Sorry, missed what you wrote about testing...just saw it and downloaded the chart...will see if i can do the tests. Thanks.You can't upload RAW files here. You can just shoot OOC JPG and that will work fine, or as you did just no processing and save as JPG.
Again - we need a "flat" object photographed as I requested above.Since it is flat it takes all the guesswork out.
Shoot both a known good and this lens too - it might be the body.
Mike
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
A few shots with new V3 + 70-300... Images a little soft/noisy?
- Thread starter simon2001
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon 1 v3 nikon d7200
pda4you
Senior Member
ok, stuck the chart on a wall, made it 5 inches by 5 inches, took a picture....used 200mm f/l and stood 6 feet from the wall....so not i inch per mm as in the instructions, and light poor so used flash in AUTO mode which used AUTO area focus as single point seemed unavailable in AUTO mode, but flash not available in S mode (why?)....bottom line is the images looks sharpish to me...compared to my Sony superzoom bridge camera at same f/l equivalent. So I know it isnt very scientific but it was a flat object....
I actually already did a simlar thing using a book....
I'm stumped...so stumped that I may return the Nikon 1 gear and go for a D7200 + Tamron 150-600 which should do justice to my beautiful friends in the animal world even if means I will have to work out a lot more to condition for the extra weight.
Last edited:
A bit late to the party here, but I have a couple of comments that don't seem to have been made before. To get started, I don't have a V3, but a V1 and V2. The latter I have been using with a new 70-300 CX to take photos of butterflies and ... monkeys.
1) One thing that nobody has commented on is the fairly severe Jpeg artefacts in the third of the photos in your OP. They appear as patterns of squares with horizontal or vertical lines in adjacent squares. They're particularly obvious in the middle flight feathers of the right wing, but also occur other places like behind the bird's head and in the waves. This image is a heavy crop (0.7 MP) which will make jpeg artefacts more obvious, but I also wondered what level of jpeg compression you are using. Use fine quality if you've been using anything less. There also seem to be sharpening artefacts - the white line that outlines the bird's black legs. These could be coming from in-camera software or pp.
3) One thing I noticed with the CX - and others with far more experience than me of the lens may have some comments on this - is that in general it appears much sharper with close-up shots of small things. I was completely happy with my butterfly shots, but in the end switched to carrying the D800 + 80-400 for monkeys as the CX shots were just a bit meh. I even wondered whether it's a partially psychological effect: dragonflies and butterflies seems sharp because a close-up photo resolves far more detail than our eyes would normally see, whereas we all know what hair detail should look like and it's not showing up in photos of monkeys that were 80 feet away ... Or maybe the lens isn't as good at 300mm on infinity focus ...
4) I wondered whether you're using AF-S or AF-C? When I was photographing butterflies, I fairly often found that if I framed reasonably tightly, the action of pressing the shutter moved the camera enough that part of a wing would be out of shot. (This wasn't VF jump as by concentrating on keeping the camera really still I could avoid this.) My thought was, if you were using AF-C, such a jump might move the focus point onto something else, and if the autofocus was sharp enough you'd get a misfocus on your subject - perhaps what happened with the monkey foliage.
5) VR: I found shots taken with VR above 1/500 looked soft to me, and were OK if I switched VR off.
6) I agree with Tord: DXO Optics Pro (a version with PRIME noise reduction) is the bees-knees for noise reduction.
7) Your gear list doesn't say that you have a D7200 - That's because what's under your OP isn't a gear list, but tags for the thread. It's tagged D7200 because you mentioned that in your OP. Besides getting inappropriate tags removed by contacting DPR (see where the tags are), if you keep an eye out when you're posting you can edit inappropriate tags out.
Good luck getting your 70-300 sorted out. I can't speak for the V3, but the lens is fantastic
Edit: Oh and 8) I try not to use above ISO 400 with V-series cameras. That's when I see a noticeable drop in IQ.
1) One thing that nobody has commented on is the fairly severe Jpeg artefacts in the third of the photos in your OP. They appear as patterns of squares with horizontal or vertical lines in adjacent squares. They're particularly obvious in the middle flight feathers of the right wing, but also occur other places like behind the bird's head and in the waves. This image is a heavy crop (0.7 MP) which will make jpeg artefacts more obvious, but I also wondered what level of jpeg compression you are using. Use fine quality if you've been using anything less. There also seem to be sharpening artefacts - the white line that outlines the bird's black legs. These could be coming from in-camera software or pp.
2) I notice that *all* your photos are taken at 300mm - that's 800 mm equivalent that you're using handheld. In my early days of photo taking and the lust for a really long lens to take wildlife photos it was often pointed out that the only way to get really good images is to get closer. I remember someone putting the softness of one of my shots down to air turbulence between the camera and the subject caused by hot sun on bare ground - the subject was less than 3m away. 80 feet is quite a lot of air to be photographing through.
3) One thing I noticed with the CX - and others with far more experience than me of the lens may have some comments on this - is that in general it appears much sharper with close-up shots of small things. I was completely happy with my butterfly shots, but in the end switched to carrying the D800 + 80-400 for monkeys as the CX shots were just a bit meh. I even wondered whether it's a partially psychological effect: dragonflies and butterflies seems sharp because a close-up photo resolves far more detail than our eyes would normally see, whereas we all know what hair detail should look like and it's not showing up in photos of monkeys that were 80 feet away ... Or maybe the lens isn't as good at 300mm on infinity focus ...
4) I wondered whether you're using AF-S or AF-C? When I was photographing butterflies, I fairly often found that if I framed reasonably tightly, the action of pressing the shutter moved the camera enough that part of a wing would be out of shot. (This wasn't VF jump as by concentrating on keeping the camera really still I could avoid this.) My thought was, if you were using AF-C, such a jump might move the focus point onto something else, and if the autofocus was sharp enough you'd get a misfocus on your subject - perhaps what happened with the monkey foliage.
5) VR: I found shots taken with VR above 1/500 looked soft to me, and were OK if I switched VR off.
6) I agree with Tord: DXO Optics Pro (a version with PRIME noise reduction) is the bees-knees for noise reduction.
7) Your gear list doesn't say that you have a D7200 - That's because what's under your OP isn't a gear list, but tags for the thread. It's tagged D7200 because you mentioned that in your OP. Besides getting inappropriate tags removed by contacting DPR (see where the tags are), if you keep an eye out when you're posting you can edit inappropriate tags out.
Good luck getting your 70-300 sorted out. I can't speak for the V3, but the lens is fantastic
Edit: Oh and 8) I try not to use above ISO 400 with V-series cameras. That's when I see a noticeable drop in IQ.
Last edited:
Tom Spaulding
Well-known member
It's a shame to have to move to so much larger gear for your walks and bike rides.
I would try a second copy of the 70-300 before such a drastic step. The 70-300 can be such an amazing lens when working properly.
-Tom
I would try a second copy of the 70-300 before such a drastic step. The 70-300 can be such an amazing lens when working properly.
-Tom
S
Sonyshine
Guest
Your EXIF data still shows you using settings that are way off what you ought to be using to get crisp results.
Shutter 1/60 at almost 200mm & ISO 1250. You will never get the best results shooting like that.
This leads me to believe it is you, not the gear ( I know, its easy to criticise from behind a keyboard, sorry - but I am trying to help you)
Wait for some good light and try again like this:
A priority at f5.6.
ISO between 400 and 800 - not auto.
AF-C in burst mode , at least 5fps if handholding.
Centre AF point only and place this on your chosen focal point.
VR on.
Centre weighted metering.
JPEG in default settings.
Choose a subject which is nicely lit and not too far away - not something very distant, not in heat haze and not back lit by strong light.
If you can't get good results with the V3 and 70-300CX you will struggle even more with the big DSLR and Tamron ( unless - and its possible - you have faulty gear - but your EXIF belies this theory)
All the best with your learning and I hope you make a positive breakthrough.
--
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/i.kirk
Shutter 1/60 at almost 200mm & ISO 1250. You will never get the best results shooting like that.
This leads me to believe it is you, not the gear ( I know, its easy to criticise from behind a keyboard, sorry - but I am trying to help you)
Wait for some good light and try again like this:
A priority at f5.6.
ISO between 400 and 800 - not auto.
AF-C in burst mode , at least 5fps if handholding.
Centre AF point only and place this on your chosen focal point.
VR on.
Centre weighted metering.
JPEG in default settings.
Choose a subject which is nicely lit and not too far away - not something very distant, not in heat haze and not back lit by strong light.
If you can't get good results with the V3 and 70-300CX you will struggle even more with the big DSLR and Tamron ( unless - and its possible - you have faulty gear - but your EXIF belies this theory)
All the best with your learning and I hope you make a positive breakthrough.
--
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/i.kirk
Last edited:
Brandon birder
Veteran Member
For static subjects with small body movements, 1/320 s will work for most images. Practice using that shutter speed until you can get a sharp image most of the time. For birds in flight use 1/1000s but if iso's are high dynamic range will be poor as will AF. There are lots of images in my V1.V3 gallery below to help you see what can and can't be done with the V3 and 70-300cx lens.
pda4you
Senior Member
Correct - this shows MUCH better results. The lighting is causing a most of the issues we see in that shot. So, now I think it is process, as the post above indicates. Lets give some of this things a try - especially the single point focus and better lighting.
And switching to a d7100 with a HUGE lens won't make issues better and in fact it may be a bit worse.
Mike
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
Right eye isn't right, is it?! Nice shot, an unusually coloured tabby!Here's a SOOC JPG which the OP could compare his results with (warning - large file).
--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, & D600, user
Two things about the flower shot:
1) you shot it at 300mm indoor. I don't know what the minimum focus distance is of this lens at that focal length, but I'm curious if you've got focus confirmation while you took the shot.
2) f/7,1 is into diffraction territory for the 1"-sensor in de V3, I think. It softens your image. Best to use f/5,6. I know you like the S-mode, but sometimes you need to keep an eye out for your aperture...
1) you shot it at 300mm indoor. I don't know what the minimum focus distance is of this lens at that focal length, but I'm curious if you've got focus confirmation while you took the shot.
2) f/7,1 is into diffraction territory for the 1"-sensor in de V3, I think. It softens your image. Best to use f/5,6. I know you like the S-mode, but sometimes you need to keep an eye out for your aperture...
These conditions aren't the same as for your examples - you are much closer to the subject than in many of your images. If the issue is something to do with the lens focusing, this test won't show it up.
ok, stuck the chart on a wall, made it 5 inches by 5 inches, took a picture....used 200mm f/l and stood 6 feet from the wall....so not i inch per mm as in the instructions, and light poor so used flash in AUTO mode which used AUTO area focus as single point seemed unavailable in AUTO mode, but flash not available in S mode (why?)....bottom line is the images looks sharpish to me...compared to my Sony superzoom bridge camera at same f/l equivalent. So I know it isnt very scientific but it was a flat object....
I actually already did a simlar thing using a book....
I'm stumped...so stumped that I may return the Nikon 1 gear and go for a D7200 + Tamron 150-600 which should do justice to my beautiful friends in the animal world even if means I will have to work out a lot more to condition for the extra weight.
Maybe try photographing the test chart from a lot further away, i.e. if you set 200mm on the lens, that is equivalent to 540mm in FF terms, so you would need to be 540 inches away as per the chart instructions, so 45 feet/15 yards.
--
DaveR
Also, if you are doing these tests hand-held, then you might find it interesting to set the V3 shutter to 10 fps and let it take a short burst. My experience, especially at 300mm, was that the chart images make it very clear when the VR was able to keep the image sharp, and when motion blur was being induced that the VR couldn't counteract.These conditions aren't the same as for your examples - you are much closer to the subject than in many of your images. If the issue is something to do with the lens focusing, this test won't show it up.
ok, stuck the chart on a wall, made it 5 inches by 5 inches, took a picture....used 200mm f/l and stood 6 feet from the wall....so not i inch per mm as in the instructions, and light poor so used flash in AUTO mode which used AUTO area focus as single point seemed unavailable in AUTO mode, but flash not available in S mode (why?)....bottom line is the images looks sharpish to me...compared to my Sony superzoom bridge camera at same f/l equivalent. So I know it isnt very scientific but it was a flat object....
I actually already did a simlar thing using a book....
I'm stumped...so stumped that I may return the Nikon 1 gear and go for a D7200 + Tamron 150-600 which should do justice to my beautiful friends in the animal world even if means I will have to work out a lot more to condition for the extra weight.
Maybe try photographing the test chart from a lot further away, i.e. if you set 200mm on the lens, that is equivalent to 540mm in FF terms, so you would need to be 540 inches away as per the chart instructions, so 45 feet/15 yards.
--
DaveR
Some users of the Nikon 1 70-300 set their cameras to 10fps or higher for exactly that reason - it increases the probability of getting sharp images hand-held.
--
DaveR
The two images are of USAF 1951 taken from approximately 30 feet, indoors, with the chart 16 cm wide (i.e., horizontally, measured from the vertical border lines visible on the chart. I know at 300mm I should really be 67 feet away, but my living room isn't that big.
One chart is VR on, AF single point, hand held. The other chart is VR off, MF, and resting on the back of an arm chair, so not hand held, but still pressing the shutter myself.
Both are ISO 1600, f5.6, 300mm f/l in both, but I screwed up on shutter speed, it is 1/320s in the MF chart but 1/500s in AF hand held; hopefully that won't prevent concluding whether the camera/lens is focusing properly. Both are JPEG fine, straight from the camera. no processing.
What i see is the smallest numbers and narrowest lines are borderline resolvable. They look a bit wider than the width of a human hair to me, so that would mean I am just short of being able to clearly resolve a single human hair, at 300 mm, indoors, from 30 feet.
I don't know if that level of resolution is acceptable or not for this gear, but it does explain why, when taking shots of monkeys from 50-80 feet, that i don't seem to get that extreme sharpness and single hair resolution that i see in some of the stunning pictures I have seen online, including from posters on this thread (but which may be taken in better lighting and closer, i don't know).
One chart is VR on, AF single point, hand held. The other chart is VR off, MF, and resting on the back of an arm chair, so not hand held, but still pressing the shutter myself.
Both are ISO 1600, f5.6, 300mm f/l in both, but I screwed up on shutter speed, it is 1/320s in the MF chart but 1/500s in AF hand held; hopefully that won't prevent concluding whether the camera/lens is focusing properly. Both are JPEG fine, straight from the camera. no processing.
What i see is the smallest numbers and narrowest lines are borderline resolvable. They look a bit wider than the width of a human hair to me, so that would mean I am just short of being able to clearly resolve a single human hair, at 300 mm, indoors, from 30 feet.
I don't know if that level of resolution is acceptable or not for this gear, but it does explain why, when taking shots of monkeys from 50-80 feet, that i don't seem to get that extreme sharpness and single hair resolution that i see in some of the stunning pictures I have seen online, including from posters on this thread (but which may be taken in better lighting and closer, i don't know).
Last edited:
Mike,grey rainy day
I'm no expert,I do believe with N1 shooter has to watch the ISO (low as possible ),exposure (use exposure comp as needed,
sunny day.I use spot metering on birds
I agree about importance of EC. However, bright or dark rainy days does not affect what you do with EC. You should use the exact same EC value regardless of how bright or dark it is that day. EC is a correction that you make to the camera's automatic exposure based on your knowledge of the tones in the scene that are being metered relative to medium gray. Not the relative brightness or the lighting that day. It took me a while to understand this too.
If you spot meter on a black bird, you should EC negatively. If you spot meter on a white bird you should EC positively. If you matrix meter and most of the image are darker tones, you should EC negatively.. if you matrix meter and most of the image are ligter tones then you EC positively. This is regardless of if you are shooting in poor lighting or bright sunny day. I know it may counter intuitive, but it's not.
Both Bird (spot) and Squirrel with bark chips/dirt background(matrix), I would have EC negatively personally because those tones are less than medium gray. The Bird more negatively than the squirrel. If you would have matrix metered the bird image, instead of spot then I would have left it at zero if you were shooting into the north sky and raised EC higher if you were shooting more towards the sun (south).
In short, EC is about tone mapping things above or below medium gray. Its not about compensating for the brightness or darkness of the lighting. The camera does that for you already. However, the camera has no idea what the tones it is metering should be relative to medium gray. It is just trying to make them ALL medium gray. It's kind of clueless in that way. Maybe if it understood tones, it would be different. ;-)
Last edited:
S
Sonyshine
Guest
A priority at f5.6.
ISO between 400 and 800 - not auto.
AF-C in burst mode , at least 5fps if handholding.
Centre AF point only and place this on your chosen focal point.
VR on.
Centre weighted metering.
JPEG in default settings.
You WILL get much better results.
--
ISO between 400 and 800 - not auto.
AF-C in burst mode , at least 5fps if handholding.
Centre AF point only and place this on your chosen focal point.
VR on.
Centre weighted metering.
JPEG in default settings.
You WILL get much better results.
--
I have done some elementary maths, see below, which confirms your supposition is correct, you won't be able to resolve single hairs taken from 60-80 feet. Photos showing that level of detail are usually taken from much closer.The two images are of USAF 1951 taken from approximately 30 feet, indoors, with the chart 16 cm wide (i.e., horizontally, measured from the vertical border lines visible on the chart. I know at 300mm I should really be 67 feet away, but my living room isn't that big.
One chart is VR on, AF single point, hand held. The other chart is VR off, MF, and resting on the back of an arm chair, so not hand held, but still pressing the shutter myself.
Both are ISO 1600, f5.6, 300mm f/l in both, but I screwed up on shutter speed, it is 1/320s in the MF chart but 1/500s in AF hand held; hopefully that won't prevent concluding whether the camera/lens is focusing properly. Both are JPEG fine, straight from the camera. no processing.
What i see is the smallest numbers and narrowest lines are borderline resolvable. They look a bit wider than the width of a human hair to me, so that would mean I am just short of being able to clearly resolve a single human hair, at 300 mm, indoors, from 30 feet.
I don't know if that level of resolution is acceptable or not for this gear, but it does explain why, when taking shots of monkeys from 50-80 feet, that i don't seem to get that extreme sharpness and single hair resolution that i see in some of the stunning pictures I have seen online, including from posters on this thread (but which may be taken in better lighting and closer, i don't know).
Nevertheless, I think part of the issue is motion blur in the hand-held photo; there is still a bit in the non-hand held version too. Notice how the vertical bars are clearer than the horizontal bars when looking at 100%, especially in the smallest ones in the middle, 5, and 6. The lens is moving vertically at the time of the photo being taken.
Are you able to do the same test with the camera on a tripod, using delayed shutter?
Resolving Human Hair. (Monkeys may have thicker hair!)
Europeans consider hair with a diameter of 0.04 to 0.06 mm as thin, hair with a diameter between 0.06 and 0.08 mm as normal, and hair with a diameter between 0.08 and 0.1 mm as thick. By comparison with European hair, Asian hair is significantly thicker. The average diameter of Asian hair is 0.08 to 0.12 mm.
Ref: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sour...1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=width of human hair in mm
Assume a distance of 80 feet, or roughly 25m. If the monkeys hairs are 0.1mm thick, then a to resolve them needs 0.2mm (for a line pair), so 5 line pairs per mm at the subject.
At the sensor, with 300mm lens the image will need to resolve 5 * 25/0.3 = 413 line pairs per mm.
Per tests done by Optyczne, the Nikon V3 resolves around 95 line pairs per mm with the 18.5mm f/1.8 set to f/5.6.
Ref: http://www.optyczne.pl/282.4-Test_aparatu-Nikon_1_V3_Rozdzielczość.html
So assuming the 70-300 can also resolve 95 lp/mm at f/5.6, to resolve individual hairs you would need to be about four times closer, about six meters or 20 feet.
I'm open to correction on these calculations!
--
DaveR
Sony, thanks your suggestion, I am going to try it out for a while on still or slow moving subjects, see if I get an improvement.
Dave, fantastic insight and observation on the vertical blur and shutter pressing movement. I will test out a wireless shutter control tomorrow morning, too dark now.I have done some elementary maths, see below, which confirms your supposition is correct, you won't be able to resolve single hairs taken from 60-80 feet. Photos showing that level of detail are usually taken from much closer.The two images are of USAF 1951 taken from approximately 30 feet, indoors, with the chart 16 cm wide (i.e., horizontally, measured from the vertical border lines visible on the chart. I know at 300mm I should really be 67 feet away, but my living room isn't that big.
One chart is VR on, AF single point, hand held. The other chart is VR off, MF, and resting on the back of an arm chair, so not hand held, but still pressing the shutter myself.
Both are ISO 1600, f5.6, 300mm f/l in both, but I screwed up on shutter speed, it is 1/320s in the MF chart but 1/500s in AF hand held; hopefully that won't prevent concluding whether the camera/lens is focusing properly. Both are JPEG fine, straight from the camera. no processing.
What i see is the smallest numbers and narrowest lines are borderline resolvable. They look a bit wider than the width of a human hair to me, so that would mean I am just short of being able to clearly resolve a single human hair, at 300 mm, indoors, from 30 feet.
I don't know if that level of resolution is acceptable or not for this gear, but it does explain why, when taking shots of monkeys from 50-80 feet, that i don't seem to get that extreme sharpness and single hair resolution that i see in some of the stunning pictures I have seen online, including from posters on this thread (but which may be taken in better lighting and closer, i don't know).
Nevertheless, I think part of the issue is motion blur in the hand-held photo; there is still a bit in the non-hand held version too. Notice how the vertical bars are clearer than the horizontal bars when looking at 100%, especially in the smallest ones in the middle, 5, and 6. The lens is moving vertically at the time of the photo being taken.
Are you able to do the same test with the camera on a tripod, using delayed shutter?
Resolving Human Hair. (Monkeys may have thicker hair!)
Europeans consider hair with a diameter of 0.04 to 0.06 mm as thin, hair with a diameter between 0.06 and 0.08 mm as normal, and hair with a diameter between 0.08 and 0.1 mm as thick. By comparison with European hair, Asian hair is significantly thicker. The average diameter of Asian hair is 0.08 to 0.12 mm.
Ref: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sour...1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=width of human hair in mm
Assume a distance of 80 feet, or roughly 25m. If the monkeys hairs are 0.1mm thick, then a to resolve them needs 0.2mm (for a line pair), so 5 line pairs per mm at the subject.
At the sensor, with 300mm lens the image will need to resolve 5 * 25/0.3 = 413 line pairs per mm.
Per tests done by Optyczne, the Nikon V3 resolves around 95 line pairs per mm with the 18.5mm f/1.8 set to f/5.6.
Ref: http://www.optyczne.pl/282.4-Test_aparatu-Nikon_1_V3_Rozdzielczość.html
So assuming the 70-300 can also resolve 95 lp/mm at f/5.6, to resolve individual hairs you would need to be about four times closer, about six meters or 20 feet.
I'm open to correction on these calculations!
--
DaveR
Your maths on lines per mm makes perfect sense me and that definitely implies the need to be 20 feet or closer to get the necessary resolution. Not sure I will try though, I might get attacked. So I wonder how the very sharp/detailed monkey shots I've seen online were taken.
So maybe my 80 feet away shots don't prove my camera/lens is no good...but the above test shots of the USAF 1951 might...not sure how good they should be for this gear.
By the way I just Googled monkey hair thickness and found a study of Japanese monkeys which said their hair diameter averaged 60 "mu"...sounds exactly the same as European hair thickness...don't know about Leaf Monkeys or Macaques though, but I guess similar.
The attached Heron picture was from about 20 feet away and its neck fur/fluff is clearly resolved, just a pity the background is brightly sun lit light brown water and sand so not a great backdrop.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum