# Newbei bought a 35mm without VR



## RichardsTPF (Aug 27, 2011)

I just received my new 35mm f1.8. This len has no VR. i took couple pics to compare with my 18-200mm. It's faster, but it's hard to get sharp image due to my unsteady hand. Is it normal challenge  for newbei? How can I practice? I want to use it as my walk around len, so I can't always carry a tripod.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 27, 2011)

VR really shouldn't be necessary on a lens as wide as 35mm.  Keep your shutter-speed above 1/60 and you should be fine.  Learning to hold a camera steady is a practiced art; I know one photographer who can hand-hold and produce tack-sharp images at 1/4 of a second.  Me?  I've been shooting for 30+ years and am lucky if I can hand-hold 1/20!  Now, having said that, is it definitely motion blur due to slow shutter-speed and not a case of very thin DoF due to you shooting everything at f1.8?  (A lot of people who get fast primes tend to "lock" them at their largest aperture when they first get them)


----------



## ann (Aug 27, 2011)

:thumbup:

Also, you might think of a light weight monopod.  I saw a fellow recently traveling on a cruise in China have his p%s on one as it provide that extra bit of support.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 27, 2011)

How ares you standing/holding camera when shooting?  Keep elbows tight to your side and stand with one leg forward for balance. Are you keeping one hand on camera and one on lens? You can also make a tripod out of yourself by sitting down with your knees up and spread about the width of your shoulders (if that makes sense). Still upper arm close o body but rest your elbows on your knees. I have a 50mm with no VR. It doesn't really need it. As long as you are focusing in the right spot and using correct aperture/shutter speed your pictures should cone out good.


----------



## KmH (Aug 27, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> I just received my new 35mm f1.8. This len has no VR. i took couple pics to compare with my 18-200mm. It's faster, but it's hard to get sharp image due to my unsteady hand. Is it normal challenge  for newbei? How can I practice? I want to use it as my walk around len, so I can't always carry a tripod.


I'm willing to bet the issue is mostly from very shallow DOF, not camera shake.
VR is not n_eeded _on any lens under 200 mm. 

Post examples, or at least tell us if you were shooting inside or outside, day or night, what shooting mode, what focus mode, what shutter speed, etc.


----------



## molested_cow (Aug 27, 2011)

You can't get sharp image at 35mm? Something is wrong with you, not the equipment.

Check if your shutter speed is above 1/60 like mentioned above. For me, I get decent result even with 1/40sec.
And VR is really meaningless on a 35mm 1/8.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 27, 2011)

I was shooting indoor low light. The setting was f2.8, 1/6s, AP mode. I will post the pic once I get home.


----------



## Sonoma (Aug 27, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> I was shooting indoor low light. The setting was f2.8, 1/6s, AP mode. I will post the pic once I get home.



Try increasing your ISO; even to 400 or 800 would help.  Or add a flash or both.


----------



## ann (Aug 28, 2011)

There is your answer. 1/6 of sec. very hard to hand hold for most mere mortals.


----------



## Compaq (Aug 28, 2011)

If you've have a habit of ingesting coffee, people say that'll make your hands shiver more. 

+1 ^


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Aug 28, 2011)

You want to try to be at least at the reciprocal of your focal length on your shutter speed setting. ( you also have to factor in the crop factor. ) So for instance. On my Canon 7D there is a crop factor of 1.6x. So if I was shooting with a 35mm, I would want to be at a minimum of 1 over 35x1.6. So 1/60th or faster would be best. That doesn't mean you can't shoot slower, but you just run more chance of picking up camera shake, and have to be extra careful with holding technique.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 28, 2011)

Practice your technique.  Holding and breathing.

Do a search and see what works best for you.

For me, locking my elbows to my chest area while supporting each corner of the camera in either hand with a couple of fingers under the lens and finger and thumb of my shooting hand free to do their thing and then leaning forward to brace the top edge of the camera's pentaprism to my forehead above my shooting eye to complete the three point anchor does the trick.  I can usually shoot down to a fifteenth or thirteenth.  Lower than that and I need to brace against something.

About the only way I could do a sixth hand held is to shoot a burst and hope for the best.


----------



## djacobox372 (Aug 28, 2011)

VR isn't an option on wide lenses like the 35mm because it's unnecessary.  IMO, the only reason for wanting VR on a focal length less then 100mm would be for shooting video. 

A rule of thumb is, when hand-holding, your shutter speed should always be the same or higher then your focal length (1/35th+ for 35mm, 1/200+ for 200mm).  1/35+ covers most shooting conditions, 1/200th+ doesn't, which is why they add VR to allow you to shoot up to 2 stops slower then what would be recommended without it.  The VR in your 200mm puts it about on par with the 35mm without VR for hand-held shooting at the same aperture; however, the fact that you can stop your 35mm lens all the way down to 1.8 gives it a huge advantage.


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 28, 2011)

None of the lenses I use have VR & they range from 20 to 300mm.  You need to practice steady holding of your camera.


----------



## Compaq (Aug 28, 2011)

At which shutter speed can you hand hold at 300mm, RE?


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 28, 2011)

Compaq said:


> At which shutter speed can you hand hold at 300mm, RE?



Shot with a Canon FD 300/5.6 @ 1/250s hand held.  I was sitting using my knees to help steady the camera.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 28, 2011)

Thank you for all your help. I increased ISO to get faster speed. Looks like I do need to work on handheld skill.
Here are some test pics on a tropical punch bottle taken with my 35mm and 18-200mm. I am just curious how much difference could be. All pics are taken handheld at same distance/position, ISO 640, 35mm, spot metering mode.
Sorry for the mess background. The letters on the bottle are blur, I can't compare the sharpness. I don't see any noise at iso 640. 
#1 18-200mm len, ISO640, 1/100s, f4.2





[/URL] DSC_0003 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#2 35mm len, ISO640, 1/125s, f4





[/URL] DSC_0004 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#3 35mm len, ISO640, 1/500s, f1.8





[/URL] DSC_0006 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#4 35mm len, ISO640, 1/320s, f2.5





[/URL] DSC_0007 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 28, 2011)

Ron,
How do you use knees to help steady the camera?


----------



## MTVision (Aug 28, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> Ron,
> How do you use knees to help steady the camera?



I explained how to do this on the first page of the thread.  Usually you sit down with your knees up.  Knees should be about hip width apart.  You rest elbows on knees.  Human Tripod


----------



## MTVision (Aug 28, 2011)

I can read the Minute Maid on the bottle but it is a little fuzzy.  Can you read it perfectly without the camera from where you were?


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 28, 2011)

These pics were shot at about 9ft away from the subject. I took couple pics at 4ft, those letters are perfectly sharp.
I saw your post on 1st page. I tried and didn't work for me very well.


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 28, 2011)

MTVision said:


> RichardsTPF said:
> 
> 
> > Ron,
> ...



What she said.


----------



## invisible (Aug 28, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> Here are some test pics on a tropical punch bottle taken with my 35mm and 18-200mm


If you're going to shoot events  in which one rarely has control over lighting conditions or the action (fashion shows, music gigs, weddings, etc.),  then you might need to look into lenses with VR. If, on the other hand, what you do allows you to control light and subject (like in the photos you posted), then your answer is: *get a tripod*.

After the tripod, the next piece of gear in your radar should be a *remote shutter release*  these are generally very affordable, unless you're shooting with semi-pro or pro-level cameras. Next in line would be to learn how to *shoot with your camera's mirror locked up*. 

The three steps above should take your photography from somewhat blurry to tack sharp.

I used to be a fan of shooting handheld, but learned the hard way that handheld (even with VR) is not the way to go  except, like I said above, if you don't have a choice.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 28, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:
			
		

> These pics were shot at about 9ft away from the subject. I took couple pics at 4ft, those letters are perfectly sharp.
> I saw your post on 1st page. I tried and didn't work for me very well.



Maybe they are a little blurry because you were a tad to far away or the focus wasn't right on. Not sure though


----------



## nickzou (Aug 28, 2011)

Do they even make a 35mm prime with VR?


----------



## MTVision (Aug 28, 2011)

nickzou said:
			
		

> Do they even make a 35mm prime with VR?



Not that I know of


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 28, 2011)

Forgot to mention in the previous post: the pic/letters were sharp when I shot at 3ft away with my arms rest on the table. so I know the blur was caused by my unsteady hands.
Yes, I know tripod and remote will helps a lot. I want to choose my walk around len between 35mm and 18-200mm, which means tripod and remote might not available.
The purpose of these test pics is to see how much sharper this 35mm could make at handheld condition.
I will practice the human tripod method.


----------



## Destin (Aug 28, 2011)

nickzou said:


> Do they even make a 35mm prime with VR?



For that matter, as far I know of they haven't even put VR into a 50 or 85 prime. There is really no need because they are so fast.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 29, 2011)

Here are couple pics I took with tripod. I spot focus on the bar code at the right bottom corner of the nikon box. 
If my eyes are good, f4 is slightly sharper than f1.8, and the 35mm is sharper. I also tried exposure delay function to reduce vibration, looks like it doesn't help much.

#1 35mm len, iso200, f1.8, 1/50s





[/URL] 1 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#2 35mm len, iso200, f4, 1/13s





[/URL] 2 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#3 35mm len, iso200, f1.8, 1/50s, exposure delay





[/URL] 3 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#4 35mm len, iso200, f4, 1/13s, exposure delay





[/URL] 4 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#5 18-200mm len, iso200, f4.2, 1/10s





[/URL] 5 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## MTVision (Aug 29, 2011)

These are with a tripod?? Do you think they look the same as off camera?? Does your 18-200 have VR?


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 29, 2011)

Yes. It's 18-200mm VRII. And all shoots used timer. I was search mirror lock up for D90, and found exposure delay in my manual. Are they same function?


----------



## MTVision (Aug 29, 2011)

Nikon D90 Blog - D90 Everything!: Nikon D90 Mirror Lock -Up?

What: Mirror lock-up (often abbreviated to MLU) is a feature employed in  many Single Lens Reflex (SLR) cameras. It allows the operator to reduce  vibration-induced motion blur during exposure. From Wikipedia, the free  encyclopedia

Does the Nikon D90 have it? Unfortunately no but it does have a pretty darn good alternative. This is called *Exposure Delay Mode*,  Page 183 of your manual. It's says, "In situations where the slightest  camera movement can blur pictures, Exposure Delay Mode On can be  selected to delay shutter release until about 1 second after the shutter  release button is pressed and the mirror is raised".


Honestly, there shouldn't really be any shake on a tripod with a timer.



1. This picture was taken on a tripod with my 50mm f/1.4 - does not have VR



DSC_0188 (3) by MT Vision Photography, on Flickr

2. This was taken handheld 



DSC_0206 (2) by MT Vision Photography, on Flickr

This biggest difference between my pictures and yours is the shutter speed.  I really think that if you were using a faster shutter speed you would have better results. Just my opinion.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 29, 2011)

Did you use aperture priority for all the pictures? The aperture probably isn't affecting shake/blur whereas shutter speed might be. If you don't feel comfortable using manual mode then try S mode.  Set your shutter speed a little higher then you've been using - the camera will determine aperture


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 29, 2011)

Those bar code pics are cropped at 200% zoom in. The blur was caused by the camera shaking. Even though a tripod has been used, the minor shaking still exists. The longer shutter time extends its negative effect. If I shoot at less than 1/60s, the image will be a lot sharper. A high quality tripod might works much better than my $60 one. And I read some tread about hanging extra weight on the tripod to provide more stability.
Therefore, to get sharp image with non-VR len, I need to increase the iso if there is no sufficient light available.
And one of the most important solutions is practicing my handheld skill.


----------



## ann (Aug 29, 2011)

years ago a test was made using the same image, three images, one hand held, one on a tripod and one on a tripod with mirror lockup all at 1/500. Each image got sharper; with the last (tripod, mirror lockup) being the sharpest.

The differences were not huge but could be seen with the naked eye.


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 29, 2011)

I have followed this thread with interest & decided to try to duplicate the OPs original shots.  However my 35mm is a slower lens so I opted for a 50mm f1.7 to experiment with.  I shot two frames hand held from about 4' & then severely cropped the images to include the bar codes.  


ISO 200, 1/15s, f1.7









ISO 100, 1/100s, f 1.7








With the faster shutter speed we achieved better resolution although not sharp due to shooting with the lens wide open.  Most lenses will improve sharpness considerably if stopped down 2 stops.

What I do not understand is the poor image quality the OP is getting with a tripod mounted camera.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 29, 2011)

Once I get home, I will try place my camera on the table and shoot under day light. What is size of your bar code?


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 29, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> Once I get home, I will try place my camera on the table and shoot under day light. What is size of your bar code?



The lower one is 1.5" across.

I shot @ 4' with a 50mm so you could shoot @ 3' with your 35mm to get somewhat the same image.


----------



## bennielou (Aug 29, 2011)

My 35mm 1.4 has it's very own camera it lives on.  That lens is my bestie bestie friend ever.  You shouldn't be having problems with the lens.  If you are having problems, it's most likely because you have your settings wrong.  Change the settings and you will LOVE this lens!
Pinkie Swear!


----------



## bennielou (Aug 29, 2011)

The below were all taken with the 35 mm 1.4 at varied apps, lighting, and sofort, but I shoot manual.  It's honestly the best lens that I have, and I have most lenses.  I have lots more photos than these, but this will give you an idea of how cool this lens can be under the proper settings.  Practice and have fun!


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 29, 2011)

I have no problem to shoot bar code from 3ft away. But at 6ft, the image become blur.
While the camera mount on the tripod 6' away from the box, looking at the barcode in the view finder, shaking my camera (no tripod leg movement), I can see the bar code circle around inside the center focus point. Do you think this little bit space/range of shaking could cause the blur?
Here are couple more pics shot at SP mode on the tripod. #1,2 are 3ft away from the subject, and #3,4 are 6ft away from subject.

#1 1/100s, f2.5, iso200






[/URL] DSC_0014 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#2 1/50s, f3.5, iso200






[/URL] DSC_0015 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#3 1/100s, f1.6, iso200





[/URL] DSC_0019 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#4 1/50s, f2.5, iso200





[/URL] DSC_0020 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## MTVision (Aug 29, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:
			
		

> I have no problem to shoot bar code from 3ft away. But at 6ft, the image become blur.
> While the camera mount on the tripod 6' away from the box, looking at the barcode in the view finder, shaking my camera (no tripod leg movement), I can see the bar code circle around inside the center focus point. Do you think this little bit space/range of shaking could cause the blur?
> Here are couple more pics shot at SP mode on the tripod. #1,2 are 3ft away from the subject, and #3,4 are 6ft away from subject.
> 
> ...



Maybe it is the distance that is causing the lack of clarity. It's only 35mm so maybe the further away you are the less focus. If you can shoot clearly at 3ft w/no shake it should be the same at 6ft. The 5omm is equivalent to the way the human eye sees so I would assume that the 35mm would be a little less than that.

I'll try taking a picture of a barcode 6th away at 35mm and see how it comes out!


----------



## MTVision (Aug 29, 2011)

This was 6ft away handheld.  It was actually 34.5mm f/10 1/200 ISO 400
The exposure is not correct in this picture. I shot this picture with the settings from the last picture I took




Untitled by MT Vision Photography, on Flickr

This one was shot at 6ft away as well at the same focal length as the one above.  Handheld. 1/8 f/5 ISO 640. This one is blurry because its handheld and the shutter speed is slow.




Untitled by MT Vision Photography, on Flickr

Not sure if this helps at all.  I don't really understand whats going on. There shouldn't be barely any shake if you use a timer on a tripod. Prime lenses are super fast as well.  I wasn't using a prime for these photos as I only have the 50mm prime. If I were you I would read your manual and start playing around with the manual mode.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 29, 2011)

Do you think it's my len's problem?


----------



## MTVision (Aug 29, 2011)

No. I think it is a DOF issue.  I don't think you are used to such a shallow depth of field. Your other lens probably doesn't go below 3.5 or similar. I'm a noob so I can't really explain DOF that well except to say that if you choose a higher aperture then at 6 feet it will probably come in sharper.  I sent you another private message as well.  Let me know

Check out this thread.  It pretty much explains what is going on with yours. 

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...56-not-too-impressed-canon-50mm-1-8-lens.html


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 30, 2011)

This post is in response to a PM from the OP.  

As requested, I set the camera with a 50mm f1.7 lens 6' from the subject on a tripod.  The bar code measures 1" x 0.75".  


1.  ISO 200, f1.7, 1/40s









2. crop of above








3. Same as above but shot @ f4 & 1/10s







I think this clearly demonstrates how stopping down a couple notches really improves the image.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

Did you handheld the camera? I can't get it right even with a tripod.


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 30, 2011)

On a tripod as stated above.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

Sorry I am a bad reader. What do you think cause the blur?


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 30, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> Sorry I am a bad reader. What do you think cause the blur?



Do the test as I did on a tripod @ 5' & f4 & show us the result.  I say 5' not 6' because you are shooting with a wider lens than I am.  Focus very carefully.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

What do you mean by  Focus very carefully? I used the AF-A and spot metering on the center of the bar code.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 30, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:
			
		

> What do you mean by  Focus very carefully? I used the AF-A and spot metering on the center of the bar code.



Don't use af-a. It's an automatic focus!  Spot metering only has to do with making sure that spot is correctly exposed. Use af-s so you can pick the focus spot!


----------



## Destin (Aug 30, 2011)

MTVision said:


> RichardsTPF said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1 AF-S for still subjects, AF-C for moving subjects. AF-A should NEVER be used. EVER! EVERRR!!! You don't wanna let the camera pick where to focus!


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

Destin said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > RichardsTPF said:
> ...


Correct me if I'm wrong (Canon guy), but from my googling, it seems that AF-A just lets the camera decide whether to use AF-C or AF-S.  (Continuous or Single Shot, in Canon terms.)

That doesn't sound bad to me - the camera detects movement, it switches to continuous mode.  Nothing I read mentioned the camera automatically selecting focus points...


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 30, 2011)

Ron Evers said:


> RichardsTPF said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry I am a bad reader. What do you think cause the blur?
> ...



I do not know your camera or lens, as I shoot  manual lenses but I surmise you can manual focus your lens on your camera - the best method in my opinion.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 30, 2011)

O|||||||O said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong (Canon guy), but from my googling, it seems that AF-A just lets the camera decide whether to use AF-C or AF-S.  (Continuous or Single Shot, in Canon terms.)
> 
> That doesn't sound bad to me - the camera detects movement, it switches to continuous mode.  Nothing I read mentioned the camera automatically selecting focus points...



Your right but do you use the automatic settings on your camera? If you choose af-a you let the camera decide whether the subject is stationary or moving. Personally I'd rather choose how my camera focuses and makes sure it focuses on the right spot. In the software that comes with Nikon it shows you on the computer the focus spots. In automatic on a non-moving subject they can be all over the place. Granted the focus spots around, on and near the subject.  With af-s and a stationary subject you can focus EXACTLY where you want too. The OPs issue, I think, is focusing and DOF. The OP is not used to a fast prime that can open so wide.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

The only automatic settings my camera has are Av, Tv and P - I rarely use those though.  I'm in manual 99% of the time.  It's not that it's "better" or anything - it's what I know, and what I'm comfortable with - therefore, it's faster for me.

I have never used a camera that could automatically switch between single shot and continuous...  It does sound kinda nice to me though.

For AF, I use continuous, exclusively.  I also use back button focusing though (* button, on Canon cameras).  Back button focusing is pretty much required when using continuous AF.
If I had the option for something like AF-A, I would use back button focusing on that too, since there is a chance it would select continuous mode.

As long as you're still in control of the active focus point(s), I don't see how a mode that could automatically decide on single shot or continuous would make you miss focus.


I guess what I'm saying is that if you can focus in single shot mode, there is no reason you can't do the same in continuous mode.

"With af-s and a stationary subject you can focus EXACTLY where you want too."  There is no reason that you can't do exactly the same in continuous mode.


----------



## kundalini (Aug 30, 2011)

Ever heard of a lens having back or front focusing issues?  Does your camera body have the option to tweak the lens focusing?

But while the subject was already broached, here's a little diddy for you OP.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 30, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Ever heard of a lens having back or front focusing issues?  Does your camera body have the option to tweak the lens focusing?
> 
> But while the subject was already broached, here's a little diddy for you OP.



Do you think it could be an issue with a lens.  From what the OP has said the picture is clear at 3ft but not at 6.  Could that be the lens? Or is it DOF?


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

I can't use manual better than auto focus.  Here is my pics.

#1 1/4000s, f4, iso400, AF-A spot metering






[/URL] DSC_0031 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#2 crop






[/URL] DSC_0031_01 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#3 1/100s, f4, iso200, AF-S spot metering






[/URL] DSC_0040 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#4 crop






[/URL] DSC_0040_01 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

When I use AF-S, the shutter is twice as fast as AF-A.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

Your lens may be back-focusing.  On the second set, the Christmas lights box looks sharper the the box with the bar code that you focused on...  The shadows show that the bar code was sticking out in front of the other box a little...  (Maybe 1/2 inch?)

Take a 100% crop from picture #3 right where it says "C9" and compare that to the 100% crop of just the bar code...


----------



## MTVision (Aug 30, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:
			
		

> I can't use manual better than auto focus.  Here is my pics.
> 
> #1 1/4000s, f4, iso400, AF-A spot metering
> 
> ...



I don't believe Af-s would increase your shutter speed.  Do me a favor and Set your aperture to the lowest f-stop (f11 maybe) and adjust the shutter speed until you see a correct exposure. Take a picture of that.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

F/11 may not be best for focus testing...  I would do this sort of thing wide open just to make any changes very clear...

edit
If only the focus mode is changing, exposure settings should not change.  Do tests like this in manual so nothing changes.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 30, 2011)

O|||||||O said:
			
		

> Your lens may be back-focusing.  On the second set, the Christmas lights box looks sharper the the box with the bar code that you focused on...  The shadows show that the bar code was sticking out in front of the other box a little...  (Maybe 1/2 inch?)
> 
> Take a 100% crop from picture #3 right where it says "C9" and compare that to the 100% crop of just the bar code...



What is back focusing?


----------



## MTVision (Aug 30, 2011)

O|||||||O said:
			
		

> F/11 may not be best for focus testing...  I would do this sort of thing wide open just to make any changes very clear...
> 
> edit
> If only the focus mode is changing, exposure settings should not change.  Do tests like this in manual so nothing changes.



I figured it was a DOF issue since he was shooting 6ft away.

EDIT: Earlier in the thread OP said 3ft it focused fine but not at 6ft.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

MTVision said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Focusing behind the intended point of focus.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 30, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...










 Originally Posted by *RichardsTPF* 
 				I have no problem to shoot bar code from 3ft away. But at 6ft, the image become blur.
While the camera mount on the tripod 6' away from the box, looking at  the barcode in the view finder, shaking my camera (no tripod leg  movement), I can see the bar code circle around inside the center focus  point. Do you think this little bit space/range of shaking could cause  the blur?
Here are couple more pics shot at SP mode on the tripod. #1,2 are 3ft away from the subject, and #3,4 are 6ft away from subject."

Would it back focus just based on distance??


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

Do you have a ruler or something?  Shoot that at a 45 degree angle, and pay close attention to where you focus.

On this shot, I focused right where the 200mm line is.  I placed the scissor tip there to remind myself in case I forgot.




08031111 by J E, on Flickr

To me, the 205mm line looks sharper than the 200mm line...  So, it looks like my lens is back-focusing by 5mm...  (Probably more like 3mm, judging by the smaller lines.)


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

MTVision said:


> Would it back focus just based on distance??


No, but more distance will make the effects less noticeable.

It could be possible that it's only off a little, and it's only noticeable at close distances.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 30, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > Would it back focus just based on distance??
> ...



Yeah but the OP said at 3 feet it was clear and only at 6 feet was it blurry. So, if it was backfocusing wouldn't you think it would be blurry at 3ft not at 6ft?

EDIT:  Sorry I'm asking a million questions! I'm curious.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

> I don't believe Af-s would increase your shutter speed.


I was wrong. sorry.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

MTVision said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > MTVision said:
> ...


You're right.  I didn't catch that before.

If it's off, it will get worse the closer you get.  (well, it won't "get worse", but it will be more obvious.)

...Most likely missed focus, like everyone else said.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 30, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...



Do you think it could be DOF?


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

> Sorry I'm asking a million questions! I'm curious


This my first time heard about back focus. I have million questions too.



> Do you have a ruler or something?  Shoot that at a 45 degree angle, and pay close attention to where you focus.


shall I use f1.8? That gives shortest DOF.

And here is the 100% crop (If I am right, I zoom in to 100%, then crop the pic.)





[/URL] DSC_0040_02 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]






[/URL] DSC_0040_03 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> > Sorry I'm asking a million questions! I'm curious
> 
> 
> This my first time heard about back focus. I have million questions too.
> ...



Yes, that's right - zoom in to 100% then crop.  Just as I suspected, the box that was farther away looks sharper...

When I do tests like this, I do them at the widest aperture the lens can do (2.8 in my example above) just so the DOF will be the smallest and any errors will be more obvious.

EDIT
Also, move the _subject_ to the correct focus point.  Try not to move the camera at all...  (For the testing...)


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 30, 2011)

I am pleased that some folk more familiar with the OPs equipment than me are trying to help out as I use a mirror-less camera & manual lenses.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

How close can that 35mm focus?

You may want to do these sort of test close to the closest focus the lens can do on such a wide lens (not right at the limit, but close to it), just to make the results easier to see - and also it should make everything more critical, which will also make any errors more obvious.


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 30, 2011)

Thanks Josh, I have now passed the ball.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

Ron Evers said:


> Thanks Josh, I have now passed the ball.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

f1.8, with flash, sorry I don't have a ruler. spot focus at 21".







[/URL] DSC_0043_50 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

Looks like focus is good. No back.front focus issue.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

To me, the 21 1/8 inch line looks the sharpest...  So, if that is the case, and you focused perfectly, that lens would be front-focusing by about 1/8".

Not much, but if you're shooting wide open, every little bit counts...


----------



## kundalini (Aug 30, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> To me, the 21 1/8 inch line looks the sharpest...


Me too.

Make life easier on yourself Richard.  Learn about proper focus testing and print a proper chart.  You can read more about it here......  Focus Testing - photo.net


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

Yes. It's 0.177" off. Is that normal for a new camera?
Do you think that cause the blur image? When I shoot f4 at 5', I can move my camera forward little bit.
when we calculate DOF, where shall I start measure the subject distance from, the front of the len or the camera body?


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

I guess it's possible that the camera focused on the '1' instead of the line at 21". Focusing on the line, the AF point box surely covered part of the '1'.  Who knows how small of an area it really focuses on...

It might be worth repeating the test using manual focus...  (Make sure the diopter is adjusted correctly first.)


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> where shall I start measure the subject distance from, the front of the len or the camera body?


It is measured from the film/sensor plane.  There should be a mark on top of the body somewhere (usually close to the flash/prism) - it looks sort of like a diameter sign - &#8960; (but the line will be longer).  The line is the film/sensor plane.  This is where you measure form.

edit
If you can't find a mark like that on your camera, measure from the back of your camera and subtract 1/4" or so (the exact amount will vary based on how your camera is built, but 1/4" should be pretty close).


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

diopter? never used. I double check the focus point. I made a stupid mistake. No wonder the 21 1/8" is most in focus. Here it is.






[/URL] DSC_0044_01 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

I will redo it.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 30, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> diopter? never used.


You don't even need a lens on for this...

Look at the viewfinder - right next to it (you might have to remove the rubber eye-cup) there should be a little wheel...

Look at the markings in the viewfinder (AF boxes, and such) - adjust the little wheel until those viewfinder markings are the sharpest.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

Here are AF-S, exact 5' from &#8960; to the bar code. AP, ISO800
#1  f2.8, 1/25s 





[/URL] DSC_0052 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#2  f4, 1/13s





[/URL] DSC_0053 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#3  f5.6, 1/6s





[/URL] DSC_0054 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#4  f8, 1/3s





[/URL] DSC_0055 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#5  f11, 1/1.6s





[/URL] DSC_0057 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## MTVision (Aug 30, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:
			
		

> Here are AF-S, exact 5' from &#8960; to the bar code. AP, ISO800
> #1  f2.8, 1/25s
> [/URL] DSC_0052 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]
> 
> ...



Handheld? Tripod?


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

Tripod. Looks like f11 is the best, but not sharp enough.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 30, 2011)

I don't think it it the DOF or back/front focus issue. f8 and f11 give deep enough DOF to ignore the 0.17" difference.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 30, 2011)

Not sure what it is...

Slow shutter speed could cause blur - but that shouldn't be a problem on a tripod.

Have you taken any other pictures with this lens?


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 31, 2011)

The chemical plant night pics posted in another thread were taken with this 35mm len.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 31, 2011)

The blur image from this len is no much better than my 18-200mm.
#1 35mm   f11, 1/1.6s, iso800






[/URL] DSC_0057 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

#2 18-200mm@35mm, 1/2s, iso800





[/URL] DSC_0058 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]

If it was DOF issue, f8 and f11 shouldn't have any problem. 
It could be the len fault.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 31, 2011)

Well I doubt both your lens are messed up.  But then again, I dunno. I think your shutter speed is a little too slow.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 31, 2011)

Something is not right...  Those look much worse than I expected...

How stable is your tripod?

A couple of them look like they might have camera shake (#1 in post #96 - just a couple above this post).


Just to eliminate all of the variables, use a remote (or timer), use mirror lock-up (custom function - check your manual), and if you're tripod isn't very stable, try something else (sandbags?) - or maybe hang a weight from the tripod to dampen any vibrations.  Try not to move at all (even if you're not touching the camera - vibrations through the floor or whatever...) while it's taking the picture.

Make sure both the front & rear elements of your lenses are clean (it would have to be VERY dirty to have an effect like this, but check anyway).

Lastly, you haven't been touching the sensor or cleaning it improperly, have you?

Put your camera into it's cleaning mode (check your manual) - this will raise the mirror and open the shutter - DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DO THIS BY JUST PUTTING IT INTO BULB MODE.  With lens & body cap removed, in cleaning mode, look at the sensor (a flashlight might come in handy).  It'll most likely have a little dust on it - that is normal, and won't effect picture quality much, if at all.  You're looking for a film or haze - like a smeared fingerprint or something.


If you check all of that, and everything is normal - go to a camera shop (bring your camera) and ask to test out a new lens you've had your eye on (  ).  If that lens produces sharp pictures, I think it's safe to say that you have 2 bad lenses...


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 31, 2011)

I just bought this camera and the 18-200mm a month ago. Never touch the sensor. I set camera into it's cleaning mode, remove the len and look at the sensor with a flash light.

The sensor is very clean. No dust on the rear elements of your lenses , and the front are also clean.
Could be my tripod. With camera mount on the tripod, shaking the camera, I can see the camera slightly move with the tripod head.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 31, 2011)

Try weighing down the tripod and see if you notice any improvement.  You might also be able to rig up something more secure than the tripod (sand bag\bag of potting soil, on a desk/shelf in some position that it can't move w/ the timer, whatever else sounds good...).

Really though, you should be able to gt acceptably sharp photos outside in the daylight without having to do all this testing...  I would seriously try to test another lens (and if possible, another copy of the lenses you already have)...


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 31, 2011)

Those are the only two lens I have.
Can I bring my camera to bestbuy and ask for couple test shoot with their lens there?


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 31, 2011)

Maybe.  I wouldn't think they would have an issue with letting you mount one of the display models...  (You might have to wipe it down with your shirt or something first though - wear a cotton t-shirt.)

If BestBuy falls though, look for a Ritz Camera or something.  They shouldn't have any issues with testing a lens out.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Aug 31, 2011)

OK. there is a *Wolf Camera & Image *close to my home in Houston. But I won't go home until this weekend.
I feel bad to testing their lens without buying anything. haha, I have a thin skin.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 1, 2011)

Well, you could just buy something cheap, like a cleaning kit or something.


----------



## Overread (Sep 1, 2011)

*thread re-opened*

 For now all comments relating to the argument that started have been removed from this thread and the thread is now re-open to continue aiding the OP with their situation. It is not open for a repeat of the same behaviour from before.

I would also like to remind members that, when giving advice, try to remain respectful and also explain your point clearly so that others can understand the reasoning.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 1, 2011)

Thank you for reopening the thread, and also for cleaning it up.

Hopefully we can get to the bottom of the OP's issue...


----------



## analog.universe (Sep 1, 2011)

It does appear that there is camera movement even in the tripod shots.  Try putting the camera on the floor and doing the test?  Maybe just try handheld outside at like 1/1000?

If you can't get a sharp image outside in bright sun, at 5.6, 1/1000 of a barcode 5' away, then it really sounds like there's a focusing issue with the lens.  Trying to get sharp 100% crops is tricky business however...  you're really pushing a number of variables to their limits, and you need to get them all right to actually get the result you're looking for.  This is a pretty nice article on achieving critical sharpness: Getting the Pixels Right by Thom Hogan


----------



## Rosshole (Sep 1, 2011)

Let's get back to the beginning before all of the bar code photos... OP, what are you trying to find out, if your lens is a bad copy, or if you are not using optimal settings?

EDIT:  I think that the post above is a great idea.


----------



## subscuck (Sep 1, 2011)

I really don't want to read thru all of this again, but have we ever determined the make and model of the OP's tripod? I seem to recall him saying he could see the camera bobbing around a bit on the tripod. This may be the only issue he's having. A little instability and slow ss's will definitely lead to blur. I'd suggest setting it on a table and using the timer, or go outside under bright light and do it handheld.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 1, 2011)

Rosshole said:
			
		

> Let's get back to the beginning before all of the bar code photos... OP, what are you trying to find out, if your lens is a bad copy, or if you are not using optimal settings?
> 
> EDIT:  I think that the post above is a great idea.



His original problem/? was that he bought a 35mm without VR and he thinks that shake is causing the barcode to be blurred.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 1, 2011)

subscuck said:
			
		

> I really don't want to read thru all of this again, but have we ever determined the make and model of the OP's tripod? I seem to recall him saying he could see the camera bobbing around a bit on the tripod. This may be the only issue he's having. A little instability and slow ss's will definitely lead to blur. I'd suggest setting it on a table and using the timer, or go outside under bright light and do it handheld.



He never said the make of the tripod. Just that it was 60.00. I have a cheap vivitar tripod and if it shakes it's not noticeable in the picture with my 50mm on it.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 1, 2011)

subscuck said:


> I really don't want to read thru all of this again, but have we ever determined the make and model of the OP's tripod? I seem to recall him saying he could see the camera bobbing around a bit on the tripod. This may be the only issue he's having. A little instability and slow ss's will definitely lead to blur. I'd suggest setting it on a table and using the timer, or go outside under bright light and do it handheld.


As far as I know, the OP has not stated the specifics on the tripod...  There was at least one shot that looked to me to have camera shake...

All of the variables need to be eliminated to find the root cause of the problem, and the tripod is one of those variables...


----------



## Ron Evers (Sep 1, 2011)

Thanks, good move Overread.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Sep 1, 2011)

Thank you for all your advice and help. I am really glad to see so many people help me out.
Sorry I forgot about my tripod. It is a BENRO A150EXU.
I bought my D90 and 18-200mm over a month ago. After seeing so review/thread about sharpness of the 35mm, 50mm prime lens, I bought this 35mm f1.8G a week ago. To get a idea of the decent sharpness, I took several pictures of bar-code with both lens. The result is disappointing. My first thought was the non-VR function and my setting could be wrong. Through previous discussion I learn a lot about DOF (I thought I knew it until yesterday) and front/back focus issue. Looks like it is not DOF problem. I am going outside to take couple more pics with my camera on the ground.
If it's my setting, I want to figure out what's wrong and avoid repeating mistake.  If it is not my setting, could it be the equipment? I don't want to spend hundreds of $ on it.

Sonama, I can get sharp bar code image at 1ft and 3ft away. the blur appear when I try to shoot at 5' and 6'.
Analog, I shot at 1/4000s two days ago, still get the same result. I will do it again. tanks for your link, definitely will read it.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 1, 2011)

analog.universe said:
			
		

> It does appear that there is camera movement even in the tripod shots.  Try putting the camera on the floor and doing the test?  Maybe just try handheld outside at like 1/1000?
> 
> If you can't get a sharp image outside in bright sun, at 5.6, 1/1000 of a barcode 5' away, then it really sounds like there's a focusing issue with the lens.  Trying to get sharp 100% crops is tricky business however...  you're really pushing a number of variables to their limits, and you need to get them all right to actually get the result you're looking for.  This is a pretty nice article on achieving critical sharpness: Getting the Pixels Right by Thom Hogan



Could the reason the pictures look like they do be due to the crop? If the picture was taken at 6ft and the barcode is under 2"?


----------



## subscuck (Sep 1, 2011)

It's within the realm of possibility that you got a bad copy of the lens. It does happen. Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, etc., all let some bad lenses slip out from time to time. I'm assuming you can return or exchange the lens, and if none of our suggestions resolve your issue, I would exchange it for a new copy. If you say you had the same issue at 1/4000th, I'd start thinking you have a defective lens.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 1, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> I don't want to spend hundreds of $ on it.


Assuming that it is faulty equipment and not user error (which can be fixed), you shouldn't have to pay a dime.  It sounds like it's still pretty new, so it should still be inside the warranty period (double check when that ends though, just to be safe).


It might even be worth going back to wherever you bought it and exchanging it for a different copy...  It would at least be one more variable you could eliminate...


----------



## subscuck (Sep 1, 2011)

MTVision said:


> Could the reason the pictures look like they do be due to the crop? If the picture was taken at 6ft and the barcode is under 2"?



It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure in this case. People who judge sharpness at 100% crop are referred to as "Pixel Peepers". Pics generally will look softer at 100% crop, but the OP's examples are showing some pretty extreme softness. More important than pixel peeping is how sharp the pic is at the size you're actually printing at.


----------



## Ron Evers (Sep 1, 2011)

MTVision said:


> Could the reason the pictures look like they do be due to the crop? If the picture was taken at 6ft and the barcode is under 2"?



My shots were treated the same way & are not so bad as the OPs.


----------



## subscuck (Sep 1, 2011)

Ron Evers said:


> My shots were treated the same way & are not so bad as the OPs.



That's why I'm starting to think defective lens. While you would expect them to be softer at 100% crop, you wouldn't expect them to be that bad.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 1, 2011)

Yes, much too soft for a 100% crop compared to any lens I have ever used (and not all great lenses, lol).

Right now, I'm thinking 'really' crappy tripod, or defective lens(es).  If nothing improves hand-held in bright light ... well, that eliminates the tripod...


----------



## Ron Evers (Sep 1, 2011)

subscuck said:


> Ron Evers said:
> 
> 
> > My shots were treated the same way & are not so bad as the OPs.
> ...



But his zoom was not good as well.  

I too am thinking equipment but which.  The Op seems to me as being competent to conduct the trials.  New camera & new lenses.  

I would love to have hands on to make a determination.


----------



## analog.universe (Sep 1, 2011)

In a perfect situation (Perfect the way physics sees it, meaning impossible in the real world, you can only get close), you can get a 100% crop with a blur between the black and white of a barcode only 1 pixel wide.  meaning: black pixel, grey pixel, white pixel.  So..  given that the lens isn't perfect, and the anti-alias filter isn't perfect, and the photographer isn't perfect, in the real world you can expect maybe 2 ambiguous pixels if you've done as best you can.  The OPs images demonstrate blur consistently in the 4 to 5 pixel range, so something else at work.  Either the lens isn't focusing correctly, or the camera is moving around, etc...

Another thing I just thought of that I'm not sure was covered was noise reduction.  It doesn't look to me like that's what it is, but it will still reduce sharpness if it's enabled, so you should turn it all off and shoot at base ISO for these tests if possible.


----------



## analog.universe (Sep 1, 2011)

Ron Evers said:


> subscuck said:
> 
> 
> > Ron Evers said:
> ...



The zoom was not perfect, true, but that particular zoom doesn't have a reputation for being very sharp.  The 35 does, and the zoom outperforms it....


----------



## subscuck (Sep 1, 2011)

It's definitely tough troubleshooting over the net. I'd like a hands on as well, but I agree, the OP seems more than competent enough to work through our suggestions. The comment about same results hand held, at 1/4000th, is what's leading me to believe equipment issue. But not being there, I don't know.


----------



## Sonoma (Sep 1, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> Thank you for all your advice and help. I am really glad to see so many people help me out.
> Sorry I forgot about my tripod. It is a BENRO A150EXU.
> I bought my D90 and 18-200mm over a month ago. After seeing so review/thread about sharpness of the 35mm, 50mm prime lens, I bought this 35mm f1.8G a week ago. To get a idea of the decent sharpness, I took several pictures of bar-code with both lens. The result is disappointing. My first thought was the non-VR function and my setting could be wrong. Through previous discussion I learn a lot about DOF (I thought I knew it until yesterday) and front/back focus issue. Looks like it is not DOF problem. I am going outside to take couple more pics with my camera on the ground.
> If it's my setting, I want to figure out what's wrong and avoid repeating mistake.  If it is not my setting, could it be the equipment? I don't want to spend hundreds of $ on it.
> ...






Ron Evers said:


> subscuck said:
> 
> 
> > Ron Evers said:
> ...



I thought he said he had the trouble with both lenses also.  And if they both focus at 3', but not at 5'-6' it sounds too me like a camera focus problem.  It would be nice if he had access to another body to test


----------



## eccs19 (Sep 1, 2011)

I had a quick read through the thread, so I hope someone didn't already suggest this, and if no one did, I can't believe it wasn't suggested.  Do you per chance have some sort of a cheap UV filter on your lenses?  A crappy filter can lead to soft images.  If you do have a filter on either of these lenses, take it off, and try your test(s) again.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Sep 1, 2011)

> A crappy filter can lead to soft images.


I don't have any filter yet.



> Another thing I just thought of that I'm not sure was covered was noise  reduction.  It doesn't look to me like that's what it is, but it will  still reduce sharpness if it's enabled, so you should turn it all off  and shoot at base ISO for these tests if possible.


Haven't finish read my manual yet. Let me check it.



> The comment about same results hand held, at 1/4000th, is what's leading me to believe equipment issue.


Just look at the pic. This pic was taken at f1.8 before I knew large aperture will also blur the foreground. I will redo it tomorrow.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 1, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> This pic was taken at f1.8 before I knew large aperture will also blur the foreground. I will redo it tomorrow.


Which picture are you referring to?

If you posted a new one in you last post, it isn't showing for me...


----------



## eccs19 (Sep 1, 2011)

Are you letting the camera focus for you, or are you focusing manually?  Also if your camera has Live View, try manually focusing using it to see if you can get accurate focus.  I believe most camera's that have Live View, you can zoom in to ensure your focus is accurate. (Use a tripod when using Live View)


----------



## RichardsTPF (Sep 1, 2011)

I didn't post that 1/4000s pic. It's really bad. I think the DOF is wrong.
I am really bad at manual focus through view finder. Liveview is a good idea.

I just tried shoot the bar code with liveview in both manual and AF. Got same softness. when I zoom all the way in and manual focusing by turning the focus ring , see the bar code on the LCD screen was very soft. (Not just soft, may be b/c of the LCD resolution, I can't see the barcode clear).


----------



## RichardsTPF (Sep 2, 2011)

Reading the link provied by Anolog, I find out that I should not have use [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]extended center post[/FONT]. The light in my apartment is not enough to get fast speed. Shoot with tripod, hang a bag, mirror lock up and timer. The image got slightly sharper than yesterday. Still not good enough?



> when I zoom all the way in and manual focusing by turning the focus ring  , see the bar code on the LCD screen was very soft. (Not just soft, may  be b/c of the LCD resolution, I can't see the barcode clear).


 :






[/URL] DSC04048 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## eccs19 (Sep 2, 2011)

I don't know your camera / len line, but based on what I've read in this thread, I think you've done all the testing you can, and this leads me to believe you've either got a bad lens(es), something wrong with the camera, or this model of camera just isn't up to snuff with what your expecting out of it.  I personally don't think there is much more you can test.  If it is user error (and I don't think it is), see if you can find a more experienced photographer in your area that can try your camera out for you, or perhaps even have a Nikon so he can test your lenses, and you can test his lenses on your body.


----------



## RichardsTPF (Sep 2, 2011)

> this model of camera just isn't up to snuff with what your expecting out of it.


too bad, all my friend are canon fans. Maybe I can test it in a camera store.
Does anyone have a D90?


----------



## Rosshole (Sep 2, 2011)

I need to test this with my camera now.


----------



## KmH (Sep 2, 2011)

RichardsTPF said:


> Does anyone have a D90?


No. Yours is the only one Nikon ever sold. :er:


----------



## RichardsTPF (Sep 3, 2011)

Back to Houston today, and print out the focusing test chart. Redo the focusing test:
Two auto focus:






[/URL] DSC_0068 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]





[/URL] DSC_0071 by RichardsFlik, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## RichardsTPF (Sep 5, 2011)

Went back to Houston this weekend. The salesman at Wolf Camera is very helpful.  He gave me a 35mm f1.8d and a D90 to take couple test shoots. First I shot with his 35mm mounted on my d90, then my 35mm f1.8g mounted on his d90. Comparing to the image from my 35mm w/D90,  I got the same blur bar code images. Therefore neither my 35mm nor my D90 has quality issue. Trough all these tests, I have to admit that 100% crop on a bar code image challenges the capability of the D90.

Do you think the front/back focus issue matters? Is it necessary to send my D90 back to Nikon for calibration?

Again Thank you all for your help. Appreciate your advice. I learn a lot here.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 6, 2011)

The shots of the chart don't look bad.  Based on those shots, I don't think you have a back/front focusing issue.
(DOF is 1/3 in front, 2/3 behind the point of focus, which is exactly what you see in those shots of the chart.)


Let me make sure I'm clear on this...
Two bodies, two lenses - you tied both lenses on both bodies and didn't see any difference?  (And the chart shots look fine to me.)

If that is the case, I have to say that it's gotta be your technique...  Or there's just something evil about barcodes, lol.


I mean, basically, you're saying that you eliminated both the body and the lens as being bad - correct?  If so, the only other variable is you...  I don't really know what else it could be.

Correct me if I'm wrong on anything...

The only other thing I can think of is that the barcode is throwing the focus off somehow.  Your shots of the chart look fine, so you obviously know how to focus.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 6, 2011)

You are side shooting the page, and that is part of the problem.  You don't have to be right on top of it, but you need to be more up.  I agree that this appears to be user error.


----------

