1. ghummy

    ghummy

    Messages:
    129
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have had my D7000 for coming up to 3 weeks now, I seem to be completely obsessed with my 35mm prime not being tack sharp like it was on my d3100, I may be imagining this but I seem to be pixel peeping which I never used to before, likely only because I had to micro adjust to -19.

    im still learning post processing so the below image hasn't had a lot done to it, no sharpening added in lightroom, just increased the exposure by half a stop.

    photo taken at ISO 640, shutter 1/60, F2.8, center point single focus - using focus/recompose method (back button), bounced speedlight using TTL BL

    not really looking for critique regarding my composure etc as im still learning loads, in fact its the first time I was brave enough to take it to a family event and actually use it take photos of people, not something I normally do.

    just want to know im being paranoid or does it require some more specialist calibration etc.

    thanks

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    8,388
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Looks fine at this size, both their eyes seem to be in good focus. You'd have to show a 100% crop or link to the full res image before anyone can judge really
     
  3. Kodiak Qc

    Kodiak Qc Suspended / Banned

    Messages:
    20,425
    Name:
    French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    See, in your manual, if your camera has the AF Fine Tune feature.
    If not, then you will need a specialist calibration. If yes, then search
    the forum as there are plenty of threads on the AF Fine Tune topic.
     
  4. JJ!

    JJ!

    Messages:
    4,879
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I'm not expert, but I personally would probably get a bit of camera shake at 1/60 which even slightly can take off focus, even with a prime. Although some people will not!
     
  5. ghummy

    ghummy

    Messages:
    129
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    it does indeed, it is set to -19 as it was back focusing when I tested using the caveman method of a ruler on a table and focusing on a number.

    sorry, my apologies, here is the full rez image, I didn't want to post the full size as you get into trouble in some forums.

    [​IMG]
     
    Cagey75 likes this.
  6. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    8,388
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No

    It looks a bit softer now, what mode were you shooting in? Have you tried shooting in manual mode? Some 'G' type or non aperture ring lenses suffer from focus shift, in auto modes the lens focuses wide open no matter what aperture you have set, and only closes down once you click the shutter, this can cause a shift in focus and images may be soft because of it. This happens with my 25mm 1.7 Panasonic, the work around for that one is to shoot in M mode [as I do most of the time anyway] and set constant preview to on [on Nikon this will be something like exposure preview or similar] - This way the aperture blades physically stop down as you adjust and focus will be much more precise. Worth a 'shot' ;)

    Look through the front of your lens and change the aperture, do you see the blades stopping down? Try this suggestion and check again, you should see them close in as you stop down.

    The Pany 25mm is much sharper at F2.8 - 4 when shot in Manual mode as opposed to A/P/S modes for example. In fact, it is shockingly much sharper.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  7. Kodiak Qc

    Kodiak Qc Suspended / Banned

    Messages:
    20,425
    Name:
    French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
    Edit My Images:
    Yes


    Cool… then I recommend you re-do the procedure
    as you did not reach the best, yet seems front focus
    if the focus was on the guy's face. :cool:
     
  8. Mark twiglet

    Mark twiglet

    Messages:
    2,602
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    My d7000 was exactly the same! One of my lenses needed at -20 all my nikon lenses were as far out but not the sigma art 18-35 1.8
     
  9. PaulButler

    PaulButler

    Messages:
    3,364
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    There is always a risk when using focus/recompose that the plane of focus changes, when using a larger aperture the DoF is much smaller too. Add in a relatively slow shutter speed and this could be the end result (i.e. user error - sorry). Of course with an adjustment as large as -19 that would also be cause for concern to me, I'd redo the af fine tune very carefully.
     
  10. Mark twiglet

    Mark twiglet

    Messages:
    2,602
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Do you use a calibration tool ? I had one and lent it out and didn’t get it back! So improvise now with a cereal box
     
  11. ghummy

    ghummy

    Messages:
    129
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I previously used a caveman way of laying a ruler on a table. I have downloaded a calibration chart to redo the procedure tonight when i get home
     
  12. ghummy

    ghummy

    Messages:
    129
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    so im back from work and i thought i would retry, i printed off a downloadable focus charts however now umm'ing and arr'ing, i took 5 photos using the focus chart, ranging from
    AF fine tuning off to -5, -10. -15 & -20, below are the results. i would appreciate some experienced input, all taken at f1.8, iso 100, shutter 1/100, camera on tripod, focus set to AF Single, one shot and single focus point (centre)

    first - AF fine tuning off

    [​IMG]

    next AF -5

    [​IMG]

    AF -10

    [​IMG]

    AF - 15

    [​IMG]

    Finally AF -20

    [​IMG]


    now my untrained eye is telling me i should be at -20 however in the real world application photos are slightly soft, the following is a 100% crop of t'other halfs eyes, i have cropped the photo, it was taken at 1m distance, iso 100, f1.8 shutter 1/00. however this was taken at AF fine tune set at -5 which seems to give me a sharper photo, im really confused what to make of this.

    [​IMG]


    thanks
     
  13. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    8,388
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    You didn't try what I suggested then? Be interested to see if it changes anything. I don't do charts, if a lens is out by -20 then it's going back where it came from for me, but you have yours too long for that?
     
  14. ghummy

    ghummy

    Messages:
    129
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I had had it 4 years unfortunatly

    This was shot in manual mode. That was what you suggested
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  15. PaulButler

    PaulButler

    Messages:
    3,364
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    AF fine tune is or can be a mixed blessing ... one of the challenges with it, is that it can and often does vary with distance. The results can also be misleading if everything isn't setup perfectly square. I have no idea how large that chart thing is, but it looks as though you were fairly close to it. Most advice usually states 50x the focal length as the minimum distance, other will recommend to do it at the most used shooting distance. Even more will suggest 20x distance etc, etc ... in other words a minefield :)

    As I cannot trust my eyes I use a piece of software called focal which works nicely - but I must state that you really must follow their advice on how to use the software.

    Bare in mind that the further away you get the DoF increases, this will in some cases will mitigate any inaccuracy (it will still be wrong but look less wrong).

    The best homemade method I've used is a ruler at a 45 degree angle against a box of cornflakes and done in good light. Another method worth researching is the dot tune method (google it - I've never used it - but it uses live view as well to help you decide). There is no point in using manual focus as you are trying to tune the auto focus.

    However, sometimes a lens cannot be fine tuned adequately, you then have two choices, keep it (and live with it) or move it on (be that return it or sell it).

    For your 35mm lens I'd be af fine tuning it at the 50x focal length as a minimum i.e. 1.75 metres minimum from the target.

    ETA: also bare in mind that sometimes AF fine tuning can affect infinity focus - i.e. you won't be able to focus o
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    MadWoman likes this.
  16. niko

    niko

    Messages:
    1,865
    Name:
    nik
    Edit My Images:
    No
    in the pic of the couple it looks like the guys jacket is in better focus than his face to me, so front not back focused
    edit- and in the pic of your other half her eyebrow are in focus better than the eyes, so id say turn it back to zero.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  17. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    8,388
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No

    Did you try it against the same settings in other modes?

    To my eye, -15 looks the best here btw
     
  18. the black fox

    the black fox

    Messages:
    5,929
    Name:
    Jeff
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I went through all this with my sigma lens . Going through 4 different camera bodies before coming to the conclusion it was a intermittent lens fault .it went back to Japan for a rebuild and is now perfect
     
  19. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    11,460
    Name:
    Stewart with a 'w'
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'd agree with this. If you're taking portrait photos at a range of say 2-3 metres, it doesn't really matter whether your focus is spot on at 0.5 metres or at infinity.
     
    HoppyUK likes this.
  20. Brazo

    Brazo

    Messages:
    2,443
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I’ve been quite frustrated with the quality control of Nikon lenses and have stoped using them until I can be convinced otherwise! Too many lenses have needed more than the +/- 20.

    FWIW I use Focal to calibrate my Tamron G2 lenses and the Tamron Tap in console to fine tune at all distances to subject.

    Far better results now and no more ruined photos.
     
  21. ghummy

    ghummy

    Messages:
    129
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    thanks all, I have come to the conclusion that im just being wayyyyy to picky by pixel peeping. as I said earlier I don't normally take photos of people that often, I tend to do more landscapes etc. people will normally be family pictures on any special events at home.

    these were taken at f1.8 which to be honest is not something I would be doing unless I desperately need the light, I would normally shoot at f4 and above which I suspect would resolve slight error in front/back focusing.

    only time I think I use wide open is when im trying to do some weird type of artistic shot. I don't often print photos however when I do its for my daughters photo album and their normally printed 5x7 which look really sharp at that size.

    I think this was a case of buying a camera which I really love by the way, feels "real" compared to my d3100 and then decided to read horror stories about it.

    I need now a good lens to replace the kit lens I have from my d3100, thinking between the Sigma 17-50 or Nikon 17-55 but assessing weather the Nikon is worth the extra price. used examples on the bay looked really abused with focus rings and rubbers turned completely white.
     
  22. PaulButler

    PaulButler

    Messages:
    3,364
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I used to have a D7000 and very much enjoyed it. I also had the 35mm f1.8DX lens, I never felt it was great wide open, but stopped down even to f2 and it was excellent especially for the price of it. I looked at the siggy and tamron 17/18-50's and the iq was perfectly good on them and I couldn't really see very much difference between them and the Nikon 17-55. Where I did notice a significant difference was AF performance, particularly in low light, the siggy and tammy would hunt or hesitate (and sometime miss) the Nikon nailed it each time. It is a big, heavy lens and many folk seem to knock it, but if I get another DX body I'll get another 17-55 too (unless Nikon bring a replacement out ;)).

    The greying of the rubbers on the focus and zoom ring is a common occurrence btw.

    MPB, ffordes, Mifsuds, the classifieds on here, Grays of Westminster and LCE are some companies worth dealing with for used gear if that helps.
     
  23. gcgraphs

    gcgraphs

    Messages:
    313
    Name:
    GC
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Been a thread recently on the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8. I've got the Nikkor plus the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 but the Nikkor is my go-to wide angle on a D500 or D7200. As previously stated the low light AF is spot on as is the IQ. Yes its a bit heavy but being built like a tank it seems to take the rough and tumble quite well.

    GC
     
  24. HoppyUK

    HoppyUK

    Messages:
    22,448
    Name:
    Richard
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Focus looks okay to me, maybe a smidge front-focused but there could be lots of reasons for that. Focus-recompose shouldn't be an issue in that situation but a quite common problem is backwards/forwards movement of the camera and/or subject after focusing. Nobody stands absolutely stationary and when DoF is so shallow just a couple of inches makes a difference but may pass unnoticed at the time.

    TBH, that looks more like what you'd expect from a lot of fast lenses used wide open. A bit flarey, kinda softey-focus. It'll crispen-up by f/2.8.

    When checking AF micro-adjustment, heed the comments above about testing distance.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
  25. f/2.8

    f/2.8

    Messages:
    1,465
    Name:
    Tommy
    Edit My Images:
    No
    There is definitely a front focus issue there. I had a few of the little Nikon 35mm f/1.8G's when I first started out, it was a lens I always wanted to like as everyone seems to rave about it but I always had focus issues with them and at the time the camera I had didn't have the option for micro adjustment not that I would have known then how to do it properly any way.

    A year or so ago my daughter got a new DX camera and I picked up a 35mm for her and it was razor sharp wide open, I was really impressed with it, so in my experience there is a degree of copy variation with these.

    I don't think that the method you are using for calibration is going to be very accurate. Perhaps try the dot tune method has always worked well enough for me.

     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice