Rebel XTi: Why are my pictures so blurry?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by josh_a|2, Mar 25, 2009.

  1. Hi all,
    I was wondering if I could get some input as to why my pictures are so blurry?

    It seems like every photo I take, the pictures come out very blurry.... no matter the lens. You don't really notice it until you apply a maxed out sharpener filter and then the picture really pops.

    I understand that it could be related to the lens quality but, no matter which lens I choose, even on my EF-S60mm f/2.8 Macro USM, the same effect can be seen as my stock EF-S18-55MM f/3.5-5.6.
    This image is a good example:
    Shutter Speed: 1/200
    Aperture: f/11
    ISO: 400
    Lens: EF-S18-55MM f/3.5-5.6

    As shot:
    [​IMG]
    With Apple Apperture sharpen mask all the way up:
    [​IMG]
    Sure it jacks up the contrast a very little but check out the detail in the grating in the window above the bike and on the door gate and compare the two.
    Any ideas? Could this be camera related or is this REALLY the difference between a good lens and a professional line lens?

    Thanks,
    Josh
     
  2. I would avoid apertures smaller than f/8 on a cropped sensor camera as a general rule - though there could be exceptions in unusual situations. The issue is diffraction blur that sets in as you stop down - and it sets in about two stops sooner on a cropped sensor camera than on a full frame camera.
    I'd generally shoot this camera at a lower ISO unless I had no choice but to go as high as 400. 100 or 200 are optimum. The lens will project the same sharp image in any of these cases, but noise can diffuse lines and so forth that say "sharp image" to us when we look at it.
    Do you use a tripod, mirror lockup, and remote release? If not, give these a try - if for no other reason than to narrow the possible causes of what you perceive as a lack of ideal sharpness.
    Are you shooting jpg or RAW? If the former I can't say much since I have little experience with in-camera sharpening. If the latter, RAW files _must_ be sharpened in post-processing if you want to achieve the image quality they are capable of. I'll save the details until we see the cropped version of the image and until we know what software you use.
    A major aspect of images that appear sharp is not sharpness per se, but due to other elements including post processing application of curves, saturation, color balancing and other adjustments. You'll occasionally hear people claim that these techniques are somehow "not authentic," but the truth is that virtually all photographers (film or digital) apply a number of post-processing techniques to produce final prints that reflect their vision for the photograph. I won't go into all of the philosophical or physiological aspects of this here.
    It is hard to analyze the photo for sharpness when we only see the small jpg of the full image. In this format it actually looks pretty decent and not all that different from what a very sharp photograph would look like at this size. If you can post a small section of the image at 100% magnification it will be easier to give you meaningful feedback on the sharpness.
     
  3. Are you using the in-camera sharpening settings at all? Are you shooting JPG files or RAW?
     
  4. This looks normal to me for the XTi kit lens (I use it all the time). It is not the best lens and has always been known to be soft. However you say it doesn't matter which lens. What other lenses are you using? Other entry level lenses like the 75-300 (Which I also use regularly) are also known to be soft. Are you shooting JPEG or RAW? Raw will require sharpening in post, JPEG may also depending on your camera settings. Hand held or tripod? Hand held should be acceptable at this shutter speed for that lens if you have a reasonably steady hand, but if you don't it just adds to the problems with the kit lens.
     
  5. I'm going to respectfully disagree with Mr. Mitchell here. This is not an aperture issue and you should have no problems shooting at f/11 or even f/16. The difference in the amount of diffraction at f/11 vs f/8 is nearly non-existent.
    See the first figure under "Practical Examples" on this page:
    http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html
    If you're shooting JPG's, your camera has settings for sharpening that you can control. If you're shooting RAW then the in-camera settings are a reference point, but you will be required to make your own determination in post as to what is or is not the right amount of sharpening.
     
  6. I agree with Dan. Using ISO 100 would make a big difference. About the only thing I can add at this point is do you have a filter on your lenses? Have you tried it without those filters? I thought my kit lens was getting worse than when I first bought the camera, then I reallized that my wife had put a diffuser filter on the lens and left it there.
     
  7. Have you tried shooting with a tripod - I think we need to rule out some things before we can come to any conclusions. At a minimum try shooting the same scene with similar settings on a tripod - use different lenses. Post those results here and we can look at them and figure out what's wrong. It could very well be that it is your camera, but we need more information.
     
  8. 1st shot looks fine to me. How about a 100% crop?
     
  9. First shot looks not so much blurry as less saturated. Also, in the doorway, it is obvious that the curves have been altered (mid tones) so that the inside is visible. There is a lot more than sharpening going on here.
    Post processing always helps.
     
  10. Sorry buddy but the shot looks fine to me - if you are worried about 100% views you have to think 'What are other people going to see my shots at?' if they look good in a 'fit to frame' format like the size shown here then that is how they will be seen. You'll go mad if you turn down every shot because all or part of it is slightly soft at 100 % or viewing actual pixels.
    i actually think the sharpened one is worse, its quite harsh, it looks like its been HDR'd and as you say it bumps up the contrast.
    I dont think the lens helps you out as far as pixel peeping will be concerned, its not a pro lens but its not priced as such and performs well for what it is. If, like Sheldon suggests, you can post some crops at 100% perhaps it will be easier to see if there are any obvious problems.
    why dont you try focusing on one area for your next shot, get in close to the bike or the bucket by the door, set a low aperture, focus on a nice clear feature and get a shot - the subject should be a lot easier to isolate like this and im pretty sure what you focused in on will be sharp
     
  11. It's a bit hard to tell much from the photo posted, as it's small. A 100% crop would help.
    I assume you 18-55 is the non-IS version. That's one of Canon's least sharp lenses. (The IS version is actually quite good, BTW.)
    With all due respect to Dan, who knows a whole lot more about lenses than I do, diffraction limits are a relative thing. For your particular lens, which is somewhat soft, diffraction doesn't "worsen" the optical quality of the lens until maybe f/16. You'll probably get your best sharpness at f/8 and f/11. If you had the IS version, you'd start noticing the degrading effects of diffraction starting at f/11 or so, with f/5.6 and f/8 being your best apertures (in general). The same is true with your 60/2.8, which is a pretty sharp lens.
    It's hard to debug your problem with the info given. You're going to need to do some well-controlled testing. Try this: Disable in-camera sharpening. Mount up your 60/2.8, with no filters on it. Put the camera on a good tripod. Enable the mirror lockup, and set the camera to the self timer mode. Set aperture to f/8 and exposure mode to Av. Put a ball or other object in your back yard, perhaps 20 ft from the camera, and focus on it. Take a test shot, and post a 100% crop here. This test will rule out camera shake and filters and will test focus accuracy. Also a 100% crop will allow people here to see if the sharpness is all that it can be. That's a start.
     
  12. Wow. Thanks for the great responses, all around.

    Here is the actual RAW file:
    http://tinyurl.com/cxlqgb


    @ G Dan Mitchell:
    Yes, I am shooting in RAW. I did not know that post-process sharpening was so important to be labelled as a 'must'. Why is that? Shouldn't it be naturally capable of sharp images? Post-process sharpning adds a bit of noise and messes with various characteristics of the photograph such as contrast, no?

    I am using Apple Aperture as the RAW processor. The images in the original post were exported as PNGs from Aperture.

    @Rob Bernhard:
    I haven't changed any in-camera sharpening settings from the factory default but I'll look into those. Thanks.

    @Michael Lawson:
    My camera bag stocks the following lenses:
    EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
    EF-S60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
    EF28-90mm f/4-5.6
    EF75-300mm f/4-5.6

    Yes, this happens to me on my 75-300mm, too. I assume you notice the same on yours, then?

    I usually always hand hold unless shooting below 1/30ish or so.

    @Dan Ferrel:
    Just a UV filter. My 60mm macro doesn't have anything on it and I still notice the blur.
     
  13. Regarding diffraction, I'm not necessarily saying that the primary "issue" that the OP sees in these photographs is due to diffraction blur. As I wrote, I did not have all of the information about the images (including access to a 100% magnification crop that would be a bit more definitive) - and that is why I provided a list of potential issues that might be related to the question.
    Regarding diffraction blur and 1.6x cropped sensor cameras, there is no question that image sharpness decreases due to diffraction blur at apertures such as f/11 or f/16 on these cameras. It doesn't matter what lens you use - the most expensive L prime or the kit lens - whatever the resolution qualities of the lens for other reasons, diffraction blur has a negative effect on resolution at these apertures on cropped sensor cameras.
    It is reasonable to ask "how much of an effect" and "is the negative effect balanced by other positive effects of the small aperture" when it comes to a specific photograph. For example if you are shooting a subject with the intention of creating a soft image and you need a longer exposure or larger depth of field, giving up some sharpness to get those things is a reasonable choice. I've made this choice when shooting, for example, long exposures of seascapes in which I wanted a diffuse effect from motion blur by means of a long exposure... and where maximum resolution wasn't important.
    However, in this case, we have a shot of a flat subject that is more or less parallel to the sensor, made at f/11 and ISO 400 and 1/200 second. In just about every way it would make a ton more sense to shoot this at, for example, ISO 200, 1/100 second, and f/5.6. 1/100 should be enough to control camera motion blur with good technique, ISO 200 would provide better noise performance on this camera, and f/5.6 would give sufficient depth of field for the subject and would not negatively affect sharpness through diffraction blur.
    I won't argue with the idea that many people might not notice the difference in a 4 x 6 inch print or in a web image. (I thought this one looked fine on the screen.) But the OP asked specifically about sharpness, and in that light recommending a larger aperture than f/11 on crop is a good recommendation, especially in light of the details of the specific photograph and how it was made.
    Dan
    BTW, if the OP is using the non-IS version of the 18-55 kit lens, it will be limited as to sharpness. IQ is only "OK" with that lens. If the OP is using the newer IS version of the kit lens, it can produce quite decent results if everything is done correctly.
     
  14. Josh, I do notice it on both the kit lenses (18-55mm and the 75-300 both non-IS), but it can be controlled with good technique and a good post processing work flow. I used to shoot mostly hand held, but purchased a monopod last year and it has made a noticeable difference in the quality of my shots and the number of keepers I get. I would certainly consider getting a nice monopod to use for walk around shooting when possible, and a tripod for the macro lens. Here is an article about the sharpening work flow you should consider reading: http://www.pixelgenius.com/tips/schewe-sharpening.pdf . It will explain better than I can why sharpening is a must.
     
  15. Here are a few more that I found:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharp.shtml
    http://www.geofflawrence.com/photoshop_tutorial_sharpening.php
     
  16. Yes, if you are shooting RAW you MUST sharpen your images in post. If you do not do this, they will always look blurry and will never be as sharp as in-camera jpgs - which ARE sharpened in-camera.
    If you are using Photoshop, try the following as a starting point: Without sharpening in ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) during conversion, apply one layer of smart sharpening and one USM (unsharp mask), best as smart layers.
    Smart Sharpen at 150, 1.0 (but think about lowering the second number to taste)
    USM at 12, 50, 1
    Dan
     
  17. [[Regarding diffraction blur and 1.6x cropped sensor cameras, there is no question that image sharpness decreases due to diffraction blur at apertures such as f/11 or f/16 on these cameras]]
    [[and that is why I provided a list of potential issues that]]
    You stated, immediately, that you "would avoid apertures smaller than f/8 on a cropped sensor camera as a general rule." This is a strong statement and one that does many new photographers an extreme disservice, IMHO.
    Discussion of diffraction issues in this context are about as useful as talking about adding the right amount of air to the tires of a car that is missing its engine. Great information, but not helpful in actually getting the car up and running. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is distracting to the point of being a disservice.
     
  18. Rob, you are welcome to your opinion, but I disagree that pointing out that diffraction blur at small apertures is be among a set of issues that could affect sharpness is "an extreme disservice" to new photographers. I did not suggest that it is the only issue, and I went on to discuss several others that could also be important.
    In the context of the OP's broad question and in the context of my overall response, I think my reply was appropriate and relevant.
     
  19. "I would avoid apertures smaller than f/8 on a cropped sensor camera as a general rule - though there could be exceptions in unusual situations. The issue is diffraction blur that sets in as you stop down - and it sets in about two stops sooner on a cropped sensor camera than on a full frame camera."
    this is misleading at the very least, when I shot a 40D I never had problems with diffraction at f11.
    Ross
     
  20. Folks, please do a bit more reading about diffraction blur before you dismiss what I write out of hand - and not just one post that agrees with your current notion.
    I'll leave it at that.
    Dan
     
  21. There is nothing wrong with what Dan said. All he said was that HE would avoid...as a GENERAL rule. And he's right too. What's the big deal?
    The real issue here, is that the OP has no idea that when you shoot raw, the camera doesn't sharpen the image for you. You must do it yourself in post.
     
  22. "I did not know that post-process sharpening was so important to be labelled as a 'must'. Why is that? Shouldn't it be naturally capable of sharp images?"
    There's a thing called an AA filter in front of the sensor which softens the image, requiring you to sharpen in PP it to compensate. If you had something like a medium format back with no AA filter you would get (apparently) a fair bit sharper image right out of the camera
    There's also the issue of what output you're sharpening for - are you sharpening for screen or print? I have found that I have to sharpen more for prints than screen
     
  23. As a relative newbie who only started shooting raw relatively recently, I'll add something to Brandon's comment. Yes, the main issue for the OP is that all digital images need sharpening. Josh, a few extra points may be useful. If you do shoot jpeg, the camera's software does some sharpening (although not a great deal). Josh, the "picture styles" on your XTi tell the camera's software how to process the raw image to get the jpeg, and one difference between them is the amount of sharpening. The second thing you should know is that when you process your raw file in something like DPP or Lightroom, the camera profile you apply, if you do, will also apply some sharpening. It won't be enough. The third thing you need to know is that the amount of sharpening and contrast you will want will depend on your use. You will often want more for a print than on screen, and the greater the distance from the print, the more you want. For example, I was fussing with this one tonight:
    http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/photos/498982942_2Hqfj-X2.jpg
    This is pretty high contrast in the original because of the lighting. When I printed an 8x10 from the image at the URL, it looked pretty drab from 8 feet away. So, I increased the contrast, primarily in the bottom half of the range, and the print looks better, but when I put that version on the web (I have taken it down), it looked like plastic--way overdone.
    Re lenses: I agree with one of the posters that the non-IS kit lens is pretty soft. I rarely use mine anymore. My walk-arounds I use instead are a Tamron 28-70 f2.8 (much heavier, but faster and much sharper), and an EF-S 60mm f 2.8 macro, which is sharp as a tack and does OK as a slightly long prime. The shot at the link above was with the macro lens. If you buy a moderately priced lens and pick carefully based on reviews, you will see a difference.
    Finally, re diffraction: you will never get everyone to agree. It's true that if you open up or close down past a lens's sweet spot, you lose resolution, for different reasons. My experience is that the softness from shooting wide open is really obvious with some lenses (including the kit lens), even without much magnification, but with my lenses, the impact of diffraction from closing the lens down too far is much less. The image at the link above was shot at f 20, and I have others that don't look greatly different that I shot at f 32 (trading off a little less sharpness for a much more noticable increase in depth of field). You be the judge.
     
  24. Hi Josh,
    I'm having the same problem on my xti, I purchased little less than two years ago. It started off with a bang and now no matter what the light, setting, speed etc. I'm getting soft or lousy focus. I use the kit lens and 75-300 f 4-5.6 III. not the best lenses but its what i could afford to start with and i'm not sure if I HAVE to upgrade the camera or the lenses (eventually I will) but for now this is what I got. You actually answered my question because it seems that the lenses may not be the problem maybe its a rebel xti problem. my pop up flash no longer pops up either. its been cleaned and cared for but no flash. so unfortunatley I don't have an answer but can relate and I hope it helps you to know that your not the only one. looks like a trip to the repair shop for me...
     
  25. Ambur, no, using kit lens and 75-300 on a better body (or just higher megapixel one like 500D) is going to make things worse. More magnification, more clearly you see all the defects.
    Put your camera on a tripod and see what you get. Also, if you can borrow a 50/1.8 or similar optically good lens, stop it down to f4 or f5.6 and take the same shots on a tripod and see the difference.
    Josh's problem is not the XTi, he just didn't know you *have to* sharpen RAW files.
     
  26. Ambur.. I had those lenses, the kit lens is atrocious, and the 75-300 is even worse, in my opinion. When I upgraded to the 17-85 and a 70-300 IS, I compared them both the the original lenses and I was just horrified how much better the new lenses were. Of course, then I got a 50mm 1.8 and both my new lenses seemed horrible themselves :)
    Best thing really is I think to invest in some decent lenses. The camera really doesn't matter, it's only recording the light coming in, if the lens is bad there's not much the camera can do about it.
     
  27. Oh, and another thing... If the built in flash doesn't pop up, that could be a good thing - grab a decent flash for it and you might be amazed!
     
  28. Most of these cameras should provide good photos using default (or automatic) settings. I would compare your hand-held technique to that with your camera mounted on a tripod (or monopod) to see if there are any significant changes.
     
  29. Josh A, this is all interesting discussion about diffraction and such (and folks here would do themselves a great service not to dismiss G Dan's sage advice, since he knows Canon lenses backwards and forwards), but nobody has commented on the RAW file you have posted. Unfortunately I'm unable to access it without an account. Perhaps you could do a JPG conversion of the file (no sharpening or manipulation of any sort), crop it down to something that would fit here, and post it in this thread. Honestly, though, a test shot such as I described would tell us far more, as one possible culprit might be AF misalignment. This is all assuming your camera has a problem; I'm not yet convinced of that.
     
  30. Josh I downloaded your RAW file. You should note that jpg files are sharpened in camera in the conversion process, RAW are not. The RAW editor shows the file as it could be. On the pc I am I only have a Canon Digital photo proffessional. When I open your shot it looks good. Sharpness is set to 3 I change this to 10 and the shot looks sharp. I export with 1000 px on the long side and added photoshop unsharp mask 85 / 1 / 4. The picture was and is sharp take a look. You are responsible for sharpening your RAWS and you also set the level in camera for your jpgs this is in the picture styles. Let me know if you agree Regards Carl
    00SsXE-119605584.jpg
     
  31. Josh one other point in the above picture it was flat and hit the following focal points but in other shots you may want to place your focal point more exactly you have the feature of checking the focal points in DPP. Regards Carl
    00SsXi-119607584.jpg
     
  32. I shoot the same camera, in raw. I just recently started shooting in raw. I also did not know that you had to sharpen images in post production. I have photoshop, and my question is what is the best way to do the sharpening?
     
  33. I think an alternative to sharpening images that have been battered by an overly agressive anti-aliasing filter is to reduce the image in size using "Bicubic Sharper" to resample. I would also stick with the Photoshop default size steps such as 66.7%, 50%, 25%, etc. because the resizing math works better.
    The AA filter removes detail that cannot be recovered. Detail can be faked with a bit of sharpening, but it's still fake data. A reduction to %25 with "bicubic sharper" will be sharp and contain only real detail. It will look more natural when pixel peeping.
    Obviously, sharpening is useful when you want to keep the same number of pixels, but if the detail isn't there, why would you?
     
  34. Just for the record, anyone who is thinking of upgrading to another camera because their (XT, XTi, XSi) is "not sharp" should look carefully at all of the other factors that can affect perceived sharpness first. These cameras are just as capable as their more expensive X0D models of producing sharp photographs.
    My first DSLR was a XT. When I shot that camera from the tripod using good lenses and good technique and MLU and a remote release I was confident about the potential for printing at up to about 16 x 24 size. The same would have been true with the 20D/30D bodies.
    If you go back through this thread you'll see a number of factors mentioned that really can have an effect on the potential sharpness of your photographs:
    • camera stability - including very careful hand held shooting technique, tripod, mlu, remote release, appropriate use if image stabilization, etc.
    • careful focus - care to get the autofocus point on a central element of your composition.
    • the choice of lens - though recognize that in many cases an inexpensive lens used right can produce excellent results; in fact, it can produce better results than a very expensive lens that is not used intelligently.
    • choice of aperture - related to depth of field for your particular subject, avoidance of the largest apertures or smaller apertures unless the potential loss in sharpness is not as important in the particular shot as are other aspects such as DOF or dealing with low light. In these cases, be aware of the nature of the trade-offs.
    • if you shoot jpg, experiment with in-camera sharpening and other settings to understand how they affect your image
    • for greatest IQ potential (and not just in terms of sharpness) consider shooting RAW, but...
    • ... recognize that RAW files will look worse that in-camera jpg images if you don't post-process them, but...
    • ... once you learn how to work with RAW files you have far more control over the ultimate quality of your print if that is what you want.
    • perceived sharpness is not just the result of resolution - a whole range of issues can affect it including: separation of subject and background with narrow DOF, color and luminosity contrasts, how you use lighting on your subject, where you place the subject in the frame, etc.
    Dan
     
  35. If you must hand hold, Try 300mm at 1/500 and everything else at 1/250 and see what happens.
     
  36. Can any explain the best way to post process raw images?
     
  37. Can any explain the best way to post process raw images?​
    The best way is with RAW converter software. Doing it manually is really hard. :)
    Sorry.. That is a very big subject that has filled many books. In fact, I'd say a good place to start is with "Real World Camera RAW with Adobe Photoshop [x]" It's a good book that covers the fundamentals.
     
  38. If you think you could be slightly out of focus, do some focus testing with each of your lenses and get an idea of whether they front focus or back focus on your body. Then keep track of which one does what so you can compensate or get them adjusted. The xti's focusing is also often inconsistent, so sharp focus may be an issue. I have seen some reasonably sharp kit lenses, so QC may be lax due to low profit margins.
     
  39. Everything looks sharp to me.

    I'd say its all about the angle of the light in this photo that is making things appear soft. Try shooting from a different position.
     
  40. Ed- Ive been using Photoshops raw converter. Is that a good raw converter software?
     
  41. The best way to postproces is personal...
    Personally I will generally:
    Use Canon Digital Photo Professional. (This works great for postprocessing "unmanipulated" images but has severely limited "photoshop" capability.)
    0. Use my default settings for picture style (faithfull, contrast 0, color tone 0, saturation +2, sharpness 5) and Automatic White Balance.
    1. Start by cropping / trimming until I have the desired composition.
    2. Then play with brightness and saturation until I have the desired look.
    3. If I cannot get the results I want only then I start playing with White Balance (most often just Cloudy) and when that doesn't help I'll play with contrast.
    4. I save the result in my desired format. (Most of the time that's a JPG with exif information and the longest side is scaled to 1024 pixels for posting on Photo.Net.)
    Hope this helps, if not you might want to start another post on this subject...
    Matthijs.
     
  42. Brooke, Photoshop's RAW converter (Also known as Adobe Camera Raw or ACR) is a good RAW converter. I will second Ed's recommendation of the book "Real World Camera RAW with Adobe Photoshop [x]". If your not one for learning from books, explore the websites I listed earlier in this thread. They have good tutorials for all different aspects of processing images. If you have other questions you may want to start another thread, we are kind of hi-jacking Josh's now.
     
  43. ACR is a fine RAW converter.
    In the end you can do fine RAW conversions with just about any RAW converter once you understand its ins and outs. ACR has some good features if you go to Photoshop with your converted files. One of the attractions for me is that I can bring the converted file (without going through the intermediate tiff file stage) as a smart object in its own Photoshop layer. If I decide that a slighlty different set of RAW conversion values might have been better than my initial choices, I double-click on the layer in Photoshop to reopen the original RAW file in ACR, make my changes, and they are immediately reflected in PS.
    Dan
     
  44. Regarding diffraction and other lens effects, here's an experiment that you can do that will tell you more than any of us can. (I'm a little surprised that no one has suggested this.) Find a subject with lots of detail at a medium distance. Set the camera to its lowest ISO speed, and aperture priority. Use a tripod and cable release. Focus carefully. Use Manual focus, so it doesn't change between exposures. Now, make a series of exposures at f2.8, f4, f5.6, etc., all the way to your smallest opening. Be meticulous, don't bump the camera, and don't shoot in a place where auto and truck traffic makes the ground shake. Might be helpful to do the whole sequence 3 or 4 times, re-focusing in between.
    Now, pixel-peek the resulting images, comparing sharpness in the center and edges. When you're done, you'll know everything there is to know about the effects of different apertures on YOUR lens and YOUR camera. Be aware that the results may differ at different focusing distances, and probably will differ at different zoom settings.
     
  45. - Use ISO 100. Setting it higher will result in more noise.
    - Use the highest image quality for saving files. Many people set their cameras to low quality to pack tons of images onto their card.
    - Be sure you are not focusing on the blackness in the door, but on the hard edges that the camera can focus on.
    - Be sure that your shutter speed is higher than the reciprocal of your focal length. In this case, 1/200th for a 55mm lens should be fine. If you are a "shakey" person you might want to be sure that your shutter speed is always quite a bit faster than the focal length.
    - If you are shooting landscapes... try using a tripod. They do make a difference in image sharpness.
    Anyway, G Dan covered most of these points.
     
  46. Regarding diffraction and other lens effects, here's an experiment that you can do that will tell you more than any of us can. (I'm a little surprised that no one has suggested this.) Find a subject with lots of detail at a medium distance. Set the camera to its lowest ISO speed, and aperture priority. Use a tripod and cable release. Focus carefully. Use Manual focus, so it doesn't change between exposures. Now, make a series of exposures at f2.8, f4, f5.6, etc., all the way to your smallest opening. Be meticulous, don't bump the camera, and don't shoot in a place where auto and truck traffic makes the ground shake. Might be helpful to do the whole sequence 3 or 4 times, re-focusing in between.​
    Someone has . :)
    (With full frame, but I think it still may be instructive.)
    Dan
     
  47. oh I guess I missed that he was shooting in RAW either way I do notice a difference in my camera. maybe its not always the operator...just maybe. I completely agree with you chris n. better equipment better results.
     
  48. You can also go for the micro adjustment of your lens using the AF microadjustment option in XT1. there may be an alleged back or front focusing error in your lens. Check it out using an AF micro adjustment chart on your monitor.
     
  49. Hi Josh. Did you figure out why you are getting blurry pictures. I am having the same problem with my Rebel. I am using a fast shutter and tripod, but still 80% of my photo's come out blurry?
     

Share This Page