Need advice to improve low-light focusing technique

This could have alternatively been titled Mike's most disappointing shot of 2012.

First off, this shot was no way my worst of 2012. Those would be the shots of the bottom of the camera bag as I was reaching in for my camera. However, it does fall into the "near miss" category - a once in a lifetime opportunity that I wasn't able to capitalize on. So why post it here? Its primarily a way of forcing myself to study it and learn from it, so this long winded narrative may not be of interest to everyone. But for me, maybe there will be a "next time" when I can use that knowledge. So here goes:

I'll start with some things that I think are right about this image. I personally like the composition and the point of view. There was a good uncluttered background that helped with subject isolation. So I wanted it to be a real winner.

But I wish it was sharper. My test of sharpness is an 8X10 print. If that is sharp, I'm OK with the image. If I could print a sharp 11X14 I'm even happier. But this one is just not sharp, and no amount of wishing and no amount of post processing (at least within my skill set) will make it sharper.

Admittedly the conditions were right at the limits of what my equipment could handle. It was a full hour after sunset. I was still shooting well past the point where all the other people on the trip had given up. Details: E-M5 with ZD 70-300 at 300mm hand-held wide open (f/5.6) at 1/60 sec and at ISO 3200. I didn't have a tripod with me - I couldn't have afforded the weight or bulk on this trip.

So what could I have done? Well, there is the fantastic ZD 300mm lens out there that would have given me 2 full stops more light. But at nearly $7k it is well out of my price range. I looked into renting it - over $1k for the 4-week trip. Its also big and heavy and I would probably have needed a tripod, too.

When I pixel-peep at these images, I don't believe that camera shake was the problem. I have reasonable hand-holding technique and my camera's in-body image stabilization is excellent. Even so, on my next great adventure I will be taking a light weight monopod that collapses small enough to fit into my camera bag.

Here is a near 100% crop of the face which is what I focused on using S-AF and the center-weighted diamond:

I believe the problem is autofocus. It seems universally blurry - out of focus. I think it was just too dark for the autofocus to work accurately. Maybe different equipment would solve that, but I have my doubts. I need to work on my technique for very low-light focusing to see if there is something I could be doing better. I also had an E30 with 50-200 and 1.7X, but the E30 couldn't focus on this at all.

Anyone else have some good suggestions? How do you achieve very accurate focus in very low light? I couldn't have used flash, even if I had one - it might have spooked the lion. Is this simply the limit of what the 70-300 can do? If so, how could a slower native lens be any better? Should I have tried manual focus?

Thanks for the help!

--
-Mike
It's much easier to criticize than to create
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mike-pdx/collections/

I'm by no means an expert, but I have the 70-300 and I suspect that some significant portion of the softness is just a characteristic of the lens at that aperture.

It's not clear what the distance is to the lion, but also consider that you're an hour past sunset, in September, so I'm guessing the ground is warmer now than the air immediately above it, so it's radiating heat into the the air, causing minor eddy currents in the air that can also distort an image. (Would also be useful to know if there were any significant differences in terrain over the intervening distance. If you're shooting over a stream or a road, or even grass versus bare dirt or something, there's an even greater likelihood of an unstable air mass you're shooting through. Upon reflection, I'm going to say that this probably accounts for most of the softness, with the rest being just the limitations of the lens at that aperture and focal length.)

Combine that with 1/60th shutter speed (a rather long exposure even with IS at that focal length), 3200 ISO (very clean, but not perfect) and I think you have most of your explanation.

Suspect focus worked just fine.

But again, I'm not an expert. I'll be interested to hear others' thoughts.

Glad you started this thread. They're my favorite kind because they give us a chance to actually talk about photography instead of cameras!

As to the shot, your disappointment is understandable. ISO 3200 isn't the best on the E-M5 (ask me how I know!), for starters, but the 1/60 shutter speed is likely your culprit. Even a mediocre lens should be capable of better results than this. You say you have a stable technique, but are you sure? That's a pretty long way to be zooming. Even the most minor tremble could defocus an image this much, IBIS or no.

Helpful suggestions? If a tripod wasn't possible, then possibly a mono pod? You're stuck with a longish shutter speed at that distance in low light. Your only option is to stabilize the camera better.

Did you shoot this in RAW? Have you tried denoising it and sharpening it? Not saying you can get it where you want it, but both techniques could help.

I have not had a lot of luck getting that lens to focus accurately in low light on the E-M5.  I suspect that is one of the major issues with the image.  The image below was shot with that lens through our somewhat dirty kitchen window on a camera with only 10 mp and would make an ok 8 by 10 print.  It  is also at f/5.6 but there was more light than you had.  With less light, through the same window shooting at ISO3200 on the E-M5 it rarely focuses on the birds and sometimes just gives up.



Knowing the lens isn't its best at 300mm I would have backed off a little (crop to taste later), then (with S-AF+MF always in effect) I'd have grabbed the lens' focus ring for a critical adjustment.   It appears there was time to take a few extra seconds to refine the focus.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

300mm, hand held, 1/60 sec. ISO 3200, wide open.....

Man, that is like a film 35mm SLR with a 600mm lens @ 1/120 sec.  hand held!

No one would expect to nail that!

You need some support-a bean bag, a monopod, a fence post, something.

IBIS is good but it isn't majic.

Also, it is a bit underexposed.

Tedolph

I'm certainly not an expert on this, but I don't think this was camera shake. Wouldn't it be true that I would most likely see a "smear" in the direction of the shake? Instead, it seems uniformly soft. And as far as my hand-holding technique is concerned, I was braced against the vehicle which was not running. In the past, I've managed to get sharp shots with the E-30 and 50-200 at 1/6 sec hand-held.

Dave Rogers:  "It's not clear what the distance is to the lion."

I was about 10-15 meters from the lion, so I don't think air currents played a part.  The EXIF data says "Approximate Focus Distance = 17.8", but I don't know the units or the accuracy of that value.

BingoCharlie: "Did you shoot this in RAW? Have you tried denoising it and sharpening it? Not saying you can get it where you want it, but both techniques could help."

Yes, this was raw, processed to the best of my admittedly limited skills in LR4.3. Any more de-noising and it just gets softer. Maybe some other SW would work better on this particular image.

Bob Tulis: "Knowing the lens isn't its best at 300mm I would have backed off a little (crop to taste later), then (with S-AF+MF always in effect) I'd have grabbed the lens' focus ring for a critical adjustment. It appears there was time to take a few extra seconds to refine the focus."

I agree, there was plenty of time but I find that it very hard to obtain critical focus manually using just the viewfinder. It's nowhere as good as the microprism on my OM-4. If I had needed to revert to the rear screen, the camera would have been much less stable.

Tedolph: "Also, it is a bit underexposed."

You're absolutely right about that! I found that it was all I could do to keep the shot on the left half of the histogram, let alone ETTR.

Would one of the slower micro fourthirds lenses have been a better choice?

Thanks again for all the responses.

--
-Mike
It's much easier to criticize than to create
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mike-pdx/collections/

No, but maybe a 200mm f/4 and then crop it?



Tedolhh

If i understand correctly, you've been using the FT 70-300 via adapter on the E-M5?

In this case, i'd blame the softness to AF failure related to MMF and low light. I did a test with my Sigma 70-200  via MMF2 on the E-M5 (in the rather dark elephant house of the zoo in Munich). AF was slooooow, i took several seconds until focus was confirmed and the images were soft all over.Just like yours.

In this case the is not much you can do unless buying a native mFT telezoom. Or stop to shoot when it is getting too dark and just enjoy the animals instead?

Sabine

--
________________
www.acahaya.com

In the worst case scenario, yes.  What if the camera shake was only a couple of pixels? You might not see smear but it would be less sharp. If you combine a barely visible camera shake with the softness of a soft wide open lens and high ISO ... I have a lot of handheld pics with this kind of softness and no easily identifiable smear direction, but it's there.

Some post processing can be utilized to increase apparent sharpness. I didn't bother with any noise  reduction, but if used selectively it would make your file more usable.

As others have noted, this is lucky-shot territory.

The odds with 70-300 on the E-M5 in poor light are lower - its not a very good focuser under these circumstances. Plus the E-M5 makes it tempting to try at higher ISO's, well past the give up point.

What can help is picking something with brighter hard texture/features, possibly reducing the focus square to pick out such a feature - I would have picked the lion's teeth or eyes depending on the DOF. Pre-focussing to avoid hunting is also a must. Try a smaller aperture to increase DOF+sharpness and hope that IBIS will save the day. Decrease ISO - 3200 seems OK for some things, but it definitely drops detail on others. High speed multi-shot.

I've gotten some lucky shots with the 70-300, but in low light the its lucky-shot-rate is much less than something like the m4/3 40-150. I think I would have used the 40-150, with cropping it might have done just as well or better. The m4/3 40-150 seems to focus more reliably in poorer light and perhaps 150 is asking for a great deal less luck than 300. I guess getting closer was not an option in this case

Perhaps the new less expensive 75-300 mk2 will do better in poor light.

--
----
http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitaltrails/

Yeah, do some basic post processing, print it 11"x14", and stand back and enjoy it and the accolades of all who view it.  I's a GREAT shot.  Considering the challenges of low light it's a EXCELLENT shot.  Oh yeah, don't get too carried away pixel peeping even your lovely HD TV picture is made from weird looking little dots!

In CS6 I did some Shadow/Highlight adjustment and Smart Sharpening

Just an observation ... the mane seems a little sharper than the nose.

Mark

--
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9558/yakonamawfishv39nd.gif

I agree with you - nice composition, disappointing sharpness.

In my experience with low light shooting (average of one concert per week for three years, mostly with the 35-100 at f/2, starting with the E-510, then the E-30, then the E-M5) I saw that the percentage of sharp shots declined from about 75% under brighter stage lighting, to as low as 15% under dimmest lighting.  That was true for both PDAF and CDAF.

When I switched to manual focus using MF Assist on the E-M5, my percentage of sharp shots increased to 90% or more.  So I know that softness of photos shot in dim light was due to misfocus by the AF system.  It happens the same way with three different Oly cameras.  I understand that it happens with other brands too.  We have to live with it.

My recommendation is to use MF to be sure of capturing that important low light shot.  It's easy with the magnification of MF Assist on the E-M5, more trouble with other cameras.  If you must use AF, take 5 to 10 shots to increase your chance of finding a sharp one.

--
Tony
http://aafinnerty.smugmug.com

I found a solution by experimenting but it is not for this kind of pictures.

When the AF begins to not work well due to the lack of light I have a small red laser not to strong but strong enough for the job. I point it to where I want and the AF locks fast on that point.

Maybe this will be useful to you on other situations.

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site

GREAT idea (Darn why didn't I think of that?)  I've attempted to use a flashlight, back in tungsten bulb days, for help in trying to focus in very dim light.  Manual of course and never pointing it at hungry big toothed critters.  I still struggled.  Now I gotta try to remember where I put that old laser pointer.

Mark

--
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9558/yakonamawfishv39nd.gif

I have the MFT M.ZD 75-300/E-M5 combination and under these dark wintry skies we have at the moment it shows the same softness at 300mm as if the autofocussing did not quite make it. Consequently a lot of my recent shots are suffering in exactly the same way. When the constant overcast flat clouds clear (they do occassionally) and the light levels increase it seems to be a different beast.

Its a nicely composed shot you have here but it does need the PP to sharpen it into something acceptable.

First, I believe you would have gotten a much, much better focused image if you had been using the Oly 75-300mm -- I have no problem focusing mine in very low light.

Second, you need to consider investing in Focus Magic. I have yet to find a better PS Plugin for correcting focus or motion blur. Over the years it has paid for itself many times over. FM is about to release a new 86 bit Windows compatible version, but the older 32 bit version and be used on 86 bit systems with a 'work around' that is detailed on the Focus Magic website.

Below is a very quick, one click sharpened version of your image done in FM -- I am amazed at how well is does with soft images, and even more so with motion blurred images. I also adjusted the levels.

God Bless,

Greg

www.imagismphotos.com

www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com

www.pbase.com/daddyo

Of course it's not like an SLR's focus, but that's no excuse. At worst one focuses forward/back until what's thought to be optimal is attained. It only takes practice to get a decent sense of it. With such practice I can MF pretty well w/o the magnification (though I resort to magnify when it's critical and time allows). When one pushes the envelope of light it's a technique that is sometimes necessary.

--

...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.