Not that sharp.. is it just me? or the lens?

Here's the question to you FEChariot, how can you be so sure that the dog is sitting completely still? Even if it's sitting down, a sudden, erratic move of its head before the shutter was pressed is more than enough to throw the focus off.

OP using auto AF definitely contributes to the overall problem, but shutter speed issue can't be ignored.

Relying on IS for shooting living subjects is asking for trouble imho. Sure you might get lucky and get a couple of keepers, but personally I think keeping the shutter speed fast enough increases the hit rate dramatically in any situation.

marzie84 wrote in post #15120106
Camera choosing the focus point.

a camera that can read your mind has yet to be invented...so until that day, choose the focus point yourself, and get what you want in focus...to me it looks like the camera chose the grass as the subject here...which it normally goes for the closer subject...

kin2son wrote in post #15126450
Here's the question to you FEChariot, how can you be so sure that the dog is sitting completely still? Even if it's sitting down, a sudden, erratic move of its head before the shutter was pressed is more than enough to throw the focus off.

OP using auto AF definitely contributes to the overall problem, but shutter speed issue can't be ignored.

Relying on IS for shooting living subjects is asking for trouble imho. Sure you might get lucky and get a couple of keepers, but personally I think keeping the shutter speed fast enough increases the hit rate dramatically in any situation.

Your first two points I am in agreement with. I wasn't referring to AF technique.

The last one really is a sliding scale. Stricktly by the thumbrule using your 5d2 with your 70-200, doing a head shot at 200mm puts you right on the line of not needing IS and seeing how that is also your max synch speed, you would be unable to take shots using any longer lens while using studio strobes that can't do high speed synch. It is not uncommon for me to shoot at 200mm on my 1.6 crop when doing headshots of my younger childern.

So my point is your advice is mostly sound on the third part, but there is a sliding scale there towards longer focal lengths. I don't see anything wrong with going to 1/120" while doing more posed shots, but I wouldn't pick that speed if my kids or pets were actively running around.

FEChariot wrote in post #15126852
Stricktly by the thumbrule using your 5d2 with your 70-200, doing a head shot at 200mm puts you right on the line of not needing IS.

So my point is your advice is mostly sound on the third part, but there is a sliding scale there towards longer focal lengths. I don't see anything wrong with going to 1/120" while doing more posed shots, but I wouldn't pick that speed if my kids or pets were actively running around.

I consider myself having pretty steady hand, but getting a shot with perfectly sharp eyes is difficult for me @ 200mm if I use 1/200s. Hit rate is going to be low.

Also they really don't need to be actively running around, the slightest movement is enough to ruin the fun of counting their eyelashes

Of course IS is extremely useful for dead static objects, I can go as low as 1/50 or less easy. But again I just can't rely on IS for any living thing really, despite of how static they seem to be.

FEChariot wrote in post #15126363
You said this:
....
Sorry but focal length has nothing to do with avoiding subject motion. If you really were talking about subject motion, why the equation?

There are two aspects to subject motion, when shooting handheld. One is the (generally angular) motion at the shooter's end, or camera shake, to be controlled by shutter speed, and the other is object movement.

Essentially camera shake depends on FL, and to a degree on the shooter as well. Object movement, to eliminate that, requires a fast(er) shutter speed. However, angular movement also influences this, or IOW, the longer a lens is, the more effect subject movement will have, due to the magnification factor involved. IOW, to countereffect subject movement FL certainly also is a factor. Hence the facor in the minimum shutter speed equation.

Example: Let's say an object moves 1 mm in the frame at 50 mm. This means that at 100 mm this same person moves 2 mm. In orde to avoid camera shake, we increase the shutter speed a factor of two, which means that the movement of the person now also reflects the shorter period, and now becomes 1 mm again. So far so good.

However, 1 mm is too much too my liking, let's say I really need 0.5 mm maximum for optimal sharpness. This means an additional factor is required for the shutterspeed, and it explains why it is embedded in the original formula. It always is a factor, not just some predetermined shutterspeed, unless one starts shooting at, e.g., 1/2000s only for lenses up to let's say, 300 mm FL.

Kids and small animals are quite twitchy, and they move much faster than adults, generally speaking. Hence the addition. I actually found that for some kids I even needed a factor 4 to capture them to be still enough for optimal sharpness (or use a flash).

What does shutter speed have to do with this? It is about capturing the dog with a shutter speed fast enough so that it hasn't moved too much to provide a picture that is sharp enough. If that means upping the ISO as the only remaining alternative, in my book that is better than a bit of additional noise, which BTW, can be dealt with quite easily, especially in good lighting conditions, by most PP tools, "even" with a 400D.

That is an opinion, not necessarily fact.

Using a higher ISO setting always is an option, if the camera provides it. A picture is better than none. If less noise is a requirement, one should shoot at the lowest standard iso setting under all circumstances and make sure lighting is good enough to do so.

The OP actually did mention IS and a tripod.

Other than that, although this is theoretical more than anything else, as my post was about shutter speeds for capturing small kids and animals: the IS does require a bit of time to establish whether it is on a tripod or not, generally in the order of 1 to 1.5 seconds. And every time the shutter button is half pressed again, the cycle starts anew.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Nicely described

kin2son wrote in post #15127094
I consider myself having pretty steady hand, but getting a shot with perfectly sharp eyes is difficult for me @ 200mm if I use 1/200s. Hit rate is going to be low.

Also they really don't need to be actively running around, the slightest movement is enough to ruin the fun of counting their eyelashes

Of course IS is extremely useful for dead static objects, I can go as low as 1/50 or less easy. But again I just can't rely on IS for any living thing really, despite of how static they seem to be.

+1

And I do a lot of portraits at longer FLs as well.

Kind regards, Wim

kin2son wrote in post #15127094
I consider myself having pretty steady hand, but getting a shot with perfectly sharp eyes is difficult for me @ 200mm if I use 1/200s. Hit rate is going to be low.

Also they really don't need to be actively running around, the slightest movement is enough to ruin the fun of counting their eyelashes

Of course IS is extremely useful for dead static objects, I can go as low as 1/50 or less easy. But again I just can't rely on IS for any living thing really, despite of how static they seem to be.

But since the photo was taken at settings which were apparently correct for the available light, most of this is irrelevant. Just because it isn't 100% perfect for living things, doesn't mean that it was wrong in this case, or that it should never be tried. A lot of great photo opportunities would be missed if we lived by that rule.

ISO, shutter speed and aperture were apparently right for a good exposure, and the dog was sitting still. If he happens to move, then just try again. You either get a good shot, or you postpone it until the conditions are more favorable. Counting eyelashes is only meaningful if you are just shooting the dog's eyeball. I've taken a lot of successful (but maybe not perfect) photographs in unfavorable conditions with less than perfect settings for the subject. Sometimes you just have to do what you can do at the time.

If the OP used any wrong settings it was just the Auto AF point selection. And as Tzetsin showed, the softness (regardless of what caused it) was quite correctable with just a few seconds in post.

For this first part I am going to snip out all but this part because there is more to this and it is over simplified.

wimg wrote in post #15131097
Example: Let's say an object moves 1 mm in the frame at 50 mm. This means that at 100 mm this same person moves 2 mm. In orde to avoid camera shake, we increase the shutter speed a factor of two, which means that the movement of the person now also reflects the shorter period, and now becomes 1 mm again. So far so good.

This is true if you assume the same subject distance. The problem there is it is not the same picture you are framing. In one shot you would for instance have a full body shot and the other only a ½ body shot. To keep it the same, you would have to be twice as far away with the 100mm lens as the 50.

So doing a little simple trig and keeping the math simple by using a 3x4x5 triangle. If you are using a 50mm lens at a subject distance of 8 feet, a subject moving perpendicular to the camera sensor at 6 feet per second would be moving from the camera’s perspective at 30 degrees per second. Now double the distance out to 16 feet and shoot with the 50mm lens. Now the same subject is only moving at 15 degrees per second or it would have to be moving twice as fast to move the same from the camera’s perspective.

In this case, the subject motion would be identical at 50mm and 8 feet compared to 100mm at 16ft. The amount gained by having a larger magnification factor with the longer lens is exactly countered by the subject being twice as far away.

Now let’s say you move closer to the subject to frame more tightly. You are at 4 feet with the 50mm lens. Assuming the same subject speed, now your perspective from the camera is double the speed seen from a 100mm lens at 16 feet. So the reality here is that subject distance has more to do with needing faster shutter speed than focal length. A better statement would be that it is best practice to use faster shutter speeds when closer to the subject.

wimg wrote in post #15131097
What does shutter speed have to do with this? It is about capturing the dog with a shutter speed fast enough so that it hasn't moved too much to provide a picture that is sharp enough. If that means upping the ISO as the only remaining alternative, in my book that is better than a bit of additional noise, which BTW, can be dealt with quite easily, especially in good lighting conditions, by most PP tools, "even" with a 400D.

OK so this is a difference of opinion, but I don’t remember seeing many images from the Olympics where the pro photogs just shot at ISO 204800 with their 1DXs just to make sure they had the highest possible shutter speed to freeze the action. Clearly there is benefit from shooting at a lower ISO. Also I can tell you that ISO 1600 on my 350D is crap and the 400D is only a little bit newer.

wimg wrote in post #15131097
That is an opinion, not necessarily fact.

Yes I agree this is my opinion based on having a very similar body to the 400D. At 1/160” there is a slight chance that there will be subject motion, but there is 100% change of a noisy, to at least my preferences, image using ISO 1600 with a 400D.

I personally have no experience with a 400D, so can't really comment on how bad it is @ ISO1600.

BUT a noisy shot is always better than a blurry/slightly oof one imo

Or OP should just shoot under better lighting condition instead as a workaround to the limitation of her equipment....

FEChariot wrote in post #15132657
Yes I agree this is my opinion based on having a very similar body to the 400D. At 1/160” there is a slight chance that there will be subject motion, but there is 100% change of a noisy, to at least my preferences, image using ISO 1600 with a 400D.

That I have to agree I guess....OP needs to take more shots and hopefully getting a sharp one.

Don't those formulas just suggest a maximum shutter speed with faster being ok? Rather than a prefered shutter speed.

Mike

FEChariot wrote in post #15132657
For this first part I am going to snip out all but this part because there is more to this and it is over simplified.

This is true if you assume the same subject distance. The problem there is it is not the same picture you are framing. In one shot you would for instance have a full body shot and the other only a ½ body shot. To keep it the same, you would have to be twice as far away with the 100mm lens as the 50.

Most people don't, because one generally uses a longer lens to take tighter shots than one does with shorter FLs. I certainly do.

Actually that is why there is the recommended minimum shutter speed rule in the first place, which includes the FL. Overal, its magnification factor is larger, forget about the rest. That is what it really is all about, forget about distance. Infinity is infinity, but a plane at infinity will be larger in the frame with a longer FL, at a reduced AoV. It doesn't really matter what one shoots, overall. It is just a general recommendation for a minimum shutter speed, which also depends on any other measures taken to countereffect camera shake, and person dependent shake (the person holding the camera). It is a good starting point in order to obtain sharp shots for general handheld photography.

What I added is an additional factor for twitchy subjects. The reason this is a factor rather than a recommended plain minimum speed is simply because the recommended shutter speed is all about static subjects, and one needs faster shutter speeds than that for twitchy subjects, because during the period of the exposure these subjects twitch or move. Limiting the amount of movement during exposure is simply done by increasing the shutter speed by another factor, up to a point where the movement is so little during this shorter exposure time, that the image can be considered to be sharp.

The shorter shutter speed required is also dependent on magnification, and hence FL, and that is why it is logical to add a factor to the minimum recommended shutter speed. Based on empirical observations, I find that a factor 2 for small kids and small pets generally works well in most circumstances. YMMV.

Mentioning a 1Dx shooting at 200K iso is a bit OTT of course. It would have to be, to say the least, rather dark for ISO 200K to be necessary, as most sports happen in good lighting conditions, and for a reason. Even a 60W bulb with cream coloured reflection areas, aka walls, BTW, provides enough light for shooting at approx. 800 iso and 1/60s at F/2.8.

Actually, I happen to have owned both a 350D, my first digital dslr, and a couple of 400Ds. Yes, 1600 iso with the 350D wasn't too great, even if it was usable. The 400D does a lot better at it - it is at least 1/2 stop better noisewise than the 350D. Also, at the time the noise filters weren't as good as they are these days, 7-8 years later.

Kind regards, Wim

MikeWa wrote in post #15134440
Don't those formulas just suggest a maximum shutter speed with faster being ok? Rather than a prefered shutter speed.

Mike

Yes, they do.

For general photography of non-twitchy subjects it is worthwhile trying to find out what the lowest is one can go, however, as that is different for each person, and even different for how tired one is, the amount of coffee, or rather caffeine intake, one has had, etc.

For twitchy subjects the recommended shutter speed with the additional factor is the recommended shutter speed to start with, and possibly use an even faster shutter speed. That is my observations anyway. YMMV.

Kind regards, Wim

What software did you use to edit these photos? They look amazing and I am looking to get more into PP. (sorry to jump into the thread, but maybe the answer will help others too, haha)

Tzetsin wrote in post #15125342
Ok, all shouldacouldawoulda aside, (not that there isn't good advice for the future in that...

Your dog was in perfect focus. soft lenses are soft... thats it. Using a flash would have helped your lens resolve what sharpness it has, but all is not lost.

Good editing skills are an essential part of the process. As is good editing software.

Hosted photo: posted by Tzetsin in
./showthread.php?p=151​25342&i=i53667399
forum: Canon Lenses

Original, Hard light high pass filter and Hard light high pass filter with sharpening.

I hope you don't mind me editing your photo.

jjj5278 wrote in post #15136015
What software did you use to edit these photos? They look amazing and I am looking to get more into PP. (sorry to jump into the thread, but maybe the answer will help others too, haha)

Just photoshop. using the tools described. Took about 2 minutes to cut the file, open it in ps, run the high pass filter, sharpen it and upload it again. A very simple technique.