same company now).

 

I wouldn't call $100 exactly cheap for a basic aluminium tripod. It's going to be a darn sight better than hand-holding... provided the right technique is used. That means using mirror-up and the self-timer or a remote release. But a windy day or a passing truck can ruin sharpness even then.

 

Or the aforementioned temperature interface turbulence.

There was no difference in shooting conditions between the above two shots - 15 metres distance, hefty studio tripod, focus locked, etc. Except I could actually see air ripples passing across the subject through the viewfinder in the less sharp shot.

 

This happened repeatedly and regularly while shooting through an open doorway. If I moved the camera completely outside the rippling went away.

 

Lens was a 400mm IF-ED Nikkor that's capable of pretty good sharpness. When air quality allows!

If you aren't shooting video, you don't need a fluid head. You should get a good ball head with a separate panning lock.

 

Decent tripods and heads are expensive. Excellent tripods and heads are very, very expensive. I make do with decent.

 

As a general rule, larger balls mean smoother action, and larger ball heads support more weight. However, within any size, there are variations in quality. I use a small ballhead, a Markins, with equipment as heavy or heavier than yours--a Canon 5D Mark IV with an EF 100-400L (a beast of a lens). I think a bigger head of comparable quality would be better, but this suffices, and with my old and damaged back, I don't want anything heavier. However, this alone, without a tripod, is about $300. You can buy adequate ballheads for less from companies like Benro at any good photo retailer. I haven't shopped in years, but I suspect you can find decent ones for roughly $100-150.

My Manfrotto and Gitzo collection of tripods do all I need (they're one and the same company now).

That's like saying Ferrari and Alfa are the same company - just because they belong to the same FCA group. Different brands, same parent (Vitec). Didn't know that Sachtler is also part of Vitec group, as is LowePro.

That means using mirror-up and the self-timer or a remote release.

Those techniques are fine for static subjects - but totally impractical when it comes to shooting anything that moves. As is a ballhead - with the exception of the already mentioned Flexshooter. Some ballheads can be used as a gimbal - that works in a pinch put isn't a good substitute for everyday use.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Dieter Schaefer

That's like saying Ferrari and Alfa are the same company

Well, they'll both get you from A to B, and quite honestly I find very little difference in stability between Gitzo and Manfrotto tripods of a similar size and weight. Basically 3 legs with a threaded platform on top.