Dioptre Correction

if you're in autofocus mode the diopter adjustment is irrelevant and what you see through the viewfinder will appear fuzzy, but what the actual picture looks like will be fine.

if you're shooting with manual focus, then your diopter being dialed in properly will dictate how you manually focus on a subject.

i had this problem in my B&W photography class last semester because we were required to shoot in manual focus mode and it ruined every single photo I had taken all semester long and they all came out blurry and fuzzy, surprisingly I passed with a D+ in the class, but i was not happy at all with the grade or the photos, and it made me even madder when i figured out what the problem was after the class had ended.

I can't understand why anybody is blaming the poor quality on f9. It could be that you have a particularly bad copy of the kit lens.

My advice is to go outside in decent light, point your camera at a static subject - a brick wall will do - with exposure set to auto and see what the picture is like. Oh yes, and use the central focussing point and ISO set at 200.

David

gonedigital wrote in post #11306927
if you're shooting with manual focus, then your diopter being dialed in properly will dictate how you manually focus on a subject.

i had this problem in my B&W photography class last semester because we were required to shoot in manual focus mode and it ruined every single photo I had taken...

There is a bit more to it than that. Yes, the dioptric adjustment can influence how you focus manually by making it a bit more difficult, but irrespective of what setting it has, if you adjust the focus so that what you see is at its maximum sharpness, no matter how fuzzy that is, the image captured will be in best focus.

What an incorrect dioptric adjustment cannot do is cause the image displayed through the VF to be sharp when the lens is out of focus.

The reasoon is simple. The camera projects the view onto the focus screen, and that projected image is seen through the VF and is subject to dioptric adjustment. If that image is fuzzy due to lens misfocus, no amount of twiddling with the dioptric adjustment is going to make it look any sharper.

Woodworker wrote in post #11306997
I can't understand why anybody is blaming the poor quality on f9. It could be that you have a particularly bad copy of the kit lens.

My advice is to go outside in decent light, point your camera at a static subject - a brick wall will do - with exposure set to auto and see what the picture is like. Oh yes, and use the central focussing point and ISO set at 200.

David

Still photos work just fine. Ive taken some really clear, up close pictures of flowers (I did use a tripod for them) and other clear shots at a banquet recently (no tripod). It's the motorcycles I seem to be having a problem with.

Lowner wrote in post #11306303
I don't think the aperture is the big problem here. I simply cannot see anything sharp in either image.

So, it's either motion blur (possibly caused by the cameraman moving? and a faster shutter speed is required, or its post processing problems. Which begs the question, what sharpening do you do to the images in post?

None. that is straight off the camera.

xarqi wrote in post #11304542
I think you've "fallen between two stools" as it were.
The shutter speeds chosen by the camera (given your selection of ISO and aperture) are neither fast enough to arrest subject or camera motion, nor slow enough to give an interesting motion blur while panning.

Try using Tv in shots like this. Pick a fast shutter speed to freeze all motion, or choose a slow speed and pan to give a sense of motion by blurring the background more than the subject.

If you find that your lens can't give you a wide enough aperture for the speed you want, bump up your ISO.

Any problems with shots of static subjects?

I will try using Tv. I had been using Av with a high f, to try and get a picture that had a wider depth of field.

I dont use center focus because the bike isnt always in the center. I have been using auto.

I dont understanding why people are freaking out over the aperture that I am using. I bunch of places I read online says to use 16 in sunlight (sunny 16 rule). I would never have though of using 3.5 in the day time (aside from the fact that I cant when zooming in).

ShelleyG wrote in post #11310491
I dont use center focus because the bike isnt always in the center. I have been using auto.

.

Theres your issue. CHoose a single AF point and move your camera, dont let the camera choose for you

ShelleyG wrote in post #11310491
I will try using Tv. I had been using Av with a high f, to try and get a picture that had a wider depth of field.

And you've achieved that. What's happened though is that you've found that there are other more important things. Where a subject is moving, one of the first things you have to consider is how you want to handle that motion: freeze it or use it. You just left that up to chance.

Want to freeze it? Use Tv and set a fast shutter speed (or use flash) - fiddle with ISO and aperture to get the "exposure" and DoF as good as you can.

Want to use it? Use Tv and set a slow shutter, then either pan or not depending on which you want blurred, the subject or the background.

(Using 2nd curtain flash is good fun too, but a bit advanced).

canonnoob wrote in post #11310515
Theres your issue. CHoose a single AF point and move your camera, dont let the camera choose for you

It's AN issue sure, but THE issue, maybe not.

ShelleyG wrote in post #11310491
...None. that is straight off the camera...
...I dont use center focus because the bike isnt always in the center. I have been using auto...

KAA - CHING...
Both of those are a major part of your problem.
By allowing the camera to automatically select the focus point, it is deciding what to focus on, not you.
Essentially you are saying that the camera is smarter than you are and that it knows what you want it to focus on.
Don't know about yours, but my camera's aren't that smart.

Also, no matter how good you are (and some will argue the point on this, but) pretty much all images need some form of post production work.

Hey - I just realised how far this thread had strayed from dioptric adjustment! Fancy that!

Yes it has strayed A LOT haha.

xarqi - I will try that. Thanks

phillwillmedia - I dont do 'post production work'. These pictures are just for me, to for business. I might crop and do some minor lighting adjustments.....but nothing big. I simply dont have the time to do it, or the time to learn

But....

xarqi wrote in post #11310563
Use Tv and set a fast shutter speed (or use flash) - fiddle with ISO and aperture to get the "exposure" and DoF as good as you can.

I thought you cant adjust the aperature on Tv?

ShelleyG wrote in post #11310862
But....


I thought you cant adjust the aperature on Tv?

Not directly. If you change your ISO, it will affect which aperture the camera chooses. Want a high f-stop? Choose a high ISO. Want a low f-stop? Choose a lower ISO.

Judging by what you have said in this thread so far, I think your blurriness comes from either not having an adequate enough shutter speed or not focusing on the subject and tracking the subject.

::EDIT:: but looking at the camera data from your images, it looks like your shutter speed is adequate. I would second trying what some of the other members have suggested. Chose an AF point, use AI servo mode, and constantly track the subject.

ShelleyG wrote in post #11310862
...I dont do 'post production work'. These pictures are just for me, to for business. I might crop and do some minor lighting adjustments.....but nothing big. I simply dont have the time to do it, or the time to learn ...

That's fair enough, but a bit of pp work is almost as essential as the taking of the pic itself.
Even in the days of film, even though you never did any pp work yourself, the pp work was done for you at the photo lab by the operators.
Until you decide that you want to spend a little bit of time working on your pics, you will probably find that you are disaappointed with your final results.

You say you don't have time to learn - think about the amount of time you've spent on this thread alone.
That time could have been better spent by learning a bit more about pp.

Here's your two images with some minor tweaks to brightness/contrast, curves, colour saturation and unsharp mask - all of which took less than a minute on each pic.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

"None. that is straight off the camera".

Phil took the words out of my mouth.

A digital camera produces soft images simply because of an "Anti Aliasing" filter in front of the sensor, the reasons it exists don't need to concern us except that it forces us to sharpen every image. This can be done in camera, but is better done in post processing. At least I think it is.

However, Phils sharpened shots show that there is some other problem because these are still not right.

Lowner wrote in post #11311586
However, Phils sharpened shots show that there is some other problem because these are still not right.

Exactly, I suspect the fault lies with focussing.

David

Vermin87 wrote in post #11310888
Chose an AF point, use AI servo mode, and constantly track the subject.

I am using servo and I do track the subject.

I will try selecting an AF point.

To those who believe the chief issue here is focusing or AF point selection:
To where was the focus misplaced in either image posted? To the front of the subject? To the rear?
Show me one thing that is sharp. Show me a gradation of sharpness from the actual point at which focus was (wrongly) set.


And consider this:
For the second one, at f/9 and 18 mm, with focus set anywhere from about 2 m out, the DoF will extend to infinity. That is exactly what I see - uniformly poor sharpness irrespective of distance.

I was of the opinion that the main problem was motion blur, but a new thought has occurred to me.
If you are using a filter (as a protection placebo), take it off.