600D MF issue

Took this this morning. Used MF, on a tripod, f5.6 and 1/25th sec. Focused on the stamens/pistils. It looked perfect in live view X10 so I took the pic and this is the uncropped SOOC result. No sharpness where I'd focused. What have I done wrong? I'm not getting the sharpness where I focused.

No picture attached.

travisvwright wrote in post #16625276
No picture attached.

Attached. My original resize was too large. Sorry.

Did you use mirror lock up and a self timer?? If not could it be motion blur from the mirror or from pressing the trigger...??

Mirror lockup is implicit in shooting through Live View.

What lens and did you use the release cable or self-timer?

Snydremark wrote in post #16625376
Mirror lockup is implicit in shooting through Live View.

What lens and did you use the release cable or self-timer?

He used the 18-55 kit lens at 55mm according to the exif, so I'm not surprised that it isn't tack sharp (also f5.6 and 1/25 sec at 1600 ISO). That isn't a macro lens. It's a decent lens for what it costs, but it won't hold up to that sort of test. I'm assuming that this is also a crop, so that would also accentuate any IQ issues.

Thanks Rick; I don't have a viewer here. Totally agree there, though; MFD on that lens is spec'ed at 9.8 inches, and if this is, as stated, uncropped it appears to be well inside or right at MFD.

If you want to take these sort of closeups you're going to need an actual macro lens to get 'sharp' from this sort of shot; or back up, shoot then crop; but as Rick said, this isn't the sharpest lens out there and you may not get the results you're expecting even then.

That's better than I'd have expected from the 18-55 II.
You could try stopping down to f/8. That should increase both the sharpness and the DoF.

May I suggest that you sell your 18-55, 55-200 and 75-300 and get the 18-55 STM and 55-250 STM instead, or just the 18-135 STM.

Thanks guys. Sorry for the late reply as I've been working all day. Not a crop, and 2 second timer. No MLU. What's MFD? And how is it important? I'm learning all the time. Any advice appreciated.

MFD is "minimum focus distance": Distance from the focus plane at which the lens can still achieve focus. If you place the camera closer to your subject than that it won't be able to focus or focus properly.

MFD = Minimum Focus Distace? It looked tack sharp on the LCD screen. I took a mini cactus macro last week handheld and it's a lot sharper. Also this image looks sharper on my blackberry. It kind of has more detail in the orange bits if you catch my drift. I guess it's the smaller screen.

This photo looks to be sharp to me on the pistils and stamens, within the framework of the DOF available. Since you have "Image Editing OK" on, I took the liberty of just adding a bit of sharpness to it in post, though you probably can't tell much of a difference at this resolution. I can tell a marked difference here on my HD monitor.

rrblint wrote in post #16627499
This photo looks to be sharp to me on the pistils and stamens, within the framework of the DOF available. Since you have "Image Editing OK" on, I took the liberty of just adding a bit of sharpness to it in post, though you probably can't tell much of a difference at this resolution. I can tell a marked difference here on my HD monitor.

Considering the limitations of the lens he's using sharpness isn't an issue. He's calling it "macro" when it's really just a closeup shot with a standard kit zoom lens. This is a case where the lens really makes a difference.

To Colin Glover: If you are really into this sort of photography, I'd recommend looking into a real macro lens, or at least one of the third party zooms designed to do close up photography. The Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro is about the best buy for a crop body at about $450. The EF 100mm f2.8 is about $550 in the non "L" version. Both of these do true 1:1 macro, meaning that at minimum focus distance, the image on the sensor is life size. This shot of the flower on a Christmas cactus was done with my EF 100mm f2.8 L. The pistil and stile on the flower are about 1.5cm long.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …58812694@N08/11​102696285/

rrblint wrote in post #16627499
This photo looks to be sharp to me on the pistils and stamens, within the framework of the DOF available. Since you have "Image Editing OK" on, I took the liberty of just adding a bit of sharpness to it in post, though you probably can't tell much of a difference at this resolution. I can tell a marked difference here on my HD monitor.

Hosted photo: posted by rrblint in
./showthread.php?p=166​27499&i=i252858598
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Better than my effort (not shown here BTW). Did you use Lightroom? I used Elements 10. I guess I need to pull back a little and crop, plus stop down to F8 or thereabouts.
One other interesting thing that puzzles me after your comments as to what is a macro lens, why is there a Macro symbol and 0.9m on my lens if it's not macro? Or are you saying it's not true 1:1 macro? The pistils in the pic look life sized to me. BTW,my laptop's a Dell Inspiron 1720 from 2008. Screen res is 1440 x 900 on a Ge force 8400m GS. Is that not enough?

Colin Glover wrote in post #16627767
One other interesting thing that puzzles me after your comments as to what is a macro lens, why is there a Macro symbol and 0.9m on my lens if it's not macro?

Marketing. It's what zoom lens manufacturers put on lenses that can focus closer than what might be expected.

1:1 means "life-size" on the sensor, not after enlargement for print or display.

While many hold the view that no lens that cannot produce 1:1 is a "true" macro lens, I, and some manufacturers of repute, including Canon and Olympus/Zuiko would disagree. Co-equal with magnification in the definition of a macro lens are flat field optics, excellent chromatic aberration control, and precise focus mechanism. The two lenses I can readily cite that qualify as macro in my view, despite achieving only 1:2 are the Canon EF 50/2.5 Compact Macro and the old Zuiko 50/3.5 macro. Doubtless there are others.