Jump to content

Can't figure out why pictures are not crisp


AlexT

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I'm new to the Fuji system and bought a used XT-2 abd a brand new XF 18-135mm lens. Just went on my first trip with it and I'm not happy with how a lot of the pictures turned out. I can't understand why some of them look blurred (as in by movement). Some others just don't look crisp enough.

I'm attaching cropped versions at 100% zoom of the pictures to highlight some problem areas (they are not near the edges).

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I want to rule out my equipment being defective. Is this normal?

Picture1:

  • ISO-200
  • f/5.3
  • 1/1100sec
  • 74mm
  • OIS on

Picture2:

  • ISO-200
  • f/5.6
  • 1/640sec
  • 135mm
  • OIS on

Picture3:

  • ISO-200
  • f/5.6
  • 1/1000sec
  • 88mm
  • OIS on

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

These images could not be sharp for a number of reasons. There is an easy way to check. Find a room with plenty of light, no wind, and put camera on tripod. Get one of those charts with lots of lines and colours - like a projector focussing chart - and take pictures (using a cable release or self timer) of it at various distances and apertures. Then you will know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2020 at 1:41 AM, Chas said:

These images could not be sharp for a number of reasons. There is an easy way to check. Find a room with plenty of light, no wind, and put camera on tripod. Get one of those charts with lots of lines and colours - like a projector focussing chart - and take pictures (using a cable release or self timer) of it at various distances and apertures. Then you will know.

What Chas said. It's impossible to objectively determine how 'sharp' a lens is while you're shooting hand held. I don't think even a monopod was used to take those pictures.

Even if a photographer doesn't have a proper chart, objective assessments can be made taking pictures of a brick wall (including barrel/pincushion distortion found in some zoom lenses).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth mentioning that, of the fuji lenses out there, this is one of the few that is kind of known for not being super-sharp in general ..... and you have quite a huge number of elements in motion here on top of that with lots of areas that would compete for focus ..... so like the guys above said, first things first, do an objective test of the camera and lens at the focal lengths and aperture that you're describing with everything else out of the picture to determine if your combination is going to produce what end result with every other variable accounted for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2020 at 9:38 AM, AlexT said:

I was not really moving myself, and at the shutter speeds I'm using it shouldn't matter either? 

I'm using AF-S, with single point focus. 

No matter what shutter speed you use, if you are inducing camera shake, the image will be blurry.  Up close you can see movement from left to right in some parts of the image.  As others have suggested, take some photos on a tripod and compare the results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What camera have you upgraded from? Bear in mind that a 24mpx pic will look a lot less sharp than a 16 or 12 Mpx pic when both are viewed at 100%. To me the first two don’t look too bad for handheld pics, at 100% you’re looking at part of an image which would be over 30” across, which you wouldn’t normally view nearly as close up. 
The third pic looks like it has some movement for sure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2020 at 4:38 PM, AlexT said:

I was not really moving myself, and at the shutter speeds I'm using it shouldn't matter either? 

I'm using AF-S, with single point focus. 

AF-s focussing is best for not moving objects.

AF-c is best used for moving objects, it keeps on focusing with every movement of the subject or the photographer, like the boat moving or the water falling from the rock.

Regards, Roeland, x-t20

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that your shutter speeds should have eliminated any blur from camera shake at those focal lengths.  However, it looks like your auto focus just missed a bit, and you probably should have stopped down to f/8 for both deeper depth of field and I suspect that your lens is probably sharper at f/8 as well.  Finally, I wouldn't use AF-S for a moving subject unless it is only lateral movement that wouldn't change the distance between you and the subject.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Geno said:

I agree that your shutter speeds should have eliminated any blur from camera shake at those focal lengths.  However, it looks like your auto focus just missed a bit, and you probably should have stopped down to f/8 for both deeper depth of field and I suspect that your lens is probably sharper at f/8 as well.  Finally, I wouldn't use AF-S for a moving subject unless it is only lateral movement that wouldn't change the distance between you and the subject.  

Just a quick calculation.
At f 5.6, with a subject at 300ft, you get focus from 105ft to infinity.

At f8, you get focus from 85ft to infinity.

It would have had to be a serious focus error for it being a depth of field problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, flamidey said:

Just a quick calculation.
At f 5.6, with a subject at 300ft, you get focus from 105ft to infinity.

At f8, you get focus from 85ft to infinity.

It would have had to be a serious focus error for it being a depth of field problem.

Thanks for your contribution toward helping the OP figure out his problem.  Maybe he wasn't an entire football field away from his subjects.  It doesn't look like it unless he did some very extensive cropping.  Regardless, most consumer zooms that cover that large a focal length range generally aren't their sharpest when shot wide open, and it looks like he was probably either wide open or close to wide open on those shots. 

Edited by Geno
typo correction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, thanks for all the valuable input. I have contacted Fuji support and hopefully will be doing some tests with them this week to figure out if there's something wrong with the lens or not. Will post an update if they manage to get the same lens as a sample to use this week!

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Geno said:

Thanks for your contribution toward helping the OP figure out his problem.  Maybe he wasn't an entire football field away from his subjects.  It doesn't look like it unless he did some very extensive cropping.  Regardless, most consumer zooms that cover that large a focal length range generally aren't their sharpest when shot wide open, and it looks like he was probably either wide open or close to wide open on those shots. 

Well, even if we assume it was a 100 ft distance, he'd still get over 100ft DoF. I agree the 18-135 is better stopped down but not to the point of having an 88mm f5/6 shot completely blurry like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Cheers! I hope to enjoy it as much as I have enjoyed the Spottie I grew up with and which will remain in my bag for life not simply in my bag, but with a roll of film in it, and more to come. I'm coming at the XT5 from a very weird angle. It sort of goes back to unpreparedness. I found myself with my Spotmatic in "the Garden of Ireland" - Wicklow - beautiful county. I was spending a week exploring its beautiful valleys. When the batteries on my Spotmatic failed, I reached into my rucksack for a replacement set. There were none. So I shrugged and decided I had to use my eyes to meter. Things were cheaper then. When picking up processed films the photos came with a new film thrown in, so it was easier to take that decision. Within a few months I was getting nearly 100% keepers - at least in terms of focus and exposure. So circumstances forced me to be ever vigilant of light. I've had many other cameras since then, but the bare bones (it doesn't even have a self-timer) Spotmatic was an ever-present. Expense has forced my hand, though. That and some curiosity. I feel as if my first car is a Ferrari! In fact, when I explained at the shop that I was an experienced photographer looking for a digital which placed the emphasis on stills, they tried to force a €7k model on me. That would be a step too far. Thus my experience in approaching this camera is somewhat unusual. Thus far I have had great enjoyment with it. I was thrilled on opening to box to discover that I was getting utter rubbish from it. Yes!!! I had to learn how to use it! Praise the Lord! I also found a magic button which was the answer to my dreams - the diopter adjustment. That's how naive I was (and am) about the digital offerings - this was an enormous and hugely welcome surprise. I've been learning. The supplied kit lens is not ideal - a 16-80mm zoom. It's pretty sharp, but demanding in manual mode. My old glass reminds me of my father's Opel Senator, which was forgiving to the point that it would comfortably take off at the lights even if you'd mistakenly selected third. My old glass is much more forgiving. At the moment, I'm leaving everything to automatic ISO. I'll wean myself away from that quickly enough, though. in the past I'd retrofitted my son's lenses to my older kit, and found that you needed to be much more precise. I guess when you're designing something which will be adjusted by algorithms then you can make the continuum as tight as you want. My son laughs at me. "You have bracketing mode if you want, Dad.", he'll remind me. "Use burst mode.", he'll add. Some of my habits are deeply ingrained, though. Two other things people find odd about my photography: I never ever use post-processing - what comes out of the camera is the final product. Secondly, I have never once taken photos where the subject is a human being without first requiring a lot of persuasion. 
    • Seconding this! Would be nice to preview a desqueezed image in camera + output it via HDMI.
    • I found my answer. Actually you can assign the profile from a .dng conversion but not from a .tiff conversion. I hadn’t double checked the .dng option.
    • There's no implied threat. I'm just saying that you're going about things the wrong way. Now you're throwing conspiracy theories and mistresses in and, unaccountably for a photographer's forum, the word "buggery". Complaining and nagging may work for you, but I don't see why innocent posters here should be caught in your crossfire. If you want manual shooting, I'm with you. This is my first digital camera. In all of the various bodies adorning my shelf I haven't put a battery in any in over a decade except where the camera simply won't work without the presence of one. People have actually offered me high-spec DSLRs as they upgraded, but this one was the first one I wanted. I've had to change my MO massively in every way. I accept that, because it comes close to realising everything I need from it. Not 100%, but close.  Y'see, I get the fact that the manufacturers have a huge pool of customers to satisfy and as one of them I know and accept that they're not designing a custom camera for me alone. I accept that and I get on with it.  The solution you were offered is not a fudge or a workaround. It is a logical exploitation of a design feature of the camera: the ability to assign commonly-used functions to a button. That is an excellent customisation option. I'm going to gradually exploit that as I gain experience with the machine and learn what I need most readily at my fingertips.   
×
×
  • Create New...