Why is this photo not sharper?

[greg_janee]

<p>This unretouched photo was taken with a Nikon D7000, 16-85mm lens @85mm, f/5.6, 1/160s, ISO 100, handheld, all auto focusing (AF-A, etc.), saved as RAW.<br>

I'm having trouble understanding why the photo is not sharper. A camera/lens problem? A handholding error? Subject movement? Unreasonable expectations on my part?<br>

The photo metadata shows a scattering of focus points that the camera thought were in focus: the tree bark immediately to the left of the face; the tip of the microphone; the fingers on the microphone; the collar on the shirt; the logo on the shirt; and others. There was no focus point on the face itself. However, this was taken from approximately 30 feet away, and my handy DOF calculator says the depth of field should be over 8ft, i.e., if supposedly the bark and fingers and T-shirt are all in focus, shouldn't the face be in focus, too?<br>

Overall, I feel like I got better photos out of my previous D40. I'm willing to accept that photos like this are errors on my part, I just don't know. Thanks in advance.</p><div></div>

[greg_janee]

<p>And here's a closeup of the face.</p><div></div>

[michaelging]

<p>There is some subject movement in the speakers hand, so that would be part of the problem. Do you sharpen in PS? it also looks like you might be a little back focused on the tree. DOF is only apparent sharpness, which is not the same as being focused on a single point. I suspect there may be some camera movement as well. I would shoot with a little higher ASA and up the shutter speed a little. I hope this helps. </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>first reaction is that the ultimate focus point is not his face, it's on the tree behind him. Nikon cameras can't focus on multiple subjects in different planes at the same time - just not possible yet. So the camera is guess what the subject of the photo is. In this case - it guessed wrong. </p>

<p>At 85 mm 1/160 should not be a problem hand held, nor should subject movement come into play. </p>

<p>The 16-85 is a nice lens, but I believe it is a notch below the "pro" grade. I don't have it - so can't attest to it's performance or lack thereof. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[john_tran14]

<p>I agree with David, the focus is on the tree.</p>

<p>And the tree is actually far from the man (there is a woman in between). 9m is the distance to the subject which is the tree.</p>

<p>The lighting and movement of the man add to the blurring</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>not only is there subject motion--try a 1/250 shutter or faster--and back-focusing on the static background subject--the tree-but 85mm at 5.6 with a 16-85 is wide open. so even had you nailed the focus, you would have needed to stop down for optimal sharpness. in this case, since you have some distance between the tree and the speaker, 5.6 was not sufficient DoF to keep everything in focus. </p>

<p>your biggest mistake, IMO, was letting the camera choose the focus point. it guessed wrong, and here we are. if you look at the photo, the mic, the fingers and the face are all not as sharp as the tree in the background. the camera could have been confused by the lack of contrast between the tree and the man's facial stubble, and, faced with a choice between a moving target and a non-moving target, chose the static subject. not only should you have manually selected the focus point, trying to 'catch an edge' on either the mic or the man's glasses, but AF-C might have helped with a moving subject (AF-A is a 'tweener' auto mode which allows the camera to pick between AF-S and AF-C). also, if you need a faster shutter or narrower aperture, dont hesitate to raise the ISO above base.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Overall, I feel like I got better photos out of my previous D40.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the d40 was a much less-advanced camera and required less control on the part of the user. the d7000 has a more sophisticated AF and metering system which can produce more superlative results if you know what you're doing. if i were you, i'd go back and read the manual and practice until you are familiar with all of the camera's functions.</p>

[2Oceans]

<p>Greg, I have this same lens. Its plenty sharp at f 5.6 especially in the center. Even with the VR turned on there can be camera motion in a percentage of shots when hand holding. I did not see any area in the image that was convincingly sharp to indicate a focal point though the wrong focal point such as the tree remains a strong possibility. I would use the AF L button to achieve focus lock on the face recompose and take the image again. I also agree with the idea to increase the ISO and shoot with a higher shutter speed. Your D7000 easily can handle two stops higher ISO. Good hunting. Andy</p>

[craigd]

<p>Eric:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but 85mm at 5.6 with a 16-85 is wide open. so even had you nailed the focus, you would have needed to stop down for optimal sharpness.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not in this case. Published tests show minimal difference between f/5.6, f/8, and f/11 at 85mm with the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S. Check out the interactive charts in the review of this lens at slrgear.com. The corners are a little sharper if you stop down a bit, but the center doesn't change significantly. The biggest improvement you get from stopping down to f/8 in this situation is reduced vignetting, though as Greg's picture shows, vignetting isn't bad even at f/5.6.<br>

<br /><br>

This idea that you have to stop down a little to get the best out of a lens is one of those conventional wisdom things that is valid in some cases (mostly with faster lenses) and not in others.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>I agree with Eric about why you got better results from your D40. The higher-end gear only produces better results if you know what to do with it. This is true with any hobby or activity. Anyone can drive around a racetrack in a Toyota Camry, but if I gave you a purpose-built Viper, chances are that your performance times would significantly decrease, and that's if you didn't spin out or send yourself into a wall. Anyone can jump on a Huffy or a Schwinn and ride around the block, but if I gave you Lance Armstrong's custom Trek, you'd be falling over before you were able to get any speed on it.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>This idea that you have to stop down a little to get the best out of a lens is one of those conventional wisdom things that is valid in some cases (mostly with faster lenses) and not in others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you're right,i was totally going off of conventional wisdom. thanks for the correction.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I don't think it is focused on the tree either. The person behind the subject appears to be in focus. If you have a subject in the centre, use the centre point. Like everything else in a camera AF is only a tool.</p>

[greg_janee]

<p>Thanks, all, for the input. I haven't mastered the D7000's focus controls yet, and it shows. And the focus being on the bark is a reasonable explanation.<br>

What remains unexplained (to me) is that the camera reported multiple focus points on the subject's body as well as on the bark. If all the lit focus points were on the bark, I would have known that the focus was off, but in this case the camera fooled me into thinking that the focus was where I wanted it when in fact it wasn't.</p>

[johne37179]

Have you calibrated your D7000 focus for each of your lenses? The 7000 enables specific focusing for each lens you

own. It then stores that. I found with my D7000 that only one of my lenses was spot on. There have been several orum

discussions here on the process. It is worth doing. You may be front focusing with this lens. When I did it, it took about 90

minutes to calibrate the focus to each particular lens.

[elliot1]

<p>I don't have the 16-85mm but have yet to find a lens that doesn't improve somewhat when stopped down around two stops. I am not saying this is the only issue here, but using this lens at f8 is probably a good idea in addition to the suggestions already made.</p>

<p>Because the AF system can be fooled and or give false indication, using a single point helps insure that the camera will focus where you want it to.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I use a Pentax K-x DSLR with a number of manual focus K mount lenses. The focus confirmation is very helpful and the IS is built into the body so it is working too. In a situation like this where your exposure seems fine, you camera should be capable of very good results at ISO settings of 400 or 800. Even though 85 is at the long end of your zoom, the same shot at f/8 or f/11 would have a lot more depth of field and very little extra noise. Making sure the lens is focused on the intended subject is also still important. </p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I have this same lens camera combination. The D7000 does not focus very well in its various auto focus modes with slow lenses unless you are in <strong>very bright light</strong>. With fast lenses, (f2.8 or faster), the D7000 focuses much better in low light and extremely well in bright light. In your case, the subject is mostly in the shade which confuses the D7000 mounted with your slow lens.</p><div></div>

[johne37179]

<p>The fastest lens I use with my D7000 is an f3.5 and it focuses just fine under virtually every circumstance except when against a subject with no contrast -- after calibrating it for each lens.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The D7000 would not have had any issue focusing under the shooting conditions presented had the OP use a single focus point.</p>

 

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>Hi,<br>

I don't know this particular set (body and lens) but at first glance and as someone else noted, 85 mm at f:5.6 is wide open and most lenses just don't give the best results under these circumstances. As a rule of thumb, you can expect it 2 stops above, i.e. at f:11 (if diffraction is not an issue at this aperture. I guess not).<br>

85 mm times the crop factor is equivalent to 127,5 mm, so not that far from 1/160s if you are not using VR and you don't concentrate to stabilize your hand.<br>

At this focal and wide open you should focus on your main subject, as you don't get the most precise focusing across all DOF theoretical space. DOF is not the same as sharp focus point and it only indicates an area of subjective sharpness impression when the image is seen at a certain distance from the observer. Depending on the enlargement, if you go closer and start pixel piping you will notice the difference.<br>

When you doubt, the better option is to shoot some continuos pictures and take the shaper one.</p>

[doc444]

<p>TO fix the photo you ca use focus magic</p><div></div>

[chris_brandt1]

<p>Eric is right on track with not letting the camera choose your focus point. For static scenes like this I always use AF-S single spot. It has really improved my image quality. And every lens is different as far as where they will produce the sharpest image as far as aperture is concerned. If you want sharp images figure out where that is with your lens/lenses. I know where it is for all of mine. I try to use that aperture whenever possible. Hey! This is where the fun is. Learning how to use our new toys. Good luck! And have fun!</p>

[chris_brandt1]

<p>Actually going back. Eric had it all right.... I just repeated it differently...</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>All of you guys that are blaming the issue on the lens being wide open: Do you mind explaining then why the tree, even at the borders of the photo, is acceptably sharp compared to the speaker with the microphone?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>All of you guys that are blaming the issue on the lens being wide open: Do you mind explaining then why the tree, even at the borders of the photo, is acceptably sharp compared to the speaker with the microphone?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously like everybody else other than the OP, I am limited to the parts and magnifications of the image the OP provides, but I wouldn't say the tree at the borders of the photo is "acceptably sharp."</p>

<p>To me, the only part of the image that looks sharper is the elbow of the woman(?) in white behind the main subject, but that area also has more contrast since the elbow and brouse are light against the dark background such that the contrast may make them look sharp.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, if you are hand holding a telephoto lens at the longest end of its zoom range wide open with a modest 1/160 sec shutter speed, you should expect some percentage of unsharp images. Focusing error is an additional issue.</p>

<p>Rather than concentrating the discussion on merely one image sample, I suggest the OP shoot a number of images with the lens at 85mm but at f5.6 and f8. Better yet, put the camera on a sturdy tripod using live view to manual focus. That should give you a much better idea how good (or not good) the optics is. Once you know how good the optics is, you can then evaluate issues such as focus accuracy, subject motion, and camera vibration. Given how dense the pixls are on the D7000, I wouldn't use f11 due to diffracation concerns.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<blockquote>

<p>All of you guys that are blaming the issue on the lens being wide open: Do you mind explaining then why the tree, even at the borders of the photo, is acceptably sharp compared to the speaker with the microphone?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like I said before, the Nikon D7000 auto focus modes, (AF-A, AF-S, AF-C), focus more quickly and accurately in bright contrasty conditions, rather than in dim light, or open shade. In dim light or shooting low contrast subject matter, you can get a green light and the subject will still be out of focus. The manual even tells you about this phenomenon on page 93. However, you can improve your focus performance greatly in dim light or low contrast situations by using lenses with a maximum aperture of f2.8 or faster. </p>

<p>Try shooting in brighter light or using a faster lens for the best results in the above modes, especially when using multiple focus points. Personally, I am dissapointed with the auto focus low light performance of the D7000 in the above modes using multiple AF points, so I just pick the central point, focus, recompose and shoot. In AF-A, using multiple focus points, the D7000 and the Nikon 16-85mm is a hopelessly inadequate combination in dim or low contrast lighting, and will frequently focus on anything other than your subject, in my experience..</p>