Meant to share this one with you, since it fits to the conversation about not sharp images when panning.
I have tried to catch some birds in flight over last weekend. My keeper rate was close to 0. The one above is a good example. Not sharp enough to be a good photo. What went wrong (i think):
- i dont like motion blur of the birds wings in flight. Had to use 1/1000 and f2.8 because of the low ambient light. I should have cranked up the ISO to allow me a faster shutter speed and and maybe f5,6. This is an aperture, where I reckon the 70-200 shines best
- had to crop the picture too much, because i acicidently moved the focal length to 150mm. Taping the lens in situations where you have to react fast is a good idiea. These birds dont fly laps like race cars and motorcycles :-) so one has only limited chances to learn from trial and error
- I should have used S instead of M exposure mode. The light situation between bright sky and low light river bank is not managable quickly in manual mode
- if you want to shoot birds, shoot birds. Set your camera up for it and wait. Don't get distracted by other subjects and keep on changing your camera settings
- practice panning. I used continus AF with 24 metering points. Try to concentrate on your metering while shooting, don't think about framing. Trying to do both, is for my small brain too much to handle
- i shot hand-held, VR on. I believe with a gimbal tripod and VR off my keeper rate would have been definately better.

Sorry for my limited english, but I hope I got my message across and you are finding this "debriefing" a bit useful.

Jürgen

spraynpray said:
Last weekend I took these example pictures handheld (panning) with my D5000/70-300VR on shutter priority at 1/1000 sec which gave f5.6 at ISO200 using AF-C and centre weighted metering.

Firstly, see what happens when you turn the VR off in a similar situation.

Secondly, get close enough to be able to shoot at 200mm. If you still find the images soft, get your equipment calibrated, might be a miscalibration issue as well.

And if the calibration does not help, get a sharper lens, like Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS (very heavy, costs 2k) or the AF-S 300mm f/4.

msmoto.....I hardly ever shoot fps in racing shots because I'm trying to get 3 shots of one racers pass (head on, side, back shot). That said, if a racer ask me to do just a pan shot of them I'll rip off the fastest fps my D7000 has.

1/500 is my go to speed, I know most of my shots will come out and the tires/wheels will be spinning somewhat. 1/200 is my favorite safe pan speed and I'll go 1/1250+ with high speed front shots.

I too get a 1 to 4 keeper rate when panning (1/200). When I go 1/60 - 1/100 panning it drops drasticly to over 1 in 10 keepers. 150-200 FL mm's away is my favorite panning distance for a smooth and steady shot but seldom do I get that oppertunity and have to shoot the pans much closer.

I have problems at almost every track with the track photographer. They'll attempt to block my shots anyway they can. I've had them set a ladder up to block my shots, stand in my way, have their spouse come over to talk to me during the feature runs to disrupt my shooting and the list goes on. But as you know shooting events, we can never let them get to us, as hard as it may be.

spraynpray.......I hear you as I turn 60 this year. I've had to learn tricks in shooting with the big lenes and have even bought shoulder straps to help as well. When shooting road courses I'm normally sitting down with my back braced against something, only raising my camera when it's time to focus and shoot. Drag racing the christmas tree is my friend as I wait till the top light comes on before hoisting my camera up, it gives me the perfect time to focus. I think that's also a reason I'm not an advocate of VR because I'm always finding ways to brace my camera.

Age is the real problem for me now, 30 years ago I could hold a 200mm on a 60mph motorbike at 100ASA and 1/60th and get more keepers than losers (film so you try harder). Oh, manual focus as well so zone focus used.

<sigh>

Yeah, that use of Denoise seems to work well. How many FPS are you shooting? It looks like you are at 1/500th or 1/750th sec?

Regarding the lenses, I think the old 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is a good lens for panning, but not as good for following focus if they are coming toward the camera at a high rate of speed.

My biggest problem in shooting these fast objects is not being able to catch them in the frame. Thus, at the 1/250th sec speed, I will get about 25% acceptable... meaning very sharp. And about 20% will be cut off on the front or rear. I think the idea is to shoot hundreds. Actually the nice Audi with the brake rotor glowing is one of four final shots, about 15 were good final shots, but the number of total exposures was in the 140 range as I remember.... The problems are especially true when there are obstacles like flag stations, safety walls, telephone poles, etc., in the middle of the path to the object. Or, as I encountered this past weekend, some real jerk with photo credentials who actually worked for the track and who moved twice to purposely stand in front of me. Even turned around to check and make sure he was blocking my view.

Good post, msmoto.

Sharpening a picture is a balance for those that don't have expensive lenes. Shooting with a 70-300 ($550) you're not going to get as sharp a picture as someone using the 70-200 ($2,200) and etc.

The trick to sharpening is to denoise with it. Denoise will bring the quality back to the picture. But much like HDR the trick is not to over do it.

Here's an example of a shot I was too slow in panning last weekend:

No sharpening

Sharpening with Denoise

Hello, wake up, get the thread out of the freezer....

It was asked of me if I did panning shots, so on PAD, I posted a couple of will soon add some more. But, I thought a discussion of what I have found as the different techniques of panning, and possibly this would get some different ideas going. Posting of photos can be done after a discussion of the different opinions.

Most common is the high sped object, moving from side to side. Remember, the relative speed of the object increases as it comes into the photo, is maximum in front of you and decreases as the object moves away. The Nikon Digitutor on the D4 shows some of this with the panning of race vehicles. http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25482/D4.html
Go to "Autofocus II" in the Digitutor.

Once the idea of the speed differential is understood, then the practice begins. Before any exposures I will follow 5 or 10 objects and try to get the "feel" of the movement.

The second case involving less panning but more work in the camera, is the object moving more at an angel toward us. This requires a good mechanical auto focus mechanism.

Thirdly, is the panning with shorter lenses. In this case, one must understand the out of focus and the blurring will take place as a rotational phenomenon, and the point we want to show with clarity is where we want our rotational center to be.

So far no mention of shutter speed or aperture. This is where one must find their own way...sort of. I like to know the approximate speed of the object relative to my position. Then I calculate the feet (or meters) per second. For example, 70 mph is about 100 feet per second. Thus, at 1/100th second shutter speed the car moves 1 foot. If I am extremely talented, I can follow a car with panning and catch this. But, the "keeper" rate at 1/100th is maybe 10-20% maximum with a 300mm or longer lens when one fills the frame. One must understand that if the object fills only have the frame its relative speed is also one half, making the panning easier. But if one crops to the full frame in PP, then the relative speed comes back to exactly the same as if a longer lens was used.

If the shutter speed is 1/250th sec, then the "keeper" rate goes to about 50% if it is a good day. Now, I have panned at 1/15th sec where the vehicle was going about 40 mph (60 feet per second). The keeper rate is about 2-5%. But, even at 1/1000th sec, at 100 mph (160 kph), the object is going nearly 150 feet per second (45 meters/sec) or during exposure 2 inches (45mm). So, if the panning is not close...blur will result.

As to aperture, I like to stop down about 2-3 f/stops. That is with an f/2.8, I go to 5.6 as a minimum and usually further so as to give some DOF. Maybe f/8-11. I rarely go beyond f/16 or smaller as I do not think the optics do well at small f/stops.

VR...I use it as the lens thinks the variations in ones panning is vibration and may save you. But, at 1/100th or shorter, a test of your lens/camera combo may be in order. Tripod..generally to hold the heavy stuff of 400mm and longer. Some may be able to hand hold, and others like a monopod as it is lighter weight. The tripod need s a good head. I use a Manfrotto Gimbal head and it is great especially at the price point. And slimy smooth.

For shorter lenses up to 300mm, hand holding, using a body rotation to shoot seems to work. I hold the camera with the lens in left hand and elbow is on my chest, locking the entire camera/lens to me. The rotation is smoother this way, at least for me.

For the real short lenses, way down to even 16mm on full frame, the motion of the body will be quite rapid as one is generally only a few feet from the subject. Care must be taken to not get injured in these cases.

Now, some like to shoot single shots....I like to shoot as many FPS as I can with the panning shots. In some cases I will allow the object to enter the frame slowly, try to "lock on" and then it moves out of the frame. Usually I catch the object in the finder, press the release half way about half second before exposures, then press the release and shoot maybe five to ten frames. I like to have the object fill the entire frame as it gets close to me, if possible.

Post processing. I download about 50% into the computer. Then, using an enlarged image 100% crop, I go through all the images and eliminate any which are not crisp. Another 50-75% I am extremely critical about sharpness in the photos. Most of the folks who view my photos like them. Car owners want to see their car, not some fuzzy artsy crap. OK, some are nice photos, but most folks want to see what the object is.

If one gets anything out of this soliloquy, then it is time to practice. Thousands of shutter clicks, hours in post processing. And, I rarely if ever "sharpen"in PP as I think it kills details.

Hope this get some folks thinking....

Oh, look at this one

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7575126970/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Shot at 1/250th f/14 ISO 250 Vehicle speed about 60-70 mph.

There's been a saying that Canon users are usually auto suckers and Nikons are manual...

I find that Nikon DSLR's don't make as good of point and shoot's as Canons... However most Canons seem to make pretty subpar manual shooters in comparison to nikon's.

Hey guys, was in a rush.

Yes didn't post meta data, both canon and Nikon shot default (haven't done any W/B) at ISO canon 400, nikon 640, shutter 1/2000 sec. Aperture 10 , canon 11. Look in no way was I trying to make this thread scientific. There was no weights placed ontop of either camera, I was merely working by eye. Only a tripod used. I just thought I'd share my thoughts on first impressions of the shoot and see if there was any obvious reasons for the differences!!!. Cheers adamz and mike and bjrichus.

and casperwb, I'm new to these forum, obviously I am not to post without studio quality setup and charts, thanks for informing me.

adamz

point taken, will do

thanks

guys I've cleaned up this thread a little bit, as it went off topic and nasty.

tim - if You share test images than please make them consistent - follow what bjrichus and mike wrote.

casperwb - please don't over-judge from just one shot, sure it looks very amateurish but we don't know too much about setup.

Hi Tim,

Welcome to the forum!

I think that you find this a very good place to get great information on all things Nikon.

As others said, your tests might need a little tweaking to ensure accurate results.

You might want to do a manual WB on both camera, first, then ensure that both use the same ISO, and use the same lens focal length.

You might also use a sturdy support and have a target that can reset the scene into the frame for each shot.

Finally, be sure that you use manual settings to accurately put the same f-stop on the lenses, and put that f-stop at the 'sweet' stop somewhere around f5.6/f8. Use manual flash as well, or outdoor lighting.

I like the 18-105mm lens. In the POD you'll see a few of the shoots that I've made with the lens. I use it along with the 17-55, or 35 1.8, or 55 1.8, or any of the 13 other lenses I have. I've been at this so long, it doesn't take too much to collect that many lenses.

I think the lens is sharp as Einstein. Cost doesn't make a lens good. What makes a lens expensive is build quality for ruggedness and weather proofing, and larger reticules necessary for the faster lens. That's not to say that the _faster_ lens is a _sharper_ lens.

Getting caught in the rain or snow or in a dust storm with the 18-105 would be more taxing than say the 17-55 if you were going to continue to work that day. Much, much less so if you were going to be able to go to the store that afternoon - then I might _want_ the 18-105. ;-)

The debate on what value the lens has to a given photographer goes to his market, what he/she can do with his photos and portfolio and market position. It's a different thing than 'sharpness' of a lens.

My best,

Mike

Tim,

Assuming you are not trolling... To pass any meaningful comment, we'd need to know much more about the set up and shot details. While I am sure I could look at the originals and find that EXIF data (assuming you didn't strip it out), I don't have the time to do that today.

I also have a D7000 and sold that stock lens; as I didn't find it any better (in terms of sharpness at least) than the other DX lenses Nikon sell, so simply didn't need it.

Your pictures show a different color balance (typical in my experience for Canon shots) and I suspect THAT might be what you are seeing?

Unless you push the envelope you won't see any difference between any camera like this. You are shooting in a safe zone with those shots... The D7000 will score over something like the 360 design, as when the Canon has stopped working due to low light, the D7000 is still storming on and taking good shots. Oh yes, lets not forget that the D7000 shots will be enlargeable to prints that will cover the side of a room, whereas the 360's shots are going to begin to tail off in quality over about 10x8". That's not a criticism of the Canon, so much as a statement about Megapixels.

Casper's comment might read as a little harsh, but the point is well made - your tests won't show any great difference as you are not stressing anything in the set up.

Go BIG with the Nikon (do these tests in deep twilight and don't shoot in low quality as the shots you posted are - such small JPG files??? YUK!!!), try it all again using RAW and *don't* resize the results down when you convert to JPG and I think THEN you'll *see* the reason Casper says what he did with your own eyes.

pointless,

not worth debating

learn to use the camera and return in six months, or better yet, buy a point and shoot.

OK guys,

recently got the new Nikon D7000, fantastic camera, only with stock 18-105 VR ED NIKKOR lens for now, sadly the image sharpness seems to be lacking. All stock settings, (image style (SD))

So anyway fixed a backfocus issue with 17 points of fine tune. decided id setup tripod and shoot an old basket ball for sharpness, same exposure and fstop on both cameras

Nikon d7000 crop one (100% crop)

Canon crop one (100% crop, same image size)

canon side crop

nikon side crop

all images here

https://picasaweb.google.com/117854228680974001556/SharpnessTest?feat=directlink

basically, I'm thinking there might be a restriction of the lens to the camera sensor (sensor quality > lens quality) really it all boils down to I'm not seeing all the imperfections I used to see on the canon when blown up then I am now with the nikon.

Not saying its a bad camera, just I'm a little disappointed ATM.

EDIT- 2 originals, original size (4k)

If you don’t mind I made an example of what could be made with you photos by just a conservative sharpening using unsharp mask:

I didn't post-process the image at all except when I enhanced the colours a little which I noticed seemed to improve matters. I use Elements 7.0 and have just tried the unsharpen mask in there on the picture I posted on page 7 of the photo-a-day thread. Your link to the article once again shows me how much I have to learn about all of this. Another great link - thanks!

By the way, spraynpray, what software are you using to post-process? Try applying an unsharp mask to your photos and playing around with the setting on it to see if they look more like what you want. It could be you could be happy learning more about sharpening. Here's a starting place:
http://bythom.com/sharpening.htm

This is not to say that what you're doing and asking here is wrong—I think you should always try to get as much sharpness as possible in your original image, but I'm just saying maybe you're looking for an effect that is in photos you've seen that you can only get in post.

spraynpray said:
WOW! Most of the replies above have at least one nugget of information that is partially or completely relevant/likely/useful - thanks guys.

Today I took a string of pictures using the lense at varying lengths (70/200/300) at varying ISO's from +1 to 6400 and resultant apertures from 5.6 to 13. What has come out of this all is a/ I can't believe how little negative effect high ISO has, and b/ how little difference the changes had on the sharpness on my PC screen. VR really seems to work as the shutter speeds varied from 1/320 to 1/4000 and the pics look remarkably similar. I do now feel silly because I am getting the feeling (correct me if I am wrong here) that the main problem with those shots may be my LED PC screen but I don't want to waste paper/ink/money printing out pics just for examination. I looked at some laptops today that had HD screens - is that an essential feature for critical examination of pics or is it still way worse than a print?

I have so much to learn about all this - it is frightening!

Does anybody have a recommendation of a book that will teach me the science or art of critical photograph examination? Sounds daft, but for one reason or another, I am not seeing much difference between the pics I took today.

I can't recommend a book, but obviously zoom to a certain part of the picture that you want to compare. It will become apparent with patterns or when looking at certain parts of the photos..the edges of objects sometimes will have more or less blur to them. Colors seem to be sort of personal preference, but if the pictures were all taken with the same zoom and lighting, etc. then it might be hard to tell much of a difference there.

I'd think you'd be fine with your current monitor if you understand the danger of judging sharpness only at 100% pixel reproduction. Maybe you should try viewing the image at closer to the size you want to print/display. That might mean 33% for an average-sized print or maybe even less if the web is its final destination.

Just to illustrate, I meant what I said originally that the images you posted here look sharp to me.

To follow up on my post, here's something from Scott Kelby.

http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2010/archives/9742

Shooting moving cars or propeller planes with high shutter speeds yields unnatural results. Have you ever seen a propeller plane with a propeller that's still? It'd drop out of the sky.

Same idea. Getting the right settings is hard to do, even for someone like Scott Kelby.

adamz said:
with such speed I wouldn't shot less than 1/2000, as You can see some motion blur on Your pictures - especially the white BMW shot

You want motion blur in racing shots to show the motion of the vehicle.

OP, turn VR off, and pan with the motorcycles. I was panning some cars the other day with my 55-200VR and had better luck with the VR OFF, both on and off my monopod.

WOW! Most of the replies above have at least one nugget of information that is partially or completely relevant/likely/useful - thanks guys.

Today I took a string of pictures using the lense at varying lengths (70/200/300) at varying ISO's from +1 to 6400 and resultant apertures from 5.6 to 13. What has come out of this all is a/ I can't believe how little negative effect high ISO has, and b/ how little difference the changes had on the sharpness on my PC screen. VR really seems to work as the shutter speeds varied from 1/320 to 1/4000 and the pics look remarkably similar. I do now feel silly because I am getting the feeling (correct me if I am wrong here) that the main problem with those shots may be my LED PC screen but I don't want to waste paper/ink/money printing out pics just for examination. I looked at some laptops today that had HD screens - is that an essential feature for critical examination of pics or is it still way worse than a print?

I have so much to learn about all this - it is frightening!

Does anybody have a recommendation of a book that will teach me the science or art of critical photograph examination? Sounds daft, but for one reason or another, I am not seeing much difference between the pics I took today.

I am not a sports shooter but I would have thought that the settings should be VR not active VR. I think VR mode senses Panning and will then only compensate in the vertical direction. about 1/125 or 1/250 or even 1/60, to get some nice motion blur, F8 to F11 to get optimal sharpness and then ISO to suit.

I think these are pretty good, actually, but pixel peeping usually shows room for improvement. The extremes of a consumer-grade zoom (300mm@f5.6=longest setting, wide open) are not where you want to be for critical sharpness. If you are locking down the ISO you might want to consider pumping it up to get F8-f10 and 1/2500 (also agreeing with bmxdad about VR).