Some expert guidance please

[steve_congrave]

<p>I have a D800 which I recently coupled with a Nikkor 70-300 F4.5-5.6 AF-S G ED VR<br /> I have been experimenting a little to try and learn the characteristics of the lens and I am a little disappointed at the moment with the focus/clarity that I am getting when zoomed in at 100% and I wonder whether I am either misunderstanding something or having far too high an expectation.<br /> <br />For example, the attached images was shot in RAW at 300mm F5.6 at 1/250 with spot focus on the boat.<br /> Overall the picture looks good UNTIL I zoom into it at 100% in Photoshop. I have cropped it and it is looking ugly.<br /> Any thoughts and guidance would be appreciated - am I simply expecting too much?<img src="http://www.ywip.com/photos/boattest.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>I'm going to try and attach the original crop</p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>This is a second photo from a slightly closer boat - same camera settings.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.ywip.com/photos/boattest2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[dave_wilson1]

So many possible things, but the obvious two are moving subject and not enough shutter speed, using an "average" lens

on a hot sensor like a D800. Maybe some atmospheric haze/glare, filter fog, focus maybe not locked in. What ISO were

you at, that matters too. Did you do decent sharpening in the post room? What f stop did you shoot at, if wide open which

it probably was near, lens is not at optimum.

OK I see you said you shot at f5.6 which is the wide open on the 300 end, unless you're using a pro level lens, it's not going to be that sharp at 300mm until you get around f11 or so and shutter of 1/650 (?) so higher ISO then you lose that way. Catch 22

 

PS and BTW, I'm not an expert, I keep practicing and learning every day. Probably just have a lot more mistakes under my fingers.

[ShunCheung]

First of all, while the 70-300 AF-S VR is a fairly good lens, it is not really that great at 300mm. And when you use 1/250

sec at 300mm on a speed boat, it won't be that sharp regardless of lens. I would try at least 1/1000 sec. If you want to

evaluate your lens, I would use a stationary subject.

[steve_congrave]

<p>Thanks Dave<br>

<br />ISO200<br>

Moving subject might be the answer as the first boat was traveling faster than the second and is slightly worse. We are in AZ so we have pretty clear weather at this time of the year - high 80's and 4% humidity.<br>

Tomorrow I will try upping the ISO and shooting different F stops to see what they look like.<br>

I guess a $300 lens on a $3000 body is also not helping - I do have a 70-200 F2.8 VR which I'll try too and see if that helps.<br>

<br />Thanks again!</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_wilson1]

There ya' go. Use the 200mm f2.8, even at f5.6 you're already stopped down two f stops, then get the shutter up some

and it should be nails 8-)))))

[steve_congrave]

<p>Thanks Shun - I'll give that a try tomorrow.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>The second photo looks to be sharp. Therefore, don't blame the lens. Blame the shutter speed.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Agree with all the good advice above.</p>

<p>My copy of that lens isn't sharp after about 260mm. As you have lots of pixels to play with, try at 250mm and crop it to fit.</p>

<p>The second shot still shows lateral movement on the boat and suggests a panning speed - boat speed mismatch.</p>

[jeff_grundman]

<p>I was never very happy with my 70-300. It often, but not always, seemed soft. I never did any extensive testing to pin down exactly where it failed, I just know it disappointed me often enough that I eventually replaced it. Since I was usually shooting it at 300, not its strong point, and often wished It had more to give, I replaced it with Sigma's 120-400. It is a heavy beast but gives much better results.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>A number of things. First, if the image you included is 100% crop of a 36MP capture, the boat is fairly small in the frame (did I get that right?). It is also quite far away and there is water presumably over that distance. Images of long-distance targets photographed over water with a long lens tend to be degraded by the humidity in the air. Also, the shutter speed 1/250s is <em>way</em> too slow; I would start at 1/1000s, and fill the frame with the subject without cropping. This forces you to be closer to the subject and the image quality will be much better. I have photographed speeding boats with 200mm+1.4X and got excellent results but the images were very close to frame filling. I have also photographed small boats using the AF-S 80-400 and that actually looks quite good at 400mm, but the atmospheric effects are quite clearly showing at those distances and I just don't like the perspective of these very long distance shots where the subject looks very 2D. I think the idea of further increasing the distance to subject and cropping to compensate for the small subject size is not likely to be a very fruitful endeavor. </p>

<p>Quite many people now seem to assume that the cameras have so many pixels and that they're meant to be used for cropping all the way in to present the original image pixels as the final result. It doesn't quite work that way; the quality is likely to be very poor. The extra pixels are there as they allow the use of a less severe antialiasing filter and also help achieve a greater SNR and dynamic range at low to moderate ISO. Frame-filling images printed at reasonable size are better (than e.g. 12MP) because of the high resolution sampling even if the actual pixel detail in the original image looks poor.</p>

<p>I would start by using a much faster shutter speed and getting close enough to the subject so that the boat almost fills the frame with the intended final composition. Possibilities include using a longer lens or e.g. going closer to the subject by being in a boat yourself (but this can lead to problems with stability). Personally I think the best course of action is getting as close to the subject as possible. It can also lead to more appealing perspective on the main subject. It can be tempting to consider a better/longer lens but I think in this instance that is not necessarily the answer to all problems.</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

Not an expert but since I can use my Canon up to 3200 with good results I checked with Dpreview to see what they thought. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/18 and they agree stating that the Nikon gives such good results that post processing is not needed. Use whatever ISO necessary to reach the previously mentioned 1/1000 and see what the sharpness looks like. If the F stop goes up when the high ISO is used that will also help.

[Two23]

<p>You were taking a photo of a fast moving boat using 1/250s? I would have used something like 1/2000s, and turn off VR when shooting faster than 1/500s.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>You were taking a photo of a fast moving boat using 1/250s? I would have used something like 1/2000s</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but if you're panning and trying to 'freeze' the boat but smear the water, for that fast, dynamic look, 1/2000th won't work either. It will freeze <em>everything</em>, probably even the high-speed water spray.</p>

<p>The whole basis of camera shake and/or subject movement kinda goes out the window when you're actively panning with a fast object.</p>

<p>I'd suspect 1/500th would freeze the boat and blur the water. A lot depends on speed, angles and distances.</p>

<p>Good panning technique takes a lot of practice. I still tend to occasionally over pan and cut aeroplanes tails off! I lead by too much.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Firstly Steve, I think you ought to acknowledge that your crop of the boat is only showing roughly 1/6th of the frame width, or about 1/40th of the frame area. To get the boat filling the frame would need approximately an 1800mm lens. So you're effectively digitally zooming your 300mm lens by 6 times, and even when viewed on a modest 15" wide monitor screen, we're looking at a small section of what would be a 7ft 6" wide mural if the whole frame were to be printed out at the same magnification. I hope that puts your 100% pixel-peeping exercise into a bit of perspective.</p>

<p>I agree with everyone else that the first image shows subject movement that has taken the edge off the definition. A speedboat moving at 30 mph across the frame will cover just over 2" in 1/250th of a second. It's hardly surprising then, that the 1" wide struts or lettering aren't sharply defined.</p>

<p>The 2nd picture also shows a bit of subject movement IMO, but otherwise looks about as sharp as you could reasonably expect from this grade of lens at full aperture. And as Ilkka says, any atmospheric dust, mist or heat turbulance will prevent a pin-sharp picture anyway.</p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>Wow that's a great help - thank you all.<br>

Yes, it's a tiny crop of the full frame.<br>

<br />My thinking was that with 36MP images, I could crop the image down to say a 5MP image and get the same image quality as say a 5MP camera - but I think I am seeing where my logic falls down.<br>

A 5MP section of the 36MP sensor is only (say) 1/4" x 1/4" in size and so it cannot possible give me the same image quality as a 5MP DX format camera.<br>

So my idea that the 36MP sensor gives me a super ability to crop and retain quality image is flawed - yes it can crop but not to the extent that I had expected.<br /><br />I am going to try some of the suggestions above and see how that improves things.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"I could crop the image down to say a 5MP image and get the same image quality as say a 5MP camera"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

You are correct, but a 5mp camera shot at the same distance with the same lens and same technique would look the same as what you have now.<br>

<br>

</p>

[john_demarco]

Did you try the "active" VR setting? Along with all the great advice that might help too.

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Actually Steve, that crop you've posted is much less than 1 megapixel. And it's like attaching your 300mm lens to an XVGA screen cam. Regardless of the number of pixels, the magnification you're asking for is beyond the scope of any readily available telephoto lens; as I said, it would be the equivalent of an 1800mm lens on the FX format. Using that sort of super telephoto requires extreme care in focusing, eliminating vibration (VR can only do so much) and the luck of having an extremely clear atmosphere between lens and subject.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I'm not sure this is an ideal situation for panning if he has to crop like he did to bring the boat into fulling the frame. The subject simply won't move enough across the original frame enough to get the kind of blur you want in panning. For the distance he would need a fairly longer lens on a tripod with a panning head, (or at least a monopod). The problem with these shots here I think, is like others have said. Not enough shutter speed for the lens and moving object. Rule of thumb (as far as they go) would say that basically the shutter speed should at least equal the lens length. i.e. 300mm lens should be shot at least 1/300, so practically 1/500. 1/1000 would be better. I don't know how sharp your lens can be, but shooting at too slow a shutter speed will not help its sharpness.</p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>Hi Barry - I agree with the 1/300 but this is a VR lens so in theory (ha!) it should give me 3 stops of latitude - so 1/300 should be the equivalent of 1/1000 with VR engaged.<br>

<br />I still have some experimenting to do but I think that such a heavy crop is unrealistic and getting closer to the subject with a faster shutter speed will improve matters as well as raising the ISO so that I can stop down the lens.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>The D800/800E are very, very demanding cameras. They require both the utmost in shot discipline, and they also require very good lenses. If either element is lacking from the formula, then the image will suffer. These are not very good cameras for casual shooting in comparison to other cameras, such as the D700, which could be very forgiving on shot discipline. The discipline and lenses required by the D800 sensor ask more than many people are prepared to put into making their images, or expense into their lens collections.</p>

<p>When the D800/e were first introduced, Nikon took the unusual step of publishing a pdf technical guide for using the D800, with suggestions for techniques achieving the most detail and clarity for an exposure. I do not recall Nikon doing that for any other DSLR. The guide shows demonstrations of lost detail, e.g., when not using a technique such as mirror up or focusing from live view for precision. The guide contains a list of Nikon lenses which can yield sharp photos page 16. For the most part, they are expensive, pro glass. None of the 70-300mm lenses is found in the guide. (Nor any of the 50mm lenses.) Then later, Nikon Professional Services published an updated recommended lens list. The guide can be found by Googling.<br /> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nikonusa.com%2Fen_US%2Fo%2FY6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII%2FPDF%2FD800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf&ei=oRhvUrPlN47_4AP06oD4Aw&usg=AFQjCNEnyKPw9OJxy4lgHWGtzXp9ETnWfQ&bvm=bv.55123115,d.dmg<br /> http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d800_d800e_tips/d800e/</p>

<p>Some respected photographers have posted lists of lenses which have done well, or poorly on the D800/e. Ming Thein comes to mind. He does a lot of studio, street and architectural assignments. His list is instructive, and he interacts with folks who ask intelligent questions. <br /> http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/06/30/recommended-lenses-for-the-nikon-d800e/</p>

<p>Nikon guru Thom Hogan has a wordy article, quotes the NPS list, but is kinder to the 70-300mm if you burrow down.<br /> http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/camera-accessories/nikon-d800-accessories/d800-lens-sets.html</p>

<p>DxO also has published a list of lenses for the D800/e. More extreme zoom ratios like 70-300mm did not fare well.<br /> http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-for-your-Nikon-D800</p>

<p>Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals does interesting bench testing for the D800:<br /> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection</p>

<p>Bottom line, the camera is demanding, and it eats expensive lenses for breakfast, lunch and dinner. One of the rules of thumb from the film days alluded to in a post or two above, to use a minimum shutter speed equal to one over the lens length in mm is just no longer true for most DSLRs. Higher shutter speeds are needed in digital compared to the needs of film. At least twice the focal length, and maybe go for three times the focal length if you want sharpness. The tiny pixels of the D800/e sensor are just way too small in width for the angular deflection inherent in slower shutter speed but which film and earlier, large pixel width, sensors might let one get away with. See, for instance, commentary on the Luminous Landscape regarding former film practices that do not cut it on modern digital sensors. The camera is great to use, and it is cruel too.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Steve, I saw your last post after I uploaded the above. While VR does stabililize the lens/camera for <em>your</em>, the photographer's own movements, VR does not stabilize <em>any</em> moving objects in the scene -- ever. You will get a sharp, still background from VR, and blurred subjects which move, every time. The ONLY real solution for speeding objects is high shutter speed, or sometimes very good panning of the camera to track the moving object (which will in turn blur the background). The idea that shutter speed is equivalently increased by VR is not valid except for a dead, still scene.</p>

[steve_congrave]

<p>David<br>

I really appreciate your insight into the D800 - I did wonder what the downside of a 36MP FX sensor would be - I mean it can't all be a bed of roses and you have explained to me at least that I am going to have to read, read and read some more to get the best out of it. I have some investment in pro Nikkor glass and some middle of the road glass. Hopefully I can educate myself enough to get decent results with both :)<br>

<br />I am going to look at your links now - I have Thom Hogans PDF that is great so far - just heavy reading due to the amount of info contained.<br>

<br />Thanks again!</p>