# Help getting clear photos.



## AndyH (Jan 3, 2018)

So I tend to take pictures like this one I am posting a link to. My problem is they are never sharp and clear. Like for example in this older pic I am posting, I was trying to get the whole scene to be clear and in focus. What settings should I have used? I know I probably should have manually chose the focus point and I probably need a new lens. Also I should have used a tripod although I usually don't have time to setup a tripod for pictures like this cause there is other people waiting to take pictures as well. Other than that, what could I do to improve pics like this?

Dropbox - IMG_1027.CR2


----------



## Braineack (Jan 3, 2018)

Post a jpg here please


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 3, 2018)

The whole thing looks out of focus. You might be having back- or front-focus issues with the lens you used.

What settings did you use?


----------



## AndyH (Jan 3, 2018)

focal length = 18mm
f3.5
iso=100
shutter speed 1/350


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 3, 2018)

Stop down the aperture. Your at 3.5. get closer, tighten the frame since the kids are the subject.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 3, 2018)

jcdeboever said:


> Stop down the aperture. Your at 3.5. get closer, tighten the frame since the kids are the subject.


I wanted to include the background in the pic. So I should use a smaller aperture? Seems like the only way I can get a clear photo with my camera is to get up close and zoom in tight on the subject.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 3, 2018)

Your camera's got focus issues ... looks like is it front focusing.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 3, 2018)

Braineack said:


> Post a jpg here please


Dropbox - IMG_1027.JPG


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 3, 2018)

As stated above the aperture is too shallow and get only what you need in frame. The camera seems to have focused on the grass in front of the subjects.

I've cropped, exposure adjustment and some sharpening but this could all be corrected in camera with the already provided suggestions.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 3, 2018)

Even shot wide open (assuming it is the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6) I would expect better focus in the centre ... if the camera correctly focused there ... unless that lens is really bad IQ.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 3, 2018)

dxqcanada said:


> Even shot wide open (assuming it is the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6) I would expect better focus in the centre ... if the camera correctly focused there ... unless that lens is really bad IQ.


its the 18 to 135mm 3.5-5.6


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 3, 2018)

AndyH said:


> its the 18 to 135mm 3.5-5.6


That's a half decent lens and should be getting better focus.
What focus settings were you on?


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 3, 2018)

AndyH said:


> focal length = 18mm
> f3.5
> iso=100
> shutter speed 1/350



The grass in the foreground is much sharper than the children. Check your camera's auto-focus settings. If you have multiple focus points active the camera will typically lock on the point closest to you.

Joe


----------



## AndyH (Jan 3, 2018)

zombiesniper said:


> AndyH said:
> 
> 
> > its the 18 to 135mm 3.5-5.6
> ...


one shot auto focus


----------



## AndyH (Jan 3, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> AndyH said:
> 
> 
> > focal length = 18mm
> ...


yes I think 7 of the 9 focus points were selected


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 3, 2018)

AndyH said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > AndyH said:
> ...



Then the camera focused on the grass in the foreground. With multiple focus points active the camera will usually lock on the closest point. Turn off the extra focus points and make sure the active focus point is on the kids.

Joe


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 3, 2018)

Okay in the next 2 images we can see some of the issues.
First in the meta data we can see you have multiple focus points on with a cluttered scene.






This is letting the camera decide what is important to shoot. If we look at the line that says AF Points in Focus we can see 7 AF points in focus. Now lets look at where these are in frame.





The AF Points with the red dots are the ones in focus.
Now the camera can't possibly have each of those points in focus at F3.5. Just not possible so it is likely averaging the focus of these 7 points.

In this situation I would choose One AF point, usually centre but not always. Put that AF point on the eye of one of the subjects and you should get a perfectly clear image.

Hope this helps.


----------



## ac12 (Jan 3, 2018)

I think Auto = closest subject.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 3, 2018)

Not necessarily.
As you can see in the post I made there are 7 AF point that are indicating in focus. Where the camera actually focused is really a guess without 100% pixel peeping.


----------



## rosh4u (Jan 3, 2018)

As I saw picture, the focus is not there because it is not set properly. The second thing which affected is you chosen zoom lens but I would recommend that for wide angel shot, we have to use a primary lens.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 3, 2018)

zombiesniper said:


> Not necessarily.
> As you can see in the post I made there are 6 AF point that are indicating in focus. Where the camera actually focused is really a guess without 100% pixel peeping.



Appeared to me to be focused on the grass in front of the kids.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 3, 2018)

rosh4u said:


> we have to use a primary lens.



First I've heard of this.
Care to explain why?



480sparky said:


> Appeared to me to be focused on the grass in front of the kids.



I agree it is somewhere there but the previous statement that auto always equals the closest subject is to simplistic an answer.


----------



## ac12 (Jan 3, 2018)

I don't know about the 60D, but the T3 manual says "in basic zone modes, the camera will normally focus the closest subject automatically."

That is the same as on the Nikon D70 and D7200, auto = closest subject.  Which is why I never use the Auto setting, I want to control where the camera focuses.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 4, 2018)

18mm wide-open at f/3.5 on the 18-135mm zoom....Ughhh....wide-angle zooms are often only marginal wide-open at their shortest focal length. The short lengths of wide-ratio zooms are often rather dismal, optically. And even at 25 feet at 18mm, there is NOT "all that much" depth of field, so if the focused upon area is not the desired subject,well, the picture might be undesirably soft on the ostensible main subject.

Had this been shot at f/6.3, it's highly likely you would have made a sharper, crisper picture. One of the problems with short focal lengths is the rather wide physical space that the AF squares can subtend...sometimes, the focus squares cover a pretty sizable area!


----------



## Braineack (Jan 4, 2018)

regardless, still looks like an issue with the lens and/or AF module


if you have a clear UV filter on the end of the lens, please remove it and proceed to throw it away.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 4, 2018)

Braineack said:


> regardless, still looks like an issue with the lens and/or AF module
> 
> 
> if you have a clear UV filter on the end of the lens, please remove it and proceed to throw it away.


No, I don't have any filter on the lens. I also have a 70-300mm lens and when I use it, the pictures still aren't that clear.


----------



## Dave442 (Jan 4, 2018)

I only see two issues. One is the focus point - in this case you know the kids are the main subject so just use a single focus point and focus on them. Second is the exposure settings - you wanted most of the scene in acceptable focus so you know you want a small aperture. 

The camera gave you an exposure of f/3.5 at 1/350 and you were using ISO 100. One way is to first drop the aperture to around f/5.6 or f/6.3 and see if your comfortable with a shutter speed of 1/125 or 1/100 (at 18mm you should have no problem at 1/60 with a still subject and basic camera holding technique). If the subject is not completely still or you tend to shake the camera then boost the ISO a stop or two and increase the shutter speed a stop and also the aperture if you went two stops on ISO. As you have a zoom lens you will want to watch the shutter speed if you zoom out the long end so if you just use ISO 200 and then the shutter speed at 1/200 your covered for camera shake and slight subject movement and the f/6.3 will give a decent DOF at 18mm and normal subject distance for people shots. Another way is to just see that it is a cloudy day and go straight to ISO 200 or 250 when you pulled out your camera and then do the shutter speed and aperture adjustments for the scene.


----------



## Designer (Jan 4, 2018)

AndyH said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> > What focus settings were you on?
> ...


The one shot setting doesn't affect focus, but "auto" focus does.  Set your focus mode to be one area only, and this one can be selected from any of the 9 options. 

In the example photo, the center area is almost on the girl's face, which is probably where you would want the focus due to the position of the children relative to the entire scene.  

However; before you try a similar shot in the future, test the focus of your AF system and the lens.  Some lenses have an issue, and likewise the AF system in the camera.  Verify that you can achieve good focus, and if not, something needs to be adjusted.


----------



## Cortian (Jan 4, 2018)

Perhaps a case of the blind leading the blind, as I'm new, very new, to DSLR photography,  myself, but, were I trying to do what you were I would've stopped the aperture down a couple stops (for depth of field) and bumped the ISO to get around 1/125 (for camera shake).

My Canon doesn't have a multiple-AF-point focus mode like you have (had?) yours set.  One-or-more of my past cameras had something like it.  I experimented with them.  IIRC, they never did what I wanted/expected, so I never used it.  I've always used single-point focus or manual.

Can't speak to the lens.  That's an area in which I have no expertise, even newbie "expertise," at all.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 4, 2018)

What Canon model do you have?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 4, 2018)

zombiesniper said:


> What Canon model do you have?



From the OP signature: Canon EOS 60D


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 4, 2018)

Sorry should have specified.

@Cortian what model of camera do you have. Seems odd that you have no control of your focus points.


----------



## KmH (Jan 4, 2018)

OP. Are you making Raw image files or letting the camera make JPEG image files?


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 4, 2018)

His first image linked was raw.


----------



## Cortian (Jan 4, 2018)

zombiesniper said:


> Sorry should have specified.
> 
> @Cortian what model of camera do you have. Seems odd that you have no control of your focus points.


I have a Canon 20D.  I do have control over my focus points, but not the kind of "multiple-focus-point-averaging/-whatever" mode the OP's Canon has.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 4, 2018)

Ok I went out today taking some pics. I think my camera has focus issues. Not one picture came out really clear or sharp. I am going to upload some of the raw images to dropbox and link to them below.

Dropbox - IMG_1820.CR2
Dropbox - IMG_1821.CR2
Dropbox - IMG_1841.CR2
Dropbox - IMG_1844.CR2
Dropbox - IMG_1833.CR2
Dropbox - IMG_1840.CR2
Dropbox - IMG_1825.CR2
Dropbox - IMG_1832.CR2


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 4, 2018)

I only looked at the last image you linked to and the foreground is not so badly focused. The trees are quite out of focus. As mentioned earlier, this seems to be the camera focusing on the wrong thing. I always have just the central focus point active and then I make sure that it is on the most critical part of the picture.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 4, 2018)

Hard to tell with a lot of water but in the second one, the ducks in the foreground look sharpest, midrange OK, background out of focus. #3 background looks more sharp than foreground; #4 middle seems sharper.  

That leaf in the sixth one looks sharp, and in the last one the background looks more in focus than the foreground. It seems to be depth of field isn't covering enough area to get it all in focus. 

I learned photography focusing manually, and did for a time use a camera's focus points, but not for long because of the focus points not always nailing the focus. I can get it focused more precisely manually. Someone mentioned using single focus point or focusing manually, maybe try one of those techniques.

With the first one of the kids, the aperture was too large. It would have been better to get in closer, frame the shot to include the interesting part of the wagon with pumpkins and sunflowers and the kids, and leave the sign and cars and telephone poles out of the frame (and out of the picture). Had you wanted a picture of the sign to record where this was probably walking to the left could've gotten a photo of that. Or you could've done a wider shot but walk around and change the vantage point, then another more close up of the kids. But for any of that you'd need a smaller aperture to get it all in focus. 

The first one also had a way faster shutter speed than needed. You might have needed a fast shutter speed if the kids were jumping etc. to freeze the movement,, but 1/125 should be fast enough hand held to avoid shutter blur.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 4, 2018)

On the new pics I took today, I did manually choose the focus point on all of them. Most of them I used the center focus point.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 4, 2018)

Maybe the camera lens focus is off then because it doesn't look like it nailed the focus.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 4, 2018)

Try checking to see if you are having a back or front focus issue. On the couple I saw it appeared to be front focusing. Linked below is a simple way to check.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 4, 2018)

zombiesniper said:


> Try checking to see if you are having a back or front focus issue. On the couple I saw it appeared to be front focusing. Linked below is a simple way to check.


I did that test and at 70mm it is front focusing. At 42mm still front focusing. At around 18 to 20mm and f3.5 and f4.5 none of the batteries were even close to being in focus but the front was better.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 4, 2018)

Sounds like your camera is front focusing and may need to see a shop. The 60D doesn't have a micro focus adjustment capability.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 4, 2018)

Thank you all for your help, I really appreciate it. Here are the pics I took for the focus test.

Dropbox - IMG_1846.CR2
taken at 64mm f5.6 iso 160 1/3000 speed

Dropbox - IMG_1847.CR2
taken at 42mm f4.5 iso 100 1/2000 speed

Dropbox - IMG_1848.CR2
taken at 18mm f3.5 iso 100 1/3000 speed

Dropbox - IMG_1850.CR2
taken at 20mm f3.5 iso 100 1/2000 speed

Dropbox - IMG_1851.CR2
taken at 18mm f4.5 iso 100 1/1500 speed


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 4, 2018)

taken at 64mm f5.6 iso 160 1/3000 speed 
Agree that nearest battery (furthest right) is the sharpest and is in good focus


taken at 42mm f4.5 iso 100 1/2000 speed 
Again appear to be front focusing but it's focusing even further in from. No battery is in focus


18 and 20mm test you need to get closer.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 4, 2018)

Maybe getting the lens serviced would be worth it. Then try smaller apertures so the depth of field isn't so shallow. That should (depending on the amount of light and the meter readings) bring down that shutter speed - it's faster than you'd need for stationary objects. 

With a smaller aperture less light is coming in to the camera, so it should adjust to a somewhat slower shutter speed to allow in more light. Usually a photographer can shoot hand held at 1/125. Learn to meter a scene and how to adjust aperture and shutter speed and ISO - you're getting nice color and brightness. If you can get more precise focus it seems to be a matter of figuring out the settings better and you'd probably get some nice photos.


----------



## rosh4u (Jan 4, 2018)

zombiesniper said:


> rosh4u said:
> 
> 
> > we have to use a primary lens.
> ...



Because primary lens allows you to get infinity focus each and every of the things which will help you to get clear and better picture. Other than this, the primary lens allows you to set aperture f1.8 to get better exposure of the image.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 4, 2018)

I must be thick today because setting to F1.8 seems like the opposite of what this picture need.


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 5, 2018)

rosh4u said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> > rosh4u said:
> ...


I would be very upset if any of my lenses, zoom or prime, did not allow infinity focus. The only difference between zoom and prime (apart from one zooms) is image quality and that is not a great difference now.


----------



## Cortian (Jan 5, 2018)

Again, the caveat: I'm a DSLR newbie.  So take this FWIW...



AndyH said:


> On the new pics I took today, I did manually choose the focus point on all of them. Most of them I used the center focus point.


Please bear with me on the following.

I've a technical and engineering background, and most of my friends have been techs, engineers or scientists (mostly physicists).  In technical, engineering and scientific disciplines there is a common aspect of, let us say, "figuring things out."  (Trouble-shooting method in tech, scientific method in engineering and science.)  One of my ex-bosses put it best when he said, of trouble-shooting: "Get the cr*p off bus!"  (Data bus, not transportation vehicle .)

The point to my explaining that is you are making multiple changes in your experiments/trouble-shooting.  Don't do that.  Reduce the number of variables.  Pick one aspect of what you're doing, change that, and that alone, check your results.  When you change two-or-more things at once, one can correct a problem and the other re-introduce it--or something that looks very much like it.

Btw: Re: Manual focus: You've adjusted the diopter to suit your eyesight, yes?



AndyH said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> > Try checking to see if you are having a back or front focus issue. On the couple I saw it appeared to be front focusing. Linked below is a simple way to check.
> ...


Please do not take offence, as I'm only trying to help, but...

Did you do _all_ these things, _precisely_ and without exception?

Camera on tripod
Stable, level surface for targets
Outside for lowest possible ISO
Widest aperture possible
Distance 50x focal length in millimeters
Single-shot, single-point autofocus
Image stabilization off
Shutter on delay timer or remote shutter release
I only ask this, am making certain, because, as the maker of the cited video noted: It's almost never the tool, but the user.  E.g.: In all the years I wrote software, and the myriad of software tools I used, I only _twice_ found what was broken was the tool, rather than the wielder  

I would hate for you to have gone to the trouble and expense of chasing a hardware problem,  only to find it wasn't a hardware problem, after all.


----------



## Cortian (Jan 5, 2018)

john.margetts said:


> The only difference between zoom and prime (apart from one zooms) is image quality and that is not a great difference now.


Well, and angle of view, often (usually?), no?

It's moot in this case, anyway, is it not?  The OP wants to understand why the photos he's taking with the body and lens he _has_ aren't coming out like he'd like.  I may be a DSLR n00b, but I _have_ had experience with other cameras.  ISTM the photos he's trying to take aren't particular demanding of his hardware, are they?


----------



## Braineack (Jan 5, 2018)

rosh4u said:


> Because primary lens allows you to get infinity focus each and every of the things which will help you to get clear and better picture.



no. please. no.


also: I realize it's a language issue, but the word is *prime*, not primary.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 5, 2018)

Cortian said:


> I only ask this, am making certain, because, as the maker of the cited video noted: It's almost never the tool, but the user. E.g.: In all the years I wrote software, and the myriad of software tools I used, I only _twice_ found what was broken was the tool, rather than the wielder



the 7Dmii was plagued with AF issues.  I wouldn't be shocked if this 60D also had issues and needs to be serviced.


----------



## Cortian (Jan 5, 2018)

Braineack said:


> the 7Dmii was plagued with AF issues.  I wouldn't be shocked if this 60D also had issues and needs to be serviced.


He'd need (at least) one more lens to test for whether it's the camera body, though, no?


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 5, 2018)

Cortian said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > The only difference between zoom and prime (apart from one zooms) is image quality and that is not a great difference now.
> ...


No. angle of view is determined by focal length and sensor diagonal. If the zoom is used at the same focal length as a prime lens, angle of view will be the same.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 5, 2018)

Braineack said:


> the 7Dmii was plagued with AF issues.


Not all. I believe it depends on whether you bought an earlier model or not. I know a lot of 7DkmII owners that have no issues. Non of them bought the first year though.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 5, 2018)

I agree ZS, not that you're thick! lol but that going to a larger aperture will just make the depth of field even more shallow. Doing the opposite and using a smaller aperture would give more of the field of view in focus. It depends on meter readings how much it's necessary to open/close the lens to a larger or smaller aperture, set the shutter speed to a faster or slower speed, or raise or lower the ISO, to get a proper exposure.

By manual focus I mean not using focus points, but turning the barrel of the lens each way until it's in focus. It might be a matter of figuring out which method of focusing works best for you.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 5, 2018)

Cortian said:


> Again, the caveat: I'm a DSLR newbie.  So take this FWIW...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like the way you think! I followed those guidelines exactly except for the one about distance. I shot them all from about 4 feet away.

A little history about this camera.
I purchased it in December 2012.

Took a lot of great pictures with it at Disney in 2013. Pictures were clear and sharp.

Sometime in 2015 it was knocked off of a counter at home. Nothing external appeared to be damaged. However it started over exposing every picture. I sent it to Canon in December 2015. They said, " The unit was found to be impacted causing the ae assembly to move out of position causing unevenness in the exposure." Canon repaired the camera at a cost of $300. I posted here about this when it happened.

I guess to be honest I really haven't been satisfied with the pictures ever since then. I thought the problem with my focus issues was just me because sometimes I can get good pictures. The more I use it and try to get good pictures the more I convince myself that there is a problem with the camera.

I hate to send it back to Canon and pay another $300. I could just use that money towards a new camera? Idk.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 6, 2018)

AndyH said:


> Ok I went out today taking some pics. I think my camera has focus issues. Not one picture came out really clear or sharp. I am going to upload some of the raw images to dropbox and link to them below.
> 
> Dropbox - IMG_1820.CR2
> Dropbox - IMG_1821.CR2
> ...



Since you posted these as RAW images, I downloaded them and opened them in Canon Digital Photo Professional 4

IMG_1820 - you selected center focus point and camera nailed focus.  The image needs a bit of exposure adjustment, but focus is fine.  You used manual exposure and f/5.6

IMG_1821 - you selected the center focus point and camera nailed focus again... but the subject is in motion and I do see some left-right motion blur (duck was moving his head).  You also used manual exposure and f/5.6 again.

IMG 1841 - you selected the center focus point and... I'm noticing a pattern here... again, you used f/5.6.  

Ok, time to talk about f-stops and why you would choose one over another.

f-stops control the aperture size of the lens which has a strong influence on "depth of field" (the range of distances at which subjects will seem to be in acceptable focus... not that's "acceptable" not "perfect")    When you are shooting a single subject at a given distance and don't care if objects at other distances (such as backgrounds) are in focus, you can select a low focal ratio.  In fact doing so can render a strong background blur which is sometimes highly desirable (although these strong levels of blur usually comes when you also used moderately long-ish focal lengths and the focal ratios are particularly low... f/2.8, f/2, f/1.4, etc.  you wont see strong blur with a shorter focal length and f/5.6 ... you'll get just enough blur to realize it isn't "sharp" but not enough to be "artsy".

But then you shoot the pond with a near-shore, a tree stump on the near shore, some rocks on the far shore... and you focused on the middle of the pond... where there isn't much interest.

If you want the "whole" scene to be in fairly good focus... use a higher focal ratio... f/11 or f/16 for example.  f/22 will give you even more depth of field but if you REALLY pixel-peep the image you may also start to notice that while everything is "pretty good" that the best parts aren't as sharp as they might be down at say... f/8.   This is due to something called "diffraction limits" and has to do with the wave nature of light (it's a physics problem... not a lens problem or camera problem.)  You can do some pretty cool things at f/22.... shoot a night-scene with street lights and notice that at f/22 the lights turn into "stars" with diffraction spikes coming off every point of light (a nice "artsy" effect.)

So far I'm looking to see if you'll change the f-stop to anything other than f/5.6.

IMG_1844 - another f/5.6 shot that would have been better at a higher f-stop.  I see you set the center focus point.  It looks like there *might* be a tiny bit of camera movement in this shot.  It also looks like the nearer part of the scene might be slightly better focused than your chosen focus point.  Might you have moved the camera just a touch after focus?  In "One-Shot AF" mode the camera will only focus until it achieves focus and if the camera moves at all after that, it will not update the focus again.  When using that mode it's important to not move the camera after it locks focus.

IMG_1833 - another f/5.6 shot that would have been better at at higher f-stop.  Like IMG_1844 I see you used the center AF point and it's not as sharp as the closer parts of the image.  

Your lens MIGHT be front-focusing... or your sensor MIGHT need a shim adjustment (sensor plane might not be orthogonal to the optical axis of the lens) or your lens MIGHT have a decentered element.  It's hard to tell.

IMG_1840 - hard to tell

IMG_1825 - this one looks pretty good.  I see you put the focus point on moving water ... which might make the focus system struggle a bit.

IMG_1832 - this one looks pretty good.


Now back to the original image... 

Those two kids look microscopic in this big image with all the rest of that clutter.  As Robert Capa is quoted as saying "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough."

Back to my commentary on what might be wrong (besides shooting everything at f/5.6 regardless of what depth of field might work better for your subject).  I'm somewhat skeptical of a decentered lens element or non-orthogonal camera sensor (e.g. needing to be shimmed) because if that were the case, is think i should see the issue in _every_ image... not just some images.   

When you want to test a camera or a lens, eliminate any possibility of human error or problems with the subject.  Go shoot something you can control.

Find a FLAT brick wall.  Put the camera on a tripod.  Make sure the camera lens is perfectly orthogonal to that wall (wall is perfectly parallel to the camera sensor) -- nothing is on an angle.    You need something "flat" so that you can be sure everything is in the plane of focus (with the caveat that technically the plane of focus is fractionally curved so don't expect corners to be quite as sharp as the center.)  

Since your photos are typical outdoor landscape photos ... your foreground is nearer than the background and we can't quite be sure why part of an image has better focus than another part.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 6, 2018)

TCampbell said:


> AndyH said:
> 
> 
> > Ok I went out today taking some pics. I think my camera has focus issues. Not one picture came out really clear or sharp. I am going to upload some of the raw images to dropbox and link to them below.
> ...


Thank you very much for your help! I need to learn more about aperture. I mostly thought of it as a way to adjust exposure. So when I take a picture of a brick wall, what should my settings be as far as how far away, focal range, aperture?


----------



## Cortian (Jan 6, 2018)

AndyH said:


> Thank you very much for your help! I need to learn more about aperture. I mostly thought of it as a way to adjust exposure.


Aperture is more than that. You would be well-served by reading _Understanding Exposure_, by Bryan Peterson.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 6, 2018)

Cortian said:


> AndyH said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you very much for your help! I need to learn more about aperture. I mostly thought of it as a way to adjust exposure.
> ...


Thanks! I searched on Google play and looks like they have 3rd and 4th edition. I will get one and read it.


----------



## Sportrunner (Jan 12, 2018)

Get a depth of field calculator app for your phone and see what distance is going to be in focus. Understanding depth of field may answer your original problem of trying to get everything in focus. It will compliment the book above.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 23, 2018)

Well I sent my camera off to canon last week. Just got it back about an hour ago. I am very happy with it! They said the AF assembly was out of position. They adjusted the af assembly and replaced the focus screen. Will try to post pics later! I have also read Understanding Exposure and am halfway through Understanding Composition. Thanks everyone for the help!


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 23, 2018)

Good to hear that there was some fixable problem ... yes post some new images.


----------



## AndyH (Jan 25, 2018)

I went out this morning and took some pics. It was 20 degrees outside and foggy by the river. I'm having a hard time finding things to photograph. Everything is so dull this time of the year. Anyway, I thought I would share some of the pics I took this morning.


----------



## Cortian (Jan 25, 2018)

Those are some nice photos, Andy!  Focus looks good, too


----------



## AndyH (Jan 25, 2018)

Cortian said:


> Those are some nice photos, Andy!  Focus looks good, too


Thank you! It's definitely nice to have my camera focusing again!


----------



## ceemac (Jan 25, 2018)

Those are good photos. And you've only read one book??


----------



## AndyH (Jan 25, 2018)

ceemac said:


> Those are good photos. And you've only read one book??


Thanks! I've almost finished the 2nd book. I've been watching alot of Bryan Peterson's "You Keep Shooting" videos. And I've been watching videos by Mike Browne.


----------



## VolkswagenMommy (Jan 26, 2018)

AndyH said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > regardless, still looks like an issue with the lens and/or AF module
> ...



I this is a tricky lens!!!!! The 70-300! I wish we had a thread on that one by itself! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VolkswagenMommy (Jan 26, 2018)

VolkswagenMommy said:


> AndyH said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Typooo!!! It is a tricky lens [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ac12 (Jan 26, 2018)

VolkswagenMommy said:


> AndyH said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



The 70-300 on a crop camera is tricky, because of the magnification.  Trying to handhold a 8.5x magnification without IS/VR is HARD.

This is my beef about some of these kits.  They put a non IS/VR lens as the long lens, when that is where the IS/VR is NEEDED, especially with a crop sensor camera.

In high school, shooting 35mm film, our hand hold limit was a 300mm lens (6x).  And some could not do it, they stopped at 200mm (4x). 

You get steady, you had to setup and shoot like shooting a target rifle.

Set up the 70-300 on a bean bag to be steady, shutter speed at least 1/1000 sec, and take a picture. 
If it isn't sharp, the lens may be at fault.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 26, 2018)

rule of thumb:   focal length x 2(or more) = minimum shutter speed.


VR is only useful/needed under 1/500 sec.


----------



## mcap1972 (Jan 31, 2018)

Maybe adjust your micro focus


----------

