Reading mode: Light Dark

Night Landscape Lens Qualities

Go to last post
L

laradar

Member
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Hi there,

I take mostly night city landscape shots with a D90 + 18-200 lens, shooting around f/8 to f/14 with 5+ second exposures (One example is attached below). I'm not happy with the sharpness with this combo, so I'm looking to upgrade. I can read reviews and comparisons of lenses all day, but most of these reviews shoot samples in daylight. Shooting at night obviously creates new complications, especially since there are a number of light sources in the photo. Is there a specific quality or test that I can look for in these reviews to see how different lenses will handle this? Or should I just look for sharpness comparisons?

Thanks for the help!



 
I see why you aren't happy--that's somewhat blurry!

Are you focusing manually?

I don't think you need an upgrade--I think you just need to determine what's wrong.

Are you using a two second delay with VR off, and a STURDY tripod, in calm weather?
 
Dave,

It was manual focus (on the bridge, not the cityscape). The VR was on, but I was using a pretty decent tripod/head and also used the exposure delay mode with a remote trigger.
 
Hmm...I dunno. It "looks" like a soft image from a much lesser camera/lens (without the noise of a p&S, but more like the quality of a pic from one). I don't know what to suggest, as I think your equipment should be able to do quite a bit better and it sounds like you shot it properly (other than many claim VR should be off, but I'm not sure that's really pertinent to a 5 sec shot). I hope someone far more versed than me can shed some light on the issue for you.

How much sharpening is applied to that image? any?
--
Dave
D3100
 
laradar said:
Dave,

It was manual focus (on the bridge, not the cityscape). The VR was on, but I was using a pretty decent tripod/head and also used the exposure delay mode with a remote trigger.
Click to expand...
Other than with a few lenses that can detect tripod use, VR should always be switched "OFF" when a tripod is being used:
http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/7676/kw/tripod
The VR mechanism can actually introduce blur when "ON" and using a tripod.

As for your concern with night shots with the 18-200, have a look here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=37484286&q=happypoppeye&qf=m

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels
 
I know I don't have precisely the same equipment (I've got a D3100 with the 18-55 kit lens, so it's not top notch stuff) and have just taken a night shot in jpg format at iso 200 and VR ON (for grins). I'm going to go back out and take a RAW with VR OFF and see how they compare. will let you know if there's obvious improvement.
--
Dave
D3100
 
I just got finished eval'ing the pics on my PC. The jpg shot with VR ON looks amazingly sharp for a D3100/kit lens--far sharper than your image, so I don't think u need to buy more expensive lenses or a better camera. I also shot a bunch of RAW's with VR OFF at various apertures and ISO's and not surprisingly the ISO 200 shots are far better than the faster ISO's. Interestingly, the RAW images (with VR OFF--I never turned it back ON, once I began shooting a series of RAW's) didn't fare any better than the best JPG.

Focusing by eye was very difficult as we can't just rack the lens to infinity, given that it can focus beyond that. Focusing turned out to be the biggest bugaboo of the entire exercise, in the location I chose (it was drizzling, so I shot from under the eave of my home). Foliage , lamps, buildings all looked great (other than the crazy color imparted by the orange street lamps).
--
Dave
D3100
 
Thanks Dave. I shot these in RAW, and yes, I was disappointed that I forgot and shot at ISO 800, which doesn't help. In terms of sharpening, I'm using the default RAW sharpening for Aperture and a D90 (0.5).

Even if this is a case of user error, I'd still like to learn what makes one lens better at dealing with many light sources in the shot than another. Any ideas there?
 
I don't have a definitive answer--to me, it looks to be like a focusing error, given the additional info that you mentioned. It doesn't look to my unprofessional eye that the issue was due to camera movement. Again, last night when taking a number of test shots in dim light (there was a low pressure sodium street light across the street from my shooting position) illuminating the front of a light colored house. I couldn't focus by eye on the house, so I focused on a streetlamp on the street behind that house. Quite a few shots were out of focus despite my best attempts. Live view was useless--not enough light to get an image.
--
Dave
D3100
 
Here's a shot from pixel peeper, made with the same lens as yours (presumably) http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=5&p=10

It isn't tack sharp either, but looks a bit better, IMO.

You might want to look into something like a 35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4. I'm considering picking up the 1.8 today, AAMOF. (I can' really afford to spend a fortune on top quality glass, but from what I've found online today re the 35, it should give better results than the 2 kit lenses I have, for a modest cost of $200)
--
Dave
D3100
 
oops--lost ability to edit last post. I wanted to add that I still think focus is the issue with your shot.
--
Dave
D3100
 
Using manual focus and cable release is a good start.

Does your camera have mirror up ?

For long time exposures all the little things add up.

Turn VR off. Make sure your Tripod legs, Ball head, Camera attachment is locked down tight. Even consider hanging extra weight (but within the limits of the tripod) below the ball head. Try for windless conditions. Also try f8 instead of f11.

Here is one I did at 20 secs a few days ago. I did use a smaller f stop but took out the ca and sharpened.





--
Brian
 
Hi Dave,

When you say you think it's the focusing, what part of the shot are you looking at? I know I focused on the near tower, which looks to be pretty much in focus from my eye. What I really hate is that the city just looks awful. At f/8, I know everything won't be in focus, and the distance from me to the bridge was much smaller than the bridge to the city. But this isn't the only picture where I've seen city lights all just look blurry, and not crisp.

I guess I could try just focusing on the city and see what happens...
 
given the focal length lens you used, and the distance to the Golden Gate would put it and the lights of the city at the same focus distance--infinity. I can't help but think the lens is defective or you didn't focus to infinity. I know you said you did, but it just doesn't look like it's correct. and if it is, then the lens is at fault.
--
Dave
D3100
 
Hey, that's nice!

I just ordered the remote (sadly only WIRED remote, for D3100), along with the 35mm f1.8 AF-S Nikkor. Most places were out of stock, but I found one after almost giving up. stores said they are b/o from Nikon.
--
Dave
D3100
 
Well, now I'm really confused. I looked at the EXIF info for that shot and it says the focus distance is ~7.9m. I just tried shooting another picture, manual focus at infinity, and it says the same thing. However, I also have some shots that say the focus distance is ~21m, so I don't know if that EXIF data is worthless, or if the lens/camera can't focus at infinity.
 
Check both the Camera and Lens are set to manual. Sorry to say it sounds like an issue with setup. I have been guilty, more than once, of getting it wrong especially at night. how are your other daylight auto photos with that combo coming out?
--
Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top