# What went wrong?



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

These are shot with a Nikon D90, 70-300 lens.  Bright sunlight. Lens at 270mm. 1/2500, f 5.6. This is my third year shooting with this set up and I do not recall having clarity issues like this in the past.  Almost every shot taken at 300mm or close was like this.  Shots taken with the zoom setting lower (135mm for example) were clearer.  I know how to take action sports photos...but still learning how to use this camera.

Also...should I change the white balance setting based on a cloudy or sunny day...or just leave it on auto?

Thanks in advance for assistance


----------



## CMfromIL (Mar 30, 2012)

What ISO?  And did your camera get changed to "Auto Single Shot" from "Auto Focus Servo"?  That could cause problems.  Any particular reason you are at 1/2500?

I think 1/1000 would be more than adequate to stop the action.

Lastly, if you shoot in RAW you can mess with the w/b after the fact.  Gives you more flexibility.


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

CMfromIL said:


> What ISO?  *And did your camera get changed to "Auto Single Shot" from "Auto Focus Servo"?*  That could cause problems.  Any particular reason you are at 1/2500?
> 
> I think 1/1000 would be more than adequate to stop the action.
> 
> Lastly, if you shoot in RAW you can mess with the w/b after the fact.  Gives you more flexibility.



Where can I find that setting?


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

2ManyToyz said:


> CMfromIL said:
> 
> 
> > What ISO?  *And did your camera get changed to "Auto Single Shot" from "Auto Focus Servo"?*  That could cause problems.  Any particular reason you are at 1/2500?
> ...



I found a setting where I can choose AF-C Continuous-servo AF, or AF-A Auto Select or AF-S Single Servo AF. For sports I'm guessing AF-C is best?


----------



## ZapoTeX (Mar 30, 2012)

The first photo is sharp, I think when you say "lack of clarity" you mean lack of contrast.

I have the same camera and lens (not sure which version of the zoom you have) and I must say the 70-300 is not the most contrasty lens in the World. If you think it got worse than it used to be, maybe it's just dirty?

By the way, the photo above does not look so wrong, at least to my inexpert judgement.


----------



## CMfromIL (Mar 30, 2012)

2ManyToyz said:


> I found a setting where I can choose AF-C Continuous-servo AF, or AF-A Auto Select or AF-S Single Servo AF. For sports I'm guessing AF-C is best?



I'm not a Nikon guy, but I think that would be the equivilent to the AF-Servo on the Canon.  It basically tracks (from what I understand) what you are focusing on, and continually focus as the subject moves.

I was having trouble with Basketball/Volleyball before I figured out to use the Servo mode, as I would depress the shutter button, the camera would 'focus' on a spot, then of course the subject keeps moving away leaving many images slightly OOF.  I had much better luck with Servo mode.

Still learning of course...but I don't think that ever ends.

Why are you shooting at 1/2500 though?  And what is your ISO at?


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

CMfromIL said:


> 2ManyToyz said:
> 
> 
> > I found a setting where I can choose AF-C Continuous-servo AF, or AF-A Auto Select or AF-S Single Servo AF. For sports I'm guessing AF-C is best?
> ...



I don't recall the ISO setting...I agree it should have been lowered.  I shoot sports in the Aperature mode with the lens fully open.

Other potential issues:
on the lens ther are two switches...what should they be set at?:
1) VR on or off
2) normal or active

Also I shoot with a monopod.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 30, 2012)

You have shot for 3 years?


----------



## CMfromIL (Mar 30, 2012)

2ManyToyz said:


> I don't recall the ISO setting...I agree it should have been lowered. I shoot sports in the Aperature mode witht the lens fully open.
> 
> Other potential issues:
> on the lens ther are two switches...what should they be set at?:
> ...



I think it might be a good idea to read the manual.

VR is the Nikon equivilent to Canon IS (image stabilization).  At 1/2500 you could capture a bee fart mid toot, and not have to worry about VR.  In fact, it might be causing some of your troubles at that high of a shutter speed.

Not sure on #2, but I'll bet the manual will provide that answer.  Good luck.


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> You have shot for 3 years?


Three years with this camera.  Started 38 years ago with a Nikon F, then FM.  Got back into sports photography 3 years ago to capture my kids playing...why do you ask?


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

CMfromIL said:


> 2ManyToyz said:
> 
> 
> > I don't recall the ISO setting...I agree it should have been lowered. I shoot sports in the Aperature mode witht the lens fully open.
> ...



I have been using the manual...unfortunately it's not the one with "For Dummies" on the front!


----------



## Dillard (Mar 30, 2012)

yea 1/2500 is probably a little high. Why are you using a monopod for a 70-300? That lens should be super light


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 30, 2012)

Dillard said:


> yea 1/2500 is probably a little high. Why are you using a monopod for a 70-300? That lens should be super light



People use monopod to reduce shake on vertical orientation.  BUT with 1/2500, probably does not really matter .


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

Dillard said:


> yea 1/2500 is probably a little high. Why are you using a monopod for a 70-300? That lens should be super light


I shoot a lot of games at night and the high school stadium lights force me to shoot at low shutter speeds even with the ISO setting at the highest..so I sarted using a monopod... I continue to use the monopod under daylight conditions simply for convenience....I find it easier to not have to constantly raise the camera to my eye....hope that makes sense


----------



## CMfromIL (Mar 30, 2012)

Dillard said:


> yea 1/2500 is probably a little high. Why are you using a monopod for a 70-300? That lens should be super light



Based on his post, he's been shooting pictures for a little over 40 years.  Perhaps he's got some physical limitation that makes it easier to shoot using a monopod.  That's not what's causing the problem.

It's his extreme shutter speed, and unknown ISO as well as potentially having the wrong AF selected.  I'll cut him some slack.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 30, 2012)

Your photo has that issue because you are using a crappy lens and you shot it at the max aperture.  That would do it.  I suggest stopping it down a stop.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm a little confused; I don't see anything in either image that strikes me as "wrong" for a scene shot with a D90 and 70-300.   What precisely do you  mean by clarity?


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Your photo has that issue because *you are using a crappy lens* and you shot it at the max aperture.  That would do it.  I suggest stopping it down a stop.



No argument there...I'm just not sure I'm ready to drop $3000-$10,000 on a new lens.  The thing is there is a lack of sharpness that I have not experienced in similar situations.  For example the image below is a lot sharper again with the lens at max aperature .


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 30, 2012)

You dont have to spend $3000+ to get a good lens.  Basically lenses dont perform as well when you extend the zoom all the way IN or OUT.  You also see it when you open up the aperture or close it really small.  If you use a nicer lens, the decrease in sharpness on the long end and when the aperture is wider is not as noticeable as the cheaper lens.  Thats just the way it is.


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> You dont have to spend $3000+ to get a good lens.  Basically lenses dont perform as well when you extend the zoom all the way IN or OUT.  You also see it when you open up the aperture.  If you use a nicer lens, the decrease in sharpness on the long end and when the aperture is wider is not as noticeable as the cheaper lens.  Thats just the way it is.



Any suggestions on a better lens at a reasonable price?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 30, 2012)

im not a nikon guy..  maybe a 70-200.  Or I heard the older 80-200 is a nice lens and it is below $1000?  Not sure.  70-200 f/2.8 is probably really expensive.  Over 2K.  Not sure.  If you want really good performer, get a prime lens.. but of course you cant zoom.  A lot of sport shooters use prime lens (more than 1 cam though).


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 30, 2012)

ZapoTeX said:


> The first photo is sharp.



The first photo is absolutely not sharp.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 30, 2012)

2ManyToyz said:


> CMfromIL said:
> 
> 
> > 2ManyToyz said:
> ...



I have the D90 too. Shoot with VR "on" and "normal".  Get rid of the monopod.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 30, 2012)

Check out this link:

Nikon D90 Autofocus Settings


----------



## jwbryson1 (Mar 30, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Your photo has that issue because you are using a crappy lens.



This is an interesting comment.  Keith (KmH) thinks that the 70-300mm lens is fantastic.  Interesting that you and he are in such disagreement.


----------



## Destin (Mar 30, 2012)

Monopod+ VR = Not a good combo. Get rid of the VR or the monopod, you can't use them at the same time. They being said, I don't believe it to be your issue here...

It's simply a matter of a cheap lens starting to show it's true colors. Maybe it got bumped and misaligned something, or the focus is out of calibration, or it's just dirty, etc. Cheap plastic lenses aren't going to last forever and are easy to mess up. Being that they aren't that great of image producers to begin with, the flaws will be very apparent when something happens to the lens. 

You can pick up a Sigma 70-200 or Nikon 80-200 for $800-1,000. It's a great investment to make, I promise. 

If you want a REALLY good lens for what you're shooting, the sigma 120-300 2.8 can be had used around $2,000. 

You really just need to get some pro glass to work with, with a max aperture of 2.8 or faster, so you can shoot stopped down to f/4 and get TACK sharp photos.

Another option is the 300mm f/4 prime, the old AF model can be had for around $500, and the new AF-S model is around a grand. You are obviously trading a faster max. aperture for reach by choosing one of these, but a 300mm prime is a great lens for sports shooting.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 30, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Your photo has that issue because you are using a crappy lens.
> ...


The 70-300 is an excellent lens!  I'm not sure what Schwetty's basing his comment on; perhaps the Canon equivlalent is less than stellar?

Example!

Looking at the OP with a better monitor, I see the softness.  Based on what has been stated about the conditions and the EXIF data, I suspect that several things played into the lack of IQ.  First, as has been stated, no lens is as good as it can be at maximum zoom and wide-open.  Next, the VR and the monopod may have (probably were) not playing nicely together.  

Try doing some test shots at 300mm at f11, SS 1/1000+, VR off, no monopod.  I suspect your results will be significantly better.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 30, 2012)

I dont understand about the VR and monopod.  Why does it matter?  His shutters were really fast.  



tirediron said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

Thanks to everyone for the replies (and please keep them coming).  I'm going to be shooting two games tomorrow and will try some changes.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 30, 2012)

Is this your lens? Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis

I suggest stopping down the aperture a couple stops next time. (but make sure the shutter is fast enough)  Also try to zoom it around 150-200 range if it is not necessary to be outside that range.


----------



## Destin (Mar 30, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> I dont understand about the VR and monopod.  Why does it matter?  His shutters were really fast.



Schwetty (and the OP), you should read this: 

Nikon VR explained"

*"if you have a shutter speed faster than the sampling frequency, sometimes the system is running a correction that's not in sync with the shutter speed. The results look a bit like the lens being run with the wrong AF Fine Tune: slightly off.**"*


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Is this your lens? Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis
> 
> I suggest stopping down the aperture a couple stops next time. (but make sure the shutter is fast enough)  Also try to zoom it around 150-200 range if it is not necessary to be outside that range.



That's the lens


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 30, 2012)

Good to know..  None of my lenses has IS... i guess that is a good thing, I would have used it wrong LOL.



Destin said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand about the VR and monopod.  Why does it matter?  His shutters were really fast.
> ...


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 30, 2012)

2ManyToyz said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Is this your lens? Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis
> ...



Read the link especially the MTF (resolution) part.


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 30, 2012)

When the photos shown on the original post were taken VR was off...


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 30, 2012)

Use a smaller aperture, it makes no sense to me to be at that focal length, and that aperture in the middle of a bright sunny day. I assume you cranked that shutter up to compensate for the aperture and available light. So bring the shutter down, shoot with a smaller aperture, and you should be at a better place.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Mar 30, 2012)

I think VR is only useful at 1/80th or slower. If you are shooting sports you should be at a faster shutter speed. In this case the VR will not help. One thing to consider is that using a 70-300 and a D90 arent going to compare to a D3 and a 300 2.8. Im sorry it doesnt provide the same results. The autofocus on your lens is slow, I saw a few guys using the 80-400 at a race one time and I asked why they use it. They said it works great, so I tried it on a D3. The lens is useless in auto sports. 
Use the af-c and matrix metering and auto wb. If its really sunny then use the shady barn icon. I like that much better depending on what color the jerseys you are shooting.


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 31, 2012)

Regarding the use of the smallest aperature posssible...my reason for using it is to follow what I consider a cardinal rule of sports photography--minimal DOF to throw the background out of focus so when you view the phtotgraph you are focused on the subject.  But I am going to go to f8 today to compensate for the apparent shortcomings of the lens.


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 31, 2012)

brian_f2.8 said:


> I think VR is only useful at 1/80th or slower. If you are shooting sports you should be at a faster shutter speed. In this case the VR will not help. One thing to consider is that *using a 70-300 and a D90 arent going to compare to a D3 and a 300 2.8*. Im sorry it doesnt provide the same results. The autofocus on your lens is slow, I saw a few guys using the 80-400 at a race one time and I asked why they use it. They said it works great, so I tried it on a D3. The lens is useless in auto sports.
> Use the af-c and matrix metering and auto wb. If its really sunny then use the shady barn icon. I like that much better depending on what color the jerseys you are shooting.



Thanks for the reply.  I get how the lenses do not compare...can you educate me on how using the D3 over the D90 is going to reslult in better photos?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 31, 2012)

2ManyToyz said:


> brian_f2.8 said:
> 
> 
> > I think VR is only useful at 1/80th or slower. If you are shooting sports you should be at a faster shutter speed. In this case the VR will not help. One thing to consider is that *using a 70-300 and a D90 arent going to compare to a D3 and a 300 2.8*. Im sorry it doesnt provide the same results. The autofocus on your lens is slow, I saw a few guys using the 80-400 at a race one time and I asked why they use it. They said it works great, so I tried it on a D3. The lens is useless in auto sports.
> ...




The Full-Frame Advantage


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Mar 31, 2012)

also the D3 has more focus points in which the camera will focus on your subject much much quicker. the d3 is a work horse, it is designed for photojournalist / sports photograhers. the d90 is designed for people just starting out. im not a pro talking down im just saying how the two cameras differ. i shot a race onetime with a d80 and after shooting with a d3, ill never never use anything less(maybe a d700 gripped).


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 31, 2012)

Nothing wrong with shooting at 2500th at 5.6, if the iso isn't being pushed way up. As far as using a monopod, that's just personal choice, I hand hold my 400 2.8 without any problems, weight is relative to strength.  I prefer to use a prime lens for shooting, just find them sharper than alot of zoomers.  The Nikon 200-400mm f4 is a nice lens, but expensive, and you'd get more use out of a 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 converter, it all comes down to what you want to spend.  

Doesn't sound you like you have a real grasp on the equipment you are using, or a soild understanding of how to shoot, as far as settings go.


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 31, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Nothing wrong with shooting at 2500th at 5.6, if the iso isn't being pushed way up. As far as using a monopod, that's just personal choice, I hand hold my 400 2.8 without any problems, weight is relative to strength.  I prefer to use a prime lens for shooting, just find them sharper than alot of zoomers.  The Nikon 200-400mm f4 is a nice lens, but expensive, and you'd get more use out of a 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 converter, it all comes down to what you want to spend.
> 
> *Doesn't sound you like you have a real grasp on the equipment you are using, or a soild understanding of how to shoot, as far as settings go*.



On the bold You are 100% correct.  
Today's adjustments led to some improvements...not as sharp as I'd like but prehaps I'm at the limit of my equipment's capabilities...while flawed these are priceless to me because #30 in the first photo and #28 in the second are two of my sons!!!


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 31, 2012)

One more from today


----------



## 2ManyToyz (Mar 31, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> 2ManyToyz said:
> 
> 
> > brian_f2.8 said:
> ...



Great link thank you


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 31, 2012)

These ones look much better.


----------



## Dillard (Mar 31, 2012)

Looking much better! I like #3 the best because you captured a full body action shot. Sometimes its nice to have the whole picture


----------

