Can you tell me if this looks like motion blur, camera shake, missed focus or hyperactive IS ?

Yes, I know, one of those questions...

Still, for sh#ts & giggles, what do you think caused the blur here ?

100% crop is attached.

EXIF shows 40mm, 1/80, f5.6

Probability all of the above

We'd need to see the full uncropped image to determine- to see if focus was achieved anywhere in the image or not.

Qlayer2 wrote in post #17794045
We'd need to see the full uncropped image to determine- to see if focus was achieved anywhere in the image or not.

While I mostly agree with this, the eyes aren't that blurred, the front of the hood is a few inches in front of the eyes and isn't in focus and the back of the head isn't that much more out of focus. Given what we see I'd guess motion blur, 1/80th with a non stationary subject, like a person, is going to have that more often than not.

Tripod or not?

No tripod.

So it's motion blur... What puzzles me is that I have some shots taken with non-stabilized lenses at slower shutter speeds yet they are super sharp. So I was concerned that perhaps the stabilization system in this particular lens has been acting up. But then I went through several other shots that I consider well focused and looking at EXIF it appears they were taken at higher shutter speeds than I thought... 1/160 seems to be the magic number for people.

its different, some people have steady hands. sometimes the subject is further away. sometimes its the lens. 1/focal length is the general consensus though.

I know I have a hell of a time with my 135 at less than 1/250 but i can shoot my 85 usually at 1/60 without issue.

missed focus.

but as Qlayer said, it's difficult to know for sure without the whole image.

we also don't know the focal length.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17794178
missed focus.

but as Qlayer said, it's difficult to know for sure without the whole image. we also don't know the focal length.

40mm, 1/80

However, if we are seeing only a very tight crop of the full area captured, that is similar to use of a very long FL, with which any shake becomes magnified as well! if we see 10% of the framed area it is equivalent to shooting with 400mm at 1/80 without shake, which is clearly beyond the capability of the average person.

Here's the entire photo.

1361 x 2048

EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE: https://farm6.staticfl​ickr.com …59265665_7022b8​cefa_k.jpg Click here to see our image rules.

Amamba wrote in post #17795003
Here's the entire photo.

It looks like you're back focused by about an inch [from her eyes]. It's still kind of hard to tell.

Did you focus and recompose by chance?

It's really not a bad photograph; colors are good, lighting is fine. No, it's not tack sharp, but that's only part of capturing an image anyway.

Amamba, what is ultimately contributing to the 'blur'...overexpectant photographer.

1. you do realize that in order to view your OP photo sized as shown, I have to take your original image and view it at about 225% magnification?! Even viewing at 100% is very close!
   At 100% view, that is equivalent to (depending upon the monitor) about a 60X magnification view, it is like looking at a 37" x 55" print from about 12" away!
   At 225% view, it is like looking at a 83" x 125" print from 12" away!!
   
   
2. plus, by viewing at that 225% level, you are examining the photo as if it were shot handheld with a 90mm lens (rather than the 40mm lens used for the photo). 1/150 sec. shutter speed is the Rule of Thumb limit for handheld shots with 90mm lens on an APS-C camera (your Sony NEX6). You are lucky you got the shot as sharp as it is, at 1/80!
   

To me it looks like you focused on her chest

k4j98 wrote in post #17795055
It looks like you're back focused by about an inch [from her eyes]. It's still kind of hard to tell.

Did you focus and recompose by chance?

It's really not a bad photograph; colors are good, lighting is fine. No, it's not tack sharp, but that's only part of capturing an image anyway.

Yes, I did recompose but at f5.6 / 40mm I should have a rather wide DOF.

Wilt wrote in post #17795166
Amamba, what is ultimately contributing to the 'blur'...overexpectant photographer.

1. you do realize that in order to view your OP photo sized as shown, I have to take your original image and view it at about 225% magnification?! Even viewing at 100% is very close!
   At 100% view, that is equivalent to (depending upon the monitor) about a 60X magnification view, it is like looking at a 37" x 55" print from about 12" away!
   At 225% view, it is like looking at a 83" x 125" print from 12" away!!
   
   
2. plus, by viewing at that 225% level, you are examining the photo as if it were shot handheld with a 90mm lens (rather than the 40mm lens used for the photo). 1/150 sec. shutter speed is the Rule of Thumb limit for handheld shots with 90mm lens on an APS-C camera (your Sony NEX6). You are lucky you got the shot as sharp as it is, at 1/80!
   

Quit looking at your photos so darned magnified, and enjoy your shots at a reasonable size!!!...

I like the photo, but want to realize why it's not as sharp as many other photos I have. I want to rule out the possibility that perhaps this particular lens has issues.

john crossley wrote in post #17795178
To me it looks like you focused on her chest

No, the buckle on the belt is also smeared.

However now that I looked at that buckle up close, I think it's definitely movement.

I probably should start setting 1/160 as minimum portrait shutter speed when possible...

Amamba wrote in post #17795189
Yes, I did recompose but at f5.6 / 40mm I should have a rather wide DOF.

Wilt wrote in post #17795166
Amamba, what is ultimately contributing to the 'blur'...overexpectant photographer.

1. you do realize that in order to view your OP photo sized as shown, I have to take your original image and view it at about 225% magnification?! Even viewing at 100% is very close!
   At 100% view, that is equivalent to (depending upon the monitor) about a 60X magnification view, it is like looking at a 37" x 55" print from about 12" away!
   At 225% view, it is like looking at a 83" x 125" print from 12" away!!
   
   
2. plus, by viewing at that 225% level, you are examining the photo as if it were shot handheld with a 90mm lens (rather than the 40mm lens used for the photo). 1/150 sec. shutter speed is the Rule of Thumb limit for handheld shots with 90mm lens on an APS-C camera (your Sony NEX6). You are lucky you got the shot as sharp as it is, at 1/80!
   

Quit looking at your photos so darned magnified, and enjoy your shots at a reasonable size!!!...

I like the photo, but want to realize why it's not as sharp as many other photos I have. I want to rule out the possibility that perhaps this particular lens has issues.

No, the buckle on the belt is also smeared.

However now that I looked at that buckle up close, I think it's definitely movement.

I probably should start setting 1/160 as minimum portrait shutter speed when possible...

What you have to remember about the DoF data that is provided by a DoF calaculator is that it is viewing condition dependant. The things that will change the DoF within those viewing conditions are: Print size, the usual defined size for a print used for assesing DoF is 10"×8" where the short edge of the rectangular sensor/film fills the short edge of the print. The next fixed condition is viewing distance, this is usually defined as being equal to the diagonal lentgh across the print. In the case of the standard 10×8 that is 12". Finally there is the visual acuity of the viewer, or simply how well they see. The standardised acuity is somewhat worse than an optician would normally aim to correct human vision to. A larger print, closer viewing distance, or better visual acuity than is used in the standard will result in a smaller percived DoF. That word PERCIVED is the most important, DoF is all about perception of sharpness. The area within the DoF is the area that is not quite in focus that the viewer cannot tell from the exact plane of focus. So it appeares sharp. Change the viewing conditions by making the image 8× bigger (so it goes from 10" across to 80" across) by viewing at 100% on screen, and viewing from the same distance will make the DoF 8× narrower. As well as making any slight error seem 8× more significant. This was the whole point of Wilts comment. The 8× increase is what you will usually get on an average monitor screen running at around 100 PPI resolution. If you view the on screen image at 200% then your DoF will be around 16× narrower than suggested by a DoF calculator along with all the other irregularities.

The exact size that an image will apear to be on screen at 100% will also depend on the resolution of the sensor, as 100% view is based on a fixed output resolution, not a fixed magnification from the sensor size. DoF actually depends on a fixed output size, not the output resolution.

So the advice still stands, stop pixel peeping it won't help you make better images. Just worry what the image looks like at the size it is to be output at. For the DoF calculator to work for images on an average screen at 100%, the image should be resized to approximatly 1000×800 pixels! Or if you don't want to crop the DSLR 3:2 aspect ratio size to 1200×800 pixels, that will be the same output magnifiation as the 10×8 4:5 ratio.

This was the basis for all of Wilts excellent answer to you.

Alan