never quite "tack" sharp... any ideas?

[dan_south]

How does the focus perform when you mount the camera on a tripod and focus on something stationary, preferably a

flat surface with enough contrast for the AF to latch onto? VR should be off for all tripod work.

[eric_arnold]

<p>it's really the lens, to tell you the truth.</p>

<p>i have a 70-300 tamron VC lens. here's a shot at 300mm, f/7.1, and 1/60 <em>handheld</em> with VC on.</p>

<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>...and the crop:</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>When you use a 11x super zoom, even a better one such as Nikon's own 28-300mm AF-S VR, <strong>you are in no position to discuss sharpness</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that is certainly blunt.</p>

<p> </p>

[accystan]

<p>Hi Antonio:<br>

I'm not familiar with the D300 nor have I carefully read all the previous op's but have you tried to fine tune your auto-focus? If you look under "Auto-focus, fine tune" in the index of the manual I think it will tell you if it's possible and if so - how.<br>

'pologies if this has already been covered.<br>

Good luck, Dave D</p>

[dan_south]

Fine tuning might help, but more fundamental issues should be eliminated first. If the problem is shake or poor

technique, fine tuning could actually make the results worse.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Fine tuning might help</p>

</blockquote>

<p>fine-tuning is probably not the answer. for one thing, it really only works with prime lenses, because it "tunes" the focus at a particular focal length. with an 11x zoom, this would essentially be meaningless. you could tune it to 28mm, 300mm or any one focal length in-between, but at the risk of detuning its focus at other focal lengths, which would make it worse optically throughout the zoom range. also, fine tuning can't really be of much help with a lens which is not that sharp to begin with, because it's not an AF problem, it's a feature of lens design: when you make an 11x zoom, it is impossible to do so without compromising sharpness. In addition to the above caveats, AF fine tune is really intended to calibrate pre-digital nikkors with Nikon DSLRs. it may not work as well if at all with lenses from 3rd-party manufacturers. and, it involves extensive testing. this would be exhaustive with an 11x zoom, even if one were to somehow arrive at the mean of AF fine tune setting, focal length, aperture, and distance from subject at which AF acuity is improved, on the off chance that it actually exists with said lens. so i would say, no, fine tuning a superzoom would not suddenly make it sharp and contrasty.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have a Texas friend with a large hand that KNOWS he's "mashing on the whole thing" when he shoots ... he's pushing the ISO and shutter speed up to compensate ... and doing finger exercises when he can. Where is a Nikon "Soft Release" when it is needed?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>looking at those images again, i'm wondering if the OP is using the AF-On button on the d300. decoupling focus acquisition from shutter release is an effective technique for shooting on the fly. The OP is lucky in this regard to have a d300, since that button on that camera is well-positioned to be effective. once you get comfortable with this technique, it becomes a no-brainer and can result in increased sharpness. of course, for a posed or seated portrait when there is more time to set up the shot, AF is not always needed, and learning how to MF properly can also produce more effective results. still, while technique is one thing, that superzoom is going to continue to be a limiting factor in critical sharpness which is going to prevent the OP from getting the most out of the d300's capabilities. so, i wouldn't use that for anything but snapshots and grab shots, and even then, i would stop it down to at least f/8 to try to eke max sharpness/contrast out of it.</p>

<p>in the meantime, i'm going to suggest for portrait work a 50mm such as the new 1.8 G AF-S, or even better, a tamron 28-75/2.8, which on a DX body will be a 42-112.5 lens, covering a wide swath of the portrait range. with either lens, there is no need to stop down to f/8 to try to maintain IQ; both can be used wide open or, even better, two clicks down (2.8 for the 50; f/4 for the 28-75) with effective results. also, being shorter lenses, camera shake--which is caused by lens vibration from the barrel extension-- is less of a problem. if you need to shoot at focal lengths longer than 75mm, as you can see from my above example, the tamron 70-300 VC is sharp even at 300mm handheld with shutter speeds under 1/100 (with VC enabled). and good handholding technique.</p>

 



<p> </p>

[lornesunley]

<p>You really should be able to get something approaching this. Focus point set on the eye using autofocus. This was taken hand-held with an old 80-200 push-pull zoom set to 110mm at f/2.8 and using flash. I used my D700 but I can get equivalent sharp focus with my D200 as well.</p>

<p>This is a 100% crop from the full image</p><div></div>

[antoniogphoto]

<p>Thank you for all the replies.<br>

For still life shots I do use a tripod, though for outdoor portraits in which I desire spontaneity, and ease of movement of both the model and myself I find tripods cumbersome... Has anyone here had success doing things like outdoor high school graduation portraits with a tripod? Maybe I'm just doing it wrong or need a lot more practice with my tripod...</p>

<p>I used to manually focus all the time with my old Nikon F, because of course that's all it had... I'll try some manually focused shots with the D300s and see what happens.</p>

<p>I wasn't zooming all the way to 300mm, I always try to stay between 70 and 105mm as a general rule for portraits. The 1st image was taken at 110mm. The reason I bought the 28-300mm zoom is because my photography interests vary quite a bit, from macro photography of insects and flowers to bird photography to portraits... since I am not loaded with money I only had enough to buy the camera I wanted and what I thought was a decent lens that would generally cover all my photography interests. I used only prime lenses with my Nikon F, but that was because I inherited it from my father and so I basically received everything for free, but when I moved to mostly digital I had to buy it all myself and could not afford multiple prime lenses for my various photographic interests.</p>

<p>it appears I have problems with motion blur due to slow shutter speed and / or hand shake from not using a tripod... that tied in with lousy light, it all looks pretty poor...</p>

<p>Perhaps I should have spent the money I had on a lens with out the VC, and put the money towards a more simple / traditional lens with better optics instead of being impressed with the fancy new electronics used to stabilize the lens...</p>

<p>Thanks too for the info on which lenses would yield sharper images... I have pondered getting a 50mm 1.8 lens (had a 50mm 1.4 with my Nikon F), but I always hear that 80mm or 105mm are the "best" focal lengths for portraits... always wanted the Nikkor AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED lens... but never could afford it and the camera at the same time.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>lorne, great shot, but an 80-200 is a much better lens than a 28-300.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps I should have spent the money I had on a lens with out the VC, and put the money towards a more simple / traditional lens with better optics instead of being impressed with the fancy new electronics used to stabilize the lens...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be honest, better a somewhat cheaper body (D90 for example) and free up more money for lenses. But, OK, you got the body and the lenses now. So, making the best of them is the trick here and this thread gave plenty good advice already.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>but I always hear that 80mm or 105mm are the "best" focal lengths for portraits</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do not forget that the angle of view for a lens changes because the D300s has a smaller sensor (DX format). So, yes, where most people will claim the 85 and 105 as classic portrait lengths on 35mm film, for the D300s this means a 58 or 70 mm lens instead. 105 is a bit long for most.</p>

<p>I think with the lenses you have now, you have a lot of information on which focal lengths really matter to you (study the EXIF data of your own photos, rather than follow generic rules of thumb which may not reflect <em>your</em> photography). Look up for yourself what matters to you, and then start looking for the best lenses in your budget to do that task. Getting a 50mm f/1.8 only makes sense if you actually like using the 50mm length, for example.<br />If you still have the Nikon F and its lenses, you could also consider having the lenses converted to Ai, which would make them perfectly usable on the D300.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The reason I bought the 28-300mm zoom is because my photography interests vary quite a bit, from macro photography of insects and flowers to bird photography to portraits...<br>

Perhaps I should have spent the money I had on a lens with out the VC, and put the money towards a more simple / traditional lens with better optics instead of being impressed with the fancy new electronics used to stabilize the lens...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the simple answer here is that there is truly no one-lens solution for someone with a lot of different photographic interests, and a superzoom ends up being a compromise across the board. Also, that VC isn't a cure-all for a slow AF speed or subject movement, or lack of sharpness/contrast.</p>

<p>Learning how to get the most out of your 28-300 and improving technique will help, but still doesn't solve the basic problem, that an 11x zoom isn't up to the critical demands you are placing on it. sometimes it literally takes years to build a good kit which allows one to pursue all those interests. you might just have to concentrate on one area of interest at a time.</p>

<p>if you're on a budget, used lenses are a good way to build up an arsenal. the 28-75 goes for as little as $300 used. a 50/1.8 new is even less expensive as Wouter pointed out, but you might feel constrained by the focal length which isn't quite in the portrait 'sweet spot.' you could also consider the venerable 28-105 3.5-4.5, which does 1:2 macro, and can be found used in the $250-$300 range.</p>

 

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>The first one is obvious motion blur. EXIF confirms that - 110 mm focal length (165 eq.) with 1/100 s shutter speed = blur.</p>

<p>The second one seems to be just soft. Soft lens (at f/5.6 it's probably wide open), shade, maybe backlight, low contrast, maybe low sharpening.</p>

<p>So, with these lenses, do a) use a smaller aperture (f/8 or f/11), faster shutter speed (say, 1/500), work with light to not have the subject in shade against backlight, use some sharpening and don't expect too much from these lenses. Next step, get better lenses, like the 50/1.8.</p>

[sam_hunt]

<p> "<em>....AF fine tune is really intended to calibrate pre-digital nikkors with Nikon DSLRs."</em><br>

I think it's intended to save Nikon money by the owner correcting the AF accuracy of lenses, or in some cases camera bodies, that are misfocusing, instead of having it done under warranty. Of course you pay for the AF fine tune feature in the cost of the camera that has it.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>sam, i think you're missing the point. AF fine tune doesnt work well with zooms. and many legacy lenses which actually need it--the AI-S primes from the past three decades--are far out of their warranty period. to some, that would be an obvious point.</p>

[p_watson]

<p>motion blur in first , up shuuter speed.<br />possibly some motion blur in second, but also focus issue.<br />Up ISO and shutter speed, improve handheld technique and make sure there is enough contrast on what you are focussing-good lighting is the key, bright but diffused light or near a window,. try and research and read up on the caharcteristics of that lens. you might find it is a bit sharper at a certain f stop at differing focal lengths. perhaps 1 or 2 stops down, experiment.<br>

in good light experiment at range of shutter speeds to see how that affects your image first. is ther emuch difference between differing pics at same shutter speed--ie how variable is your technique. Find shutter speed that you can use reliably at certain focal lenths, that you know produce acceptable results. Obviously lens matters a lot too </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sam, it's not just a matter ofsaving money. It's accepting that due to production tolerances some focus inaccuracies can occur (on old and new lenses) and giving customers an easy and convenient way to deal with it and get the best results out of their gear. Unlike what you seem to imply, the backfocus stories are typically not due to only the body or only the lens, but the exact synergy between those 2. A lens that backfocuses on one body may frontfocus on the other.<br>

Eric, AiS primes do not really need the calibration, since they're manual focus ;-)</p>

[pat_warner]

<p>Also with problems focusing with D300s; the live view and view finder. Now with Nikon's dear (read$) 1/2x viewfinder, a fine telescope it is; I can see (at last) for manual focus!<br>

<a href="http://patwarner.com/images/tenons.jpg">Tho not perfect</a>, focus was not a problem.</p>

[andy_chubb]

<p>Hi,<br>

I usually find that all my problems (especially focus) are 99.9% down to the nut just behind the viewfinder<br>

andyc</p>