Ok- So how long does it take?

I am baffled. I don't know how to get CONSISTANTLY sharp pictures. I've had this camera for over a year and a half. (350D) I have taken probably 20K pictures on it. I have read my manual at least a half dozen times. and "Understanding Exposure" 2 or 3 times. And while I continue to learn new things every time I read either one (or get on this forum), I feel like a have a good enough knowledge base that I should be getting constistant results. I just got an 85mm prime. So many people said it was close to "L" quality. I might be in big trouble, because I have to take 2 to 3 times as many pictures to get one in sharp focus. I do a lot of outdoor people shots. Kids, families (my hardest, but most in demand) and a wedding here and there. Now don't get me wrong I am getting good shots, even great shots, but I'm not getting them consistently. I get so frustrated when I have 10 family shots and the one that the baby is smiling in is not SHARP. Do I need readjust every shot? It seems ridiculous. Maybe I'm just being lazy. I will admit that I'm not very comfortable in Manual. It just seems strange to me to fiddle with it, in order to get the same shutter speed and aperature that indicates a correct exposure, when I achieve the same settings by adjusting them in the AV & P modes. Do most of you focus manually? I have always used the autofocus. How long should it take to get the hang of this. For heavens sakes.

Federkeil wrote in post #3494064
How long should it take to get the hang of this. For heavens sakes.

Forever and a day!

You'll probably get a lot of decent info by starting this thread but post a couple of shots that you're not happy with along with the exif and the information you get will be much more constructive. I hope you sort your problems out but it's probably going to take a fair amount of time and practice!

Can you post examples? That would help a lot.

Try and post a couple of examples, making sure to include exif info. This will make it easier for us to diagnose the problem, and will give you more helpful responses.

Are you just talking sharp pics, and not well composed works of art? (I can't help you with that one since I'm also lost!)

If sharp pics, then I guess really the first thing you need to look at is the shutter speeds you are using with your lenses. This can be a huge factor in sharpness. Also which AF point do you usually use? Do you shoot your lenses wide open? (Like the 85 @f1.8?)

Put up some samples with EXIF. I think you'll get tons more help that way.

But those are the basic stuff you should be reviewing. I get a bunch of soft pics and almost always it is due to error on my side...usually lack of shutter speed, things like that.

Assuming you're using fast enough shutter speeds (time < 1/(FL X 1.6)sec) and stopping down the lens to get enough depth of focus, its possible you could be having issues with your camera's auto-focus system. For a test chart and instructions, go to http://www.focustestch​art.com/focus21.pdf

I was having sharpness issue with my 350d which I had assumed were from using cheap and old lenses but the situation became intolerable when I picked up a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Three different copies of the Tamron were not giving me sharp results and, I realized, were actually showing horrible front-focusing. When I checked my other lenses, the result showed consistant front-focusing for ten different lenses. The problem was even worse in low-light and indoor-lighting conditions.

My advice is to run the focusing test with different lenses using indoor lighting and see if your auto-focus is working properly.

When I first joined this forum over a year ago, I too had a 350D and had problems with image quality. But as I read more and more on here I soon realised that not every shot would be a keeper. That was confirmed after I posted a series of images from a drag race meeting. I'd mentioned I took over 1000 images and perhaps had 10-20 good shots. I had a reply from a guy that turned out to be one of the top motorsport photographers in the US, who said he takes around 3000 shots per session and would be happy if he got 1 or 2 keepers.

I agree with what everyone else has said too.

My 350D was front focusing when I bought it from new (easy to test), Canon recalibrated the body and it worked fine from then on. Test with a variety of lenses to rule out lens rather than body.

And there was me getting frustrated after just 2 months and 7000 shots

If I take 600 shots I usually end up with 20 or so 'keepers' with no more than 2 or 3 'showcase' pics.

I always spend ages looking and agonizing at what went wrong with the pics afterwards and it's always, always my own fault.

Things that have made the most difference to me are 1) selecting single focus point for most shots 2) using the light meter before taking the pic 3) keeping shutter speed and ISO as fast as possible for the 'cleanest' images and 4) taking my time, using a tripod far more than I would like to etc.

Just recently I learned about the issues with locking exposure on an image and then re-arranging the scene - so now I play around with the selected point of focus instead.

The other thing I learnt is using the right kit for the right situation - I often end up using the wrong lens for the wrong situation simply due to time (ie using my tele at it's shortest end for a portrait rather than using a prime or a small zoom).

I have to say that photography is one of the most frustrating, yet rewarding hobbies I have ever had (anyone say expensive??) and I think part of this issue is people have a tendency to look for the science in it (which does of course exist) while not remembering that a large percentage of it is artistic in nature.

I know the above tips didn't help you at all Just wanted to let you know that you're not the only one who gets frustrated!

Federkeil,
Are you using all focus points on your AF?
If so then try setting your camera to use only the center focus point, as it might give you more accurate focusing.
It could also be like JackProton said about shutter speed to focal length ex. with your 85mm lens your shutter speed should be 1/125 (1/160 would be better) or faster to get a sharp photo. Many things can alter the shutter speed that will be acceptable ex. a tripod, leaning on a steady surface (ex. a tree) etc....
I suggest you follow the others suggestions to post a photo to show us exactly what you mean (make sure it has Exif data or tell us all the specs for the photo).
I personally Manually focus most of my photos, but with years and years of practice its like automatic now

I pretty much use MF all the time when photographing non-flying birds. I have about an 80-90% keeper rate, sometimes lower but not by much. I even use MF to get flying birds when expecting them at a known position like a nest or feeding spot and when flying parallel to the focal plane. In my experience AF just plain sucks expecially if your subject is not completely covering the AF sensor. If you are on the edge of subject it will easily focus on the ground behind them. There other great benefit of MF is that you don't have to focus and recompose; you just compose, focus and shoot. Ok, so you can set the AF point so you don't have to recompose but the AF sensors are not always right where you want to focus.

AF is still obviously best for large moving objects but in my use MF is better for everything else.

Anyway, the short of it is that I think too many people expect too much from the AF system. I know I did and was frequently disappointed.

gooble wrote in post #3499434
I pretty much use MF all the time when photographing non-flying birds. I have about an 80-90% keeper rate, sometimes lower but not by much. I even use MF to get flying birds when expecting them at a known position like a nest or feeding spot and when flying parallel to the focal plane. In my experience AF just plain sucks expecially if your subject is not completely covering the AF sensor. If you are on the edge of subject it will easily focus on the ground behind them. There other great benefit of MF is that you don't have to focus and recompose; you just compose, focus and shoot. Ok, so you can set the AF point so you don't have to recompose but the AF sensors are not always right where you want to focus.

AF is still obviously best for large moving objects but in my use MF is better for everything else.

Anyway, the short of it is that I think too many people expect too much from the AF system. I know I did and was frequently disappointed.

", ", ".

kitacanon wrote in post #3499628
", ", ".

Huh? I think you're being too clever.

You have to manually focus all the time if you want sharp photos. Your above quote pretty much sums up my feeling about photos: they must be focused or they're not good.

Not everyone feels that way, and they use auto focus and are satisfied apparently. Auto focus is a 'gimmic' . I only use it when I give my camera to someone else to use. Unfortunately, Canon doesn't provide good focus screens below the 5D and 1D models, but it's still easy enough to focus on my 20D and probably the rebels too. Try it. It works. Focusing is easier if the lens is 2.8 or faster. That goes for both manual and auto focusing. Don't give up hope. Just use manual focus.

steve547 wrote in post #3500501
You have to manually focus all the time if you want sharp photos. ..........
Not everyone feels that way, and they use auto focus and are satisfied apparently. Auto focus is a 'gimmic' .

Having lost some faith in auto-focus, I'm more than a bit curious how you arrived at this conclusion.