where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
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. They are all softer than I expected but I can't see why. Any of you guys see where I am going wrong? Granted they were all doing over 100MPH, but even slower shots are the same:
All that technology and I get rubbish - it must be me!
At that size they look good to me. I guess it would probably be tough to tell if it's a focus issue—if you miss focus, the sharpness of the in-focus plane would be killed by the panning. I guess that would be a more likely explanation if some were sharp and some were soft.
I found an article describing differences between VR and IS (this is the page where they discuss panning):
http://web2.popphoto.com/cameras/255/canon-image-stabilization-vs-nikon-vibration-reduction-page3.html
A few things:
OK your lens is a bit soft at the end of the zoom range special at F5.6 and VR does not really help, I certainly have it turned off.
So try this get your ISO up to 400 maybe even 800 your camera will do fine at both settings. So adjust to F6.3 or F7.1 and use an ISO that you can get the shutter speed above 1/1000s
Also train at panning and good way to that is to shoot something moving at very low shutter speeds, like a slow car at 1/80s or bike maybe even slower. The trick is to pan at the same speed and continue true after you are shooting
Anyway good luck and get out there and do like your name says
Pete
Hi Guys,
Thanks Johnny, your library of links is great as usual, but apart from telling me that Nikons are best (YAY!), it hasn't helped me much this time.
bmxdad, I used to get great sharpness hand holding an OM1 with 200mm lens on pans at 1/60th back in the day and I also shoot anything that goes bang with fair success (the other reason for forum name) which is why I am so confused. I am 25 years older now however and find nothing gets better with age!
It is the consistency of the lack of sharpness is confusing me really, they are all like that. I was in the company of a non-photographer though and so was more distracted than I like and had to keep moving so didn't really get to think it through on the spot (lesson learned) I may have been better off going for the F8 sweet spot using higher ISO and slower shutter speed to see if it is the lense?
I dunno, I'm new at this - what do you think about that?
Maybe just do some testing for yourself on a stationary target, to get an idea on how your lens performs at different settings
Pete
I'll do that and report back.
Indeed 70-300 is quite soft. Up to 200 it's sharpness is better.
If you can pan with 1/60 second and get good sharpness then you dont really need shutter speeds much higher than 1/250. what VR setting are you on? check that its not on active but on normal. The 70-300 is not known to be super sharp at 300mm. stopping down to at least F8 is a good plan.
It is not so easy to say how soft the shots are at this size.
How do you compare your digital work to film? If you are comparing with prints from film I would suggest printing digital images at the same size first and then compare.
IQ you get also depends whether you are shooting RAW or JPEG and on postproduction if any.
Also 70-300 is not the sharpest lens at 300, but it is very good for the price so I would not assume it is the lens problem.
OK, I'll try to answer those points:
I thought the 70-300 was supposed to be pretty sharp - certainly better than the pics. I am wondering if the 'follow focus' is the problem?
VR was on normal, and it is interesting you said that as I was wondering if it should have been on active - I haven't tried it on active yet. I just shot some pics of bare tree branches and it looks sharper on f8 so I'll bear that in mind for future use.
I was comparing LCD computer screen with 10x8 prints, but the 10x8's from the old Oly were very sharp. These were shot on finest jpg with no PP.
One thing I am thinking (bear in mind I am basically new to this so 'seeing' light is new to me) is the light quality was poor that day. I don't know if I can blame it on the Icelandic volcano or just high humidity but it was very hazy indeed all day. Today here is fairly similar too.
I just played with the colour and (maybe) improved one:
Spray -
Have you tried static shots at same focal length and settings? How do they come out? Could be a focus issue with the lens.
Hi Warprints,
I will be doing some tomorrow with the 70-300 when I hope the light will be better too. I'll do comparisons with another lens (18-105 at 70).
I don't use VR on moving pictures, I don't think it can help
You don't have a bad lens, all lenses have certain weakness, my 16-85 have problems at max aperture at either end, I'm just careful on how I use the lens. My sports lens is the 70-200 2.8 VR even that one is weaker at 2.8 at 200mm and have thought about getting the lens like yours mostly for my son to use and for the extra reach, I might just get the 1.7TC
Try some test shots and see how it performs
Pete
Good to hear that Pete, Thanks.
At 1/1000 you could really be better of with VR of, active is never used for moving subjects but for moving "ground" for example when shooting from the boat.
LCD monitor has much lower resolution and is much larger than 10x8 prints so images may look less sharp on it.
Also people perceive sharpness not only as a result of resolution but also acutance and contrast as you ca noticed on your picture as you played with it.
I would recommend setting Picture Controls to Standard for increased contrast and color and if shooting JPEG, ISO 400 will give higher speeds at slightly increased noise, lowering aperture to f/8 will improve overall sharpness, and you could switch VR of if shutter speed is at 1/1000 or better. And I would also use EV -0.3 to speed up shutter even more and it will pump up the colors a bit.
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
Lenses do vary sometimes from one to another, but just FYI, have you looked at http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13 and http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/250-nikkor-af-s-70-300mm-f45-56-g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report
the 70-300 does have some softness at 300mm and f5.6. I'm with Adamz re shutter speeds with motorsports. Maybe I'm just shaky, but I like being around 1/2000.
I didn't see this in any comments, and you didn't mention it...were you using a tripod? If so, you must turn off the VR feature. With the VR on, the camera on a tripod, the lens is looking for movement. If it finds none, it goes nuts. Just a thought.
Adamz - I just blew up the original and the blur on the bike and rider seems to be in all directions - what are you looking at/for specifically?
warprints - interesting tests that seem to say what I see. I can't justify a longer lense that is sharper so if it is the lense I will have to use high ISO and f8-f12.
Robert - I hand held the pans so VR (not active VR) seemed to be the right setting. Thanks for the thought.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
You must log in to post.
