Nikon 17-55mm Camera Shake?

[chris_keyworth]

<p >I have had a problem with my D200 where it did not focus, it has happened twice to me and once to my brother in law when I loaned him the camera. The first time I was on holiday in France, I was a bit annoyed to say the least and I eventually took the battery out to clear the problem. The other two times switching the camera off and on was sufficient. I am not sure my problem was the same as yours I was using a Sigma lens, my brother in law a Nikon lens. I am not offering a solution just saying for what it is worth I have had a similar problem and it might be a camera fault.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Dear Nicholas.<br>

You said; . . . . <br>

"D90 and 17-55, most of the time at 2.8. I was photographing entire rooms, so I know that everything wouldn't be in focus"</p>

<p>-You totally wrong! You learned something in a wrong way. If you shoot with lens full open, like 2.8, you going to have a very shallow dpf. To get a lots of depth of field, you has to close down your lens to f16 at list. Highly recommended, to pick up a book of basic photography to learn.</p>

[scott_pogorelc]

<p>Just out of curiosity, what was your focus area selection? Based on the posted sample, it doesnt look at all like camera shake, at least not to me. I might suggest that as a test, set your autofocus to single point focusing (make sure to center the focus point in the view finder), and aim for a high contrast region such as the near eye or tear duct.</p>

<p> </p>

[jrichardson]

<p>Bela, I was the one who said that, not Nicholas. I believe you misread my statement. Wide open, I know that things will be out of focus. I am fairly new to this, so maybe I am the one who is misunderstanding you. But I know that a big aperture gives a shallow DOF.</p>

<p>I have been shooting with single point focusing centered.</p>

[nick herbert]

<p>Bela,<br>

Highly recommended, to read the forum posts correctly to learn exactly who has said what.<br>

Jason, I shall try some shots with a tripod to see if it makes a difference. I will also try some similar shots using the lens on my D70 to see if that makes a difference. I'll let you know the outcome of both experiments.<br>

Because I have also obtained seriously sharp images with this lens, I still believe the blur has to be caused by shutter speed/camera shake.</p>

 

[walterh]

<p>If I remember correctly Nikon software NX2 allows you to see the selected focus point when loading the image for post processing. In case you have no licenced copy you can try an evaluation copy for I believe 30 days.<br>

Your image appears to me quite out of focus. Looking at the selected focus point can give you a useful hint.</p>

<p>For testing you could use a flash then out of focus would still be there but camera shake would be absent. Don't burn the eyes of the baby use ISO 800 .-)</p>

[zack_lau]

<p>View NX will also indicate the focus point.</p>

[walterh]

<p>100% crop of an event-portrait using flash. This lens is brutally sharp and AF is fine .-)</p>

[walterh]

<p>Cannot exchange the image on edit. Was wrong color space. Should be ok now.</p><div></div>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Jason. <br>

 

 

<p>Hopssss..! Sorry! I made a mistake, mixing up persons statement. </p>

<p>But! "D90 and 17-55, most of the time at 2.8. I was photographing entire rooms, so I know that everything wouldn't be in focus" </p>

<p> This statement clearly indicating, you shooting full open, witch is 2.8 according the above. Closing down the lens, to smaller aperture, f4 f8 f16 f22 give you more df, when you need it. Bigger the number, smaller the aperture opening. Full open, with a lens f2.8 is a totally open lens, and let the most light go trough. But you has a shallow df.</p>

 

</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>VR lenses require a settling time before the image is stabilized if the gyros detect motion when the shutter-release is half-pressed. I am wondering if the unsharp shots are because you are not waiting about a second or so at the half-pressed shutter before clicking all the way through? Just a guess.</p>

<p>You might try some shots with VR off and shutter speed set to faster than 1/focal-length. The 1/focal-length speed is a guideline only and varies person-to-person, but is a good point to start.</p>

[jrichardson]

<p>The lens in question does not have VR.</p>

<p>Walter, I don't think I've ever gotten an image that sharp with mine.</p>

[billsymmons]

<p>I have had this happen to me a few times with the D200. Each time I found it to be that I had knocked the lever just beside the lens mount from AF-S to AF-C and when I recomposed after focussing the AF-C setting started hunting for focus and my pictures came out blurred. Because of the shape of the 17-55 lens this happened to me mostly with this lens on. If the battery attachement is on this moves the lens support hand to a different position and I didn't have it happen then.<br>

This could be the problem you are experiencing.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

[robert_delaurentis1]

<p>Jason,</p>

<p>A 100% crop is what Walter posted - a slice of the image that's at 100%, not 100% of the frame.</p>

<p>Your lovely child appears to have been photographed in somewhat low light - that might be a hint. Note how much more light was used in Walter's image. That doesn't mean you have to add more light, but lower light situations are harder for the autofocus sensor to respond to. The direction and diffusion of the light between yours and Walter's is also very different. Your scene might not have enough contrast between light and dark areas for the autofocus sensor to lock on as rapidly as if it were brighter.</p>

<p>Perhaps, as an experiment, you could try outside in open shade, or even a wall in bright sunlight, to push the image quality to a higher level so you can get a handle on what is possible. There have been many good responses to this thread, and each of them brings up something different and worth exploring. But overall, I suspect its a combination of a slow shutter speed and subject movement.</p>

<p>Until I got some practice reading natural light levels, there were a lot of situations where my eyes thought it was bright, but to the camera, the scene was decidedly low light.</p>

<p>Focus Priority is a setting in the menu system that instructs the camera on what to do if the subject is not in focus. When set to Release, the shutter will fire when the shutter is pressed no matter what, when set to Focus, it will only fire when focus is achieved, and Release + Focus is a compromise where it tries its best but will trip the shutter. An interesting experiment would be to try Focus, meaning you'll get instant feedback on if the camera thinks the subject is in focus. Generally its a good idea to leave it on Release + Focus. Depending on the camera features, there are independent choices for Focus Priority in each focus mode, such as AF-S and AF-C.</p>

<p>b</p>

[mike_metcalfe1]

<p>Your pic is out of focus. Plain and simple. What focus mode are you using? i.e. did you put a focus point on the cheek of the infant? Contrast detection focus methods require a difference in contrast to properly align focus. A cheek, well, lacks that. I'd think for razor sharp you would need to put a focus point on a boundry between say the cheek and eye... Also, if your vision was 20/40 when you were last checked, how long ago was that, how old are you, have you dialed in any diopter correction in the viewfinder? I had a problem where my vision had changed and I did not realize it. My d200 is pretty good at saving me and delivering a sharp pic most of the time, but I noticed that sometimes when I was trying to make critical focus decisions that I was missing the correct focus.. At the time my corrected vision was 20/30. <br>

2cents. </p>

[mike_metcalfe1]

<p>Your pic is out of focus. Plain and simple. What focus mode are you using? i.e. did you put a focus point on the cheek of the infant? Contrast detection focus methods require a difference in contrast to properly align focus. A cheek, well, lacks that. I'd think for razor sharp you would need to put a focus point on a boundry between say the cheek and eye... Also, if your vision was 20/40 when you were last checked, how long ago was that, how old are you, have you dialed in any diopter correction in the viewfinder? I had a problem where my vision had changed and I did not realize it. My d200 is pretty good at saving me and delivering a sharp pic most of the time, but I noticed that sometimes when I was trying to make critical focus decisions that I was missing the correct focus.. At the time my corrected vision was 20/30. <br>

2cents. </p>

[kemalriza]

<p>Nicholas,<br /> Just another idea... Do you use filter such as UV, Skylight or polarizing on your lens while taking pictures. Sometimes, cheaper or - I say- bad filters could cause taking blurry or out off focus photos. I had a similar experience with a 70-300 mm VR with UV on a D100 and 16-85 mm VR with polarizing on a D300.<br /> So, I advice you, if you are using filters, to take some pictures without filters and see the result.<br /> Best Regards.</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5057886">Jason Richardson</a> , May 15, 2009; 09:35 p.m.<br>

The lens in question does not have VR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, my mistake, for some reason I always thought 17-55 had VR.</p>

[ant_nio_ferreira]

<p> I think it is mirror or focusing screen misalignment. The defect is more pronounced when using wide angles (depth of focus is shallower) Take out the focusing screen and put it again very carefully. If the defect remains you've got to send the camera to a camera repair shop to realign the mirror. I hope this works.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nikon's AF modules are placed at the bottom of the mirror box under the mirror. Behind the mirror, there is a secondary mirror that bounces part of the light down to the AF module. Unless you focus manually, the focusing screen is not part of the AF mechanism and has absolutely nothing to do with any AF issues.</p>

[dansutton]

<p>further, the OPs camera does not have a removable focusing screen</p>

[andy_n111]

<p>I think this problem, pictures taken turning out to be out of focus (OOF) with the 17-55, that is simply because the lens just did not focus. The lens is quite heavy and disproportionately weight more at the tip. Probably the lens contact got loosened and were not in exact contact position with the contact points on the camera's lens mount. So the lens simply did not focus.<br /> I got this problem happened on my Fuji S3 Pro couple of time. When it happened, I pressed the shutter button and the lens did not move to AF. (If you are hurry taking pictures, you might not notice that the lens did not AF). The pic taken would be OOF, of course.<br /> My solution is to turn the lens to "dismount" it just a little, and then turn it back in, and the lens' AF would work again. <br /> I always thought this problem only an isolated incident that only happened on my Fuji, maybe the lens mount on the Fuji was "weakened". Now I think that the reason that the lens is tip-heavy, and this sometimes drives the lens contact loose. So now if I hold the camera with the 17-55 on it, I would hold the lens and not the camera body. I guess if you hold the camera body, you might swing the lens loose again.<br /> It is not the lens shake, for sure!!! even though you have to be careful with your technique to hold the camera still (the lens is really tip heavy, and you feel it more with smaller camera body :)</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>Looking to the photo you had posted, I think you have problem with camera or lenses, I don't see any blur on photo, it is out of focus. Try to take picture with 1/500 or 1/1000 shutter speed, you can not have motion blur with such short speed, that will eliminate your concerns about motion blur.<br>

Take your lens to nearest camera store and ask them to make few shots on different camera body,<br>

they should have at list one demo on display. <br>

Then you will know what is not working, lens or camera.<br>

Good luck.</p>

 

[jrichardson]

<p>So I guess there is no concensus as to the what the problem is. Some say out of focus, some say shutter speed is too slow (camera shake), some say camera and/or lens is broken, some are asking questions that have already been answered, so if I answered them again, I'm not sure anyone would notice.</p>

<p>People mention that the light was probably too low. Isn't that one of the selling points of getting a pro-level 2.8 aperture lens? The low-light performance? I had the sun shining almost directly in the window at 5pm. The auto-focus snapped into place instantly on all my pictures. No hunting involved like a very low-light picture would include.</p>

<p>The point to me is this: I have a great camera and a professional level lens that takes blurry and soft pictures more than half the time I use it. My ~6 year-old Canon G3 point-and-shoot takes far fewer blurry pictures than the D90/17-55 combo. I guess I'll have to either learn to live with it, or sent the camera and lens to Nikon to see if there is a problem. Thanks for all the suggestions.</p>

 

[walterh]

<p>Jason if the camera and lens are working properly you can expect results similar to what I posted above.</p>

<p>Several suggestions have been posted how to attack the problem.<br>

Here is a simple test that can be done in 10 minutes.</p>

<p>1) Place a large book (with a cover showing good contrast letters and graphics) on a table illuminated by a lamp at about 45 degrees.<br>

2) take an image of the book cover and use the flash.<br>

set the operating mode to manual<br>

use 200 ISO<br>

use 1/250 s and f8.0<br>

step back about 1 meter (3 feet).<br>

focus on large letters with good contrast<br>

set the active AF indicator in the center<br>

focus using AF<br>

shoot<br>

3) transfer to the PC and look, prepare a 100% crop image for posting<br>

You should get an image with excellent focus.</p>

<p>4) Come back and report .-)<br>

This can be worked out to the point to solve the problem or to send the gear to Nikon with the confidence that something is broken.<br>

Take it easy - it will all work out .-)</p>

<p> </p>