upgrade question and exposure question

[TheThunderKing]

I currently work as a real estate photographer that does interior/exterior work of homes via BPO’s, (ex: Appraisals). These exterior photographs must be performed quickly, ASAP under a min if possible. The reason why is because 7 pictures of the house from different angles must be taken from the vehicle on road and there is oncoming traffic, neighbors and homeowners looking to stop you and ask you questions, kids potentially playing outside that you want to avoid letting get into the picture and so forth. Obstacles and distractions are going to be everywhere and you need to keep moving as you are doing multiple houses all day long and they are all over the city and they are on a time limit. For this task I chose the 18-300mm because this made switching lenses between 18-55 and 55-200 obsolete and much faster and easier to do my job. I also needed the additional zoom the 300mm offered. I also use the Tokina 11-16mm to photograph inside of homes and it’s perfect for corner shots of small rooms and restrooms. I never find myself taking it to 11mm because of the distortion but stay around 14-16 if needed. I never find myself using the 35mm anymore, but instead use the 50mm for indoor portraits until I can get an 85, 105, or 135mm lens to take pictures of the family with. Once my kids get old enough to get into sports or school/hobby activities I might need better zoom or low light or higher fps capabilities.

I’m currently looking to upgrade cameras for one that has a full frame sensor, higher max iso and low light iso, a tilting screen, a higher res lcd screen, better video resolution, and built in wifi or Bluetooth would be nice but not needed. The only thing in Nikon line at a $700 price seems to be the D750, and it seems like a solid upgrade. I have been considering switching to Sony as well though. My main concern is that now I will have to switch to FX lenses. I think my 50mm might still work, not sure. The Tokina might work as long as I keep it above 15mm. The 18-300 I have no idea and that one I might have to replace for sure but not sure 28-300 will work with the heinous distortion sub 35mm.

But my biggest decision to upgrade is when shooting in Aperture Priority mode for real estate photography like the exterior of a house, I keep having an issue where all the pictures are very underexposed, so I raise the exposure compensation to +1.3-1.7 depending on the weather and it helps the images straight out of the camera appear much brighter, but the downside is that they get blurry sometimes. Especially if it's an hour or 2 before sunset or when zoomed in where it's nearly impossible to take a clear shot. Why does overriding the compensation affect the sharpness of the image and if I need F.11 or F.16 all the time, is there a better mode to get the exposure correct without having to override or be in AP mode? I tried auto with flash off and it was even darker, even with exposure comp turned up.

Thanks in advance.

Gear list:

Nikon D7100
Nikon 18-300mm AFS DX VR 3.5-6.3 ED
Nikon 35mm AFS DX 1.8G
Nikon 50mm AFS 1.8G
Tokina 11-16mm DX f2.8 ATX

 

[Chris R-UK]

I am not familiar enough with Nikon to answer your other questions, but I will try to answer your exposure compensation issues.

You need to use exposure compensation in situations where the camera's calculated exposure is not correct for your purposes. Shooting a dark house against a bright sky is a good example of this. The camera will darken the image to compensate for the bright sky. You can change this by using a different metering mode, e.g. spot metering, and pointing the camera at the house. You can also, as you are doing, use exposure compensation to correct the exposure.

Exposure compensation does not cause any blurry of the image - the cause of the blurring lies elsewhere. The most likely cause, if you are shooting at f/16 in low light, is that you have too low a shutter speed to avoid camera shake, but it could also be noise because not enough light is reaching the sensor. Can you post some images showing examples of your problem, with EXIF data so that we can see the camera settings?

Do you really need to shoot at f/16? Would f/8 give you enough depth of field? You may need to use a tripod in low light.

 

[DeathArrow]

The only lens that will work as it should on FF is 50mm. All the others are APS-C.

The cheapest replacement for an UWA I think is Samyang 14mm f/2.8. If you have more money to spend, you can try Sigma 12-24 f/3.5-5.6 or Tamron 15-30 f/2.8.

 

[David1961]

The only lens that will work as it should on FF is 50mm.

I am not convinced that is true at all.

All the others are APS-C.

The cheapest replacement for an UWA I think is Samyang 14mm f/2.8. If you have more money to spend, you can try Sigma 12-24 f/3.5-5.6 or Tamron 15-30 f/2.8.

This has nothing to do with op's EC and blurriness query.

 

[David1961]

I totally agree with what Chris R-UK posted.

In addition, at f/11 - f/16 you are most probably in diffraction territory.

 

[DeathArrow]

The only lens that will work as it should on FF is 50mm.

I am not convinced that is true at all.

Does it matter? The letters DX in the name of a lens made for F-mount, means that the lens is designed for APS-C.

All the others are APS-C.

The cheapest replacement for an UWA I think is Samyang 14mm f/2.8. If you have more money to spend, you can try Sigma 12-24 f/3.5-5.6 or Tamron 15-30 f/2.8.

This has nothing to do with op's EC and blurriness query.

He also had some upgrade questions.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

The only thing in Nikon line at a $700 price seems to be the D750, and it seems like a solid upgrade.

That’s what I mainly use, and it is a great camera.

Another possibility is staying with DX, either getting a D7500 or a D500, which are both fine modern cameras.

I need F.11 or F.16 all the time,

Not unless you are doing macro photography, such as getting closeups of small flowers and insects. Closing down the aperture so much deprives the sensor of light, which can either lead to excess noise, or blur due to camera shake. Another trouble with DX cameras is that diffraction blurring becomes more noticeable when shooting at more that f/8.

You can get away with even wider apertures when shooting architectural exteriors, especially from a distance. I would suggest reading up on depth of field, and experiment. If you are only taking photos for websites, and if the photos are going to be small, you’ll hardly need much depth of field at all.



Finally, there is no shame in using the camera’s fully automatic exposure modes, especially if it gets better results.

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

I’m currently looking to upgrade cameras for one that has a full frame sensor, higher max iso and low light iso,...

Keep in mind that at the same angle of view and same f/Stop, the larger sensor will yield shallower depth of field. If you need the same depth of field, you need to use a smaller aperture with the larger sensor, and therefore a higher ISO.

In other words, at the same depth of field, the larger sensor does not offer a low light advantage.

Now if you can tolerate the shallower depth of field, then there is a low light advantage to the larger sensor.

 

[bobn2]

I currently work as a real estate photographer that does interior/exterior work of homes via BPO’s, (ex: Appraisals). These exterior photographs must be performed quickly, ASAP under a min if possible. The reason why is because 7 pictures of the house from different angles must be taken from the vehicle on road and there is oncoming traffic, neighbors and homeowners looking to stop you and ask you questions, kids potentially playing outside that you want to avoid letting get into the picture and so forth. Obstacles and distractions are going to be everywhere and you need to keep moving as you are doing multiple houses all day long and they are all over the city and they are on a time limit. For this task I chose the 18-300mm because this made switching lenses between 18-55 and 55-200 obsolete and much faster and easier to do my job. I also needed the additional zoom the 300mm offered. I also use the Tokina 11-16mm to photograph inside of homes and it’s perfect for corner shots of small rooms and restrooms. I never find myself taking it to 11mm because of the distortion but stay around 14-16 if needed. I never find myself using the 35mm anymore, but instead use the 50mm for indoor portraits until I can get an 85, 105, or 135mm lens to take pictures of the family with. Once my kids get old enough to get into sports or school/hobby activities I might need better zoom or low light or higher fps capabilities.

I’m currently looking to upgrade cameras for one that has a full frame sensor, higher max iso and low light iso, a tilting screen, a higher res lcd screen, better video resolution, and built in wifi or Bluetooth would be nice but not needed. The only thing in Nikon line at a $700 price seems to be the D750, and it seems like a solid upgrade. I have been considering switching to Sony as well though. My main concern is that now I will have to switch to FX lenses. I think my 50mm might still work, not sure. The Tokina might work as long as I keep it above 15mm. The 18-300 I have no idea and that one I might have to replace for sure but not sure 28-300 will work with the heinous distortion sub 35mm.

But my biggest decision to upgrade is when shooting in Aperture Priority mode for real estate photography like the exterior of a house, I keep having an issue where all the pictures are very underexposed, so I raise the exposure compensation to +1.3-1.7 depending on the weather and it helps the images straight out of the camera appear much brighter, but the downside is that they get blurry sometimes. Especially if it's an hour or 2 before sunset or when zoomed in where it's nearly impossible to take a clear shot. Why does overriding the compensation affect the sharpness of the image and if I need F.11 or F.16 all the time, is there a better mode to get the exposure correct without having to override or be in AP mode? I tried auto with flash off and it was even darker, even with exposure comp turned up.

Thanks in advance.

Gear list:

Nikon D7100
Nikon 18-300mm AFS DX VR 3.5-6.3 ED
Nikon 35mm AFS DX 1.8G
Nikon 50mm AFS 1.8G
Tokina 11-16mm DX f2.8 ATX

The first question is what you think you will gain by moving to FF. 'Higher max ISO and low light ISO' don't do what you think they do. Iso is a very commonly misunderstood thing, high ISO settings don't by themselves offer you anything at all. The only reason an FF camera appears to be better is that it is collecting more light for the same exposure, and by choosing an ISO you choose the exposure that you're going to use. If you set the parameters on a DX camera so that you're collecting the same light it will be pretty much as good. Mostly the limits to your cameras settings, which I'm guessing will both apply in the scenarios that you're describing, are the shutter speed you can use due to shake or motion blur and the aperture you can use due to depth of field. If those are the limits for your settings and both are in play, a FF camera will be of no advantage to you. Only if you feel that you could be using slower shutter speeds or shallower DOF are you going to see any benefit. The only way that FF 'helps' is if you're setting too much DOF,as people often do, they set the same f-number, get less DOF, more light and thus less noise, and end up thinking that FF is 'better' when they could have got the same result on DX just by setting the same DOF as the FF camera gave them.

Looking at the last part of your post, this seems to be the case, you find that you 'need' f/11 or f/16, and AP mode is lowering the shutter speed to the point where the pictures go blurry. In this case FF will not help at all, so don't waste your money.

First, think whether you really 'need' f/11 or f/16. Very rarely do you need f-numbers that large on a DX camera to get all the DOF you need. For instance, if you look at DOFMaster, and taking your 35mm as an example, if you set it to f/5.6 and focus at 11m you have everything from 5.5m to infinity within the DOF. So first thing is not to use a smaller aperture than you have to - learn to control DOF. Next thing, don't use inappropriate exposure modes. Things like Aperture Priority mode get you into the trap you're in, because when you set the ISO you chose, you actually chose the exposure that you're going to use, then when that exposure can't be achieved with the DOF and shutter speed you need, you start worrying about 'under exposure'. Think differently. Had you raised the ISO, that exposure wouldn't be 'under' any more, and since it is the largest exposure that your DOF and camera shake requirements allow, it is the least noisy photo you're going to get in that light, whichever sensor size you use. A butter way is to use M mode, set the f-number to give you the DOF you need, set the shutter to the slowest that doesn't risk shake, set the ISO to Auto. If that doesn't give you the photos you want, then all you can do is add light - your camera already has one of the most efficient lowest noise sensors made, a larger one won't help if you just let it have the same light.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

 

[bobn2]

The only lens that will work as it should on FF is 50mm.

I am not convinced that is true at all.

You're right, the DX 35 works quite well on FF, a bit of vignetting wide open. The others will fit and work, 'DX' is not like Canon EF-S with a mechanical incompatibly. They will likely suffer vignetting.

All the others are APS-C.

The cheapest replacement for an UWA I think is Samyang 14mm f/2.8. If you have more money to spend, you can try Sigma 12-24 f/3.5-5.6 or Tamron 15-30 f/2.8.

This has nothing to do with op's EC and blurriness query.

Indeed, and going FF isn't going to address that in any case.

 

[TheThunderKing]

I am not familiar enough with Nikon to answer your other questions, but I will try to answer your exposure compensation issues.

You need to use exposure compensation in situations where the camera's calculated exposure is not correct for your purposes. Shooting a dark house against a bright sky is a good example of this. The camera will darken the image to compensate for the bright sky. You can change this by using a different metering mode, e.g. spot metering, and pointing the camera at the house. You can also, as you are doing, use exposure compensation to correct the exposure.

Exposure compensation does not cause any blurry of the image - the cause of the blurring lies elsewhere. The most likely cause, if you are shooting at f/16 in low light, is that you have too low a shutter speed to avoid camera shake, but it could also be noise because not enough light is reaching the sensor. Can you post some images showing examples of your problem, with EXIF data so that we can see the camera settings?

Do you really need to shoot at f/16? Would f/8 give you enough depth of field? You may need to use a tripod in low light.

thanks for your explanation of exposure. You bring up a good point, I will try shooting at f/8 next time I'm out and test the results. I was using f/11 as a guide based on some residential photography advice from photography magazine I read a while back. My brief understanding was that the idea was that since the entire house was in frame, I might want f/11 to get as much detail as possible. Unfortunately I can't use a tripod from the drivers seat while trying to take those 7 shots in under a min. I'll upload some example shots for sure next time I'm out. I did a test run yesterday and noticed the same issue happened again but I don't have any saved after my upload. Shooting in AP was dark, as my exposure compensation went up, it felt as if it was taking longer to save the pictures and the blur was getting worse the higher the exp comp went up.

 

[TheThunderKing]

I totally agree with what Chris R-UK posted.

In addition, at f/11 - f/16 you are most probably in diffraction territory.

apologies, what is diffraction?

 

[Chris R-UK]

I am not familiar enough with Nikon to answer your other questions, but I will try to answer your exposure compensation issues.

You need to use exposure compensation in situations where the camera's calculated exposure is not correct for your purposes. Shooting a dark house against a bright sky is a good example of this. The camera will darken the image to compensate for the bright sky. You can change this by using a different metering mode, e.g. spot metering, and pointing the camera at the house. You can also, as you are doing, use exposure compensation to correct the exposure.

Exposure compensation does not cause any blurry of the image - the cause of the blurring lies elsewhere. The most likely cause, if you are shooting at f/16 in low light, is that you have too low a shutter speed to avoid camera shake, but it could also be noise because not enough light is reaching the sensor. Can you post some images showing examples of your problem, with EXIF data so that we can see the camera settings?

Do you really need to shoot at f/16? Would f/8 give you enough depth of field? You may need to use a tripod in low light.

thanks for your explanation of exposure. You bring up a good point, I will try shooting at f/8 next time I'm out and test the results. I was using f/11 as a guide based on some residential photography advice from photography magazine I read a while back. My brief understanding was that the idea was that since the entire house was in frame, I might want f/11 to get as much detail as possible.

So what is worse - slightly less detail or a blurred image? If you are getting camera shake, your first requirement is to eliminate that by using a higher shutter speed. Then see what f/ setting you can use. If that isn't any good, then you either need to shoot in better light or you need some kind of camera support - see below.

Unfortunately I can't use a tripod from the drivers seat while trying to take those 7 shots in under a min.

If you do have a camera shake problem, you may be able to improve things dramatically by better technique. Always turn the engine off and rest the camera on a bean bag slung over the partially open window. Alternatively, brace yourself against the door pillar.

I'll upload some example shots for sure next time I'm out. I did a test run yesterday and noticed the same issue happened again but I don't have any saved after my upload. Shooting in AP was dark, as my exposure compensation went up, it felt as if it was taking longer to save the pictures and the blur was getting worse the higher the exp comp went up.

As almost everybody on this thread has said, exposure compensation doesn't cause blur. Lower light does.

 

[TheThunderKing]

The only thing in Nikon line at a $700 price seems to be the D750, and it seems like a solid upgrade.

That’s what I mainly use, and it is a great camera.

Another possibility is staying with DX, either getting a D7500 or a D500, which are both fine modern cameras.

I need F.11 or F.16 all the time,

Not unless you are doing macro photography, such as getting closeups of small flowers and insects. Closing down the aperture so much deprives the sensor of light, which can either lead to excess noise, or blur due to camera shake. Another trouble with DX cameras is that diffraction blurring becomes more noticeable when shooting at more that f/8.

You can get away with even wider apertures when shooting architectural exteriors, especially from a distance. I would suggest reading up on depth of field, and experiment. If you are only taking photos for websites, and if the photos are going to be small, you’ll hardly need much depth of field at all.

Finally, there is no shame in using the camera’s fully automatic exposure modes, especially if it gets better results.

I agree, the D750 has many great features, today I was surfing on KEH and came across a Canon EOS 1DX for $1k and was amazed at it's specs, it's not the MKII, but it appears to be was stronger than my D7100 and have the higher fps that would be a great option to have for when the kids get into sports. Of course I'd have to sell off my entire kit and start all over again with a different brand.

I am starting you realize you are correct about not needing f/11, I'll swap to f/8 and log results to see if the situation improves. Yes these photos I shoot in max res, I think it's 4000x6000 pixels, then I have to resize down to 1600x2700 for web use. I like using AP just because it's quick and easy which helps get the job done quick which is key. Plus lugging around a 5yrs old and a 1yr old in the back seat leaves no time or focus for anything other than point and click.

 

[TheThunderKing]

...

I’m currently looking to upgrade cameras for one that has a full frame sensor, higher max iso and low light iso,...

Keep in mind that at the same angle of view and same f/Stop, the larger sensor will yield shallower depth of field. If you need the same depth of field, you need to use a smaller aperture with the larger sensor, and therefore a higher ISO.

In other words, at the same depth of field, the larger sensor does not offer a low light advantage.

Now if you can tolerate the shallower depth of field, then there is a low light advantage to the larger sensor.

This is a very interesting point you bring up, and one that I will have to take a deep dive into and weight out. So in my particular case, the full frame advantage of more captured "real estate" and potentially greater detail I would have to consider that if I'm going to be shooting at f/8, with say an upgrade to a D750 and larger sensor I might have to shoot at f/4 and potentially higher than 100 iso? just making sure I understand correct.

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

thanks for your explanation of exposure. You bring up a good point, I will try shooting at f/8 next time I'm out and test the results. I was using f/11 as a guide based on some residential photography advice from photography magazine I read a while back. My brief understanding was that the idea was that since the entire house was in frame, I might want f/11 to get as much detail as possible. Unfortunately I can't use a tripod from the drivers seat while trying to take those 7 shots in under a min. I'll upload some example shots for sure next time I'm out. I did a test run yesterday and noticed the same issue happened again but I don't have any saved after my upload. Shooting in AP was dark, as my exposure compensation went up, it felt as if it was taking longer to save the pictures and the blur was getting worse the higher the exp comp went up.

Higher f numbers don't always give you more detail, they simply give you more depth of field.

When the camera is focused at 50 feet, a scientist might tell you that only objects at exactly 50 feet are in focus. An inch less or more, and it isn't technically "in focus". An engineer might point out that there are a range of distances, where the image looks in focus to the human eye. This range is the "depth of field".

If you are shooting the front of the house, most of the subject might be the same distance from you, and you don't need a huge depth of field. It's OK if the trees in the background/foreground are not perfectly sharp (this might actually produce a better image as it will draw the viewer's eye towards the house).

When you use a higher f-number, you get more depth of field, but less light. Either you image will be noisier, or you need a longer exposure (and a steady camera). if you are shooting from a car, turn off the engine, and brace the camera against something solid (perhaps roll down the window, and rest the camera on the top of the window opening.)

The other issue with higher f-numbers is diffraction. Higher f-numbers mean a smaller aperture (the hole that you are shooting through). Light that hits outside the hole is blocked. Light that passes through the hole hits the sensor. However, light that just hits the edge of the hole gets deflected just a bit. This causes blurriness due to diffraction. If the aperture opening is large (small f-numbers), the diffracted light is insignificant compared to the light that passes through the hole, thus we don't worry about diffraction. if the hole is small (high f-numbers), the diffracted light may be significant compared to the other light, and therefore blurriness form diffraction tends to become noticeable.

In terms of the lens itself, most lenses produce their sharpest results, about 1 or 2 stops down form wide open.

If you want the sharpest images, hold the camera steady, and use the widest aperture that yields sufficient depth of field (but don't open the lens all the way).

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

I’m currently looking to upgrade cameras for one that has a full frame sensor, higher max iso and low light iso,...

Keep in mind that at the same angle of view and same f/Stop, the larger sensor will yield shallower depth of field. If you need the same depth of field, you need to use a smaller aperture with the larger sensor, and therefore a higher ISO.

In other words, at the same depth of field, the larger sensor does not offer a low light advantage.

Now if you can tolerate the shallower depth of field, then there is a low light advantage to the larger sensor.

This is a very interesting point you bring up, and one that I will have to take a deep dive into and weight out. So in my particular case, the full frame advantage of more captured "real estate" and potentially greater detail I would have to consider that if I'm going to be shooting at f/8, with say an upgrade to a D750 and larger sensor I might have to shoot at f/4 and potentially higher than 100 iso? just making sure I understand correct.

Yes.

Say you are currently shooting with a 1.4X crop body, and you need to use f/8 in order to get enough depth of field. With a full frame, at the same angle of view, you would need to shoot at f/11 in order to get that much depth of field. You would need to use 1 stop higher ISO, and the resulting image would look just about the same.

If you want to get a less noisy image, hold the camera still, and use a longer exposure.

The larger sensor isn't going to help you unless you can get by with shallower depth of field, or need 50 megapixels (it is unlikely that you need more than 20 megapixels).

Of course, if you can get by with shallower depth of field, you can just open the lens on yoru current camera form f/8 to f/5.6

 

[TheThunderKing]

I am not familiar enough with Nikon to answer your other questions, but I will try to answer your exposure compensation issues.

You need to use exposure compensation in situations where the camera's calculated exposure is not correct for your purposes. Shooting a dark house against a bright sky is a good example of this. The camera will darken the image to compensate for the bright sky. You can change this by using a different metering mode, e.g. spot metering, and pointing the camera at the house. You can also, as you are doing, use exposure compensation to correct the exposure.

Exposure compensation does not cause any blurry of the image - the cause of the blurring lies elsewhere. The most likely cause, if you are shooting at f/16 in low light, is that you have too low a shutter speed to avoid camera shake, but it could also be noise because not enough light is reaching the sensor. Can you post some images showing examples of your problem, with EXIF data so that we can see the camera settings?

Do you really need to shoot at f/16? Would f/8 give you enough depth of field? You may need to use a tripod in low light.

thanks for your explanation of exposure. You bring up a good point, I will try shooting at f/8 next time I'm out and test the results. I was using f/11 as a guide based on some residential photography advice from photography magazine I read a while back. My brief understanding was that the idea was that since the entire house was in frame, I might want f/11 to get as much detail as possible.

So what is worse - slightly less detail or a blurred image? If you are getting camera shake, your first requirement is to eliminate that by using a higher shutter speed. Then see what f/ setting you can use. If that isn't any good, then you either need to shoot in better light or you need some kind of camera support - see below.

Unfortunately I can't use a tripod from the drivers seat while trying to take those 7 shots in under a min.

If you do have a camera shake problem, you may be able to improve things dramatically by better technique. Always turn the engine off and rest the camera on a bean bag slung over the partially open window. Alternatively, brace yourself against the door pillar.

I'll upload some example shots for sure next time I'm out. I did a test run yesterday and noticed the same issue happened again but I don't have any saved after my upload. Shooting in AP was dark, as my exposure compensation went up, it felt as if it was taking longer to save the pictures and the blur was getting worse the higher the exp comp went up.

As almost everybody on this thread has said, exposure compensation doesn't cause blur. Lower light does.

No I agree 100%, hopefully my reply didn't come across as if I disagree with you. I'm more than fine with less detail compared to a blurry image and that's what I want to correct for sure. I think to avoid all problems I'll just save any orders I get late in the day that I'm trying to shoot 30mins-1hr before sunset for the next day when light is more available. I for sure can't turn the engine off as each shot requires me to take a new position in the vehicle. (example, shot, move, shot, move) all while cars are passing on a two way street and behind honking despite hazard lights. I like the bean bag idea, I'll try that next op, I think positionally that works better than pillar in my Jeep. One think I forgot to mention is that the blur only happens when zoomed in, never when not. Yes, I'll practice today and see how I can change the shutter speed in AP mode on f/8 while zoomed in with exposure comp on. I just don't know how, so I may have to check the manual again. To be clear, I wasn't saying that the exp comp was the cause of all of this, as honestly I don't know that nor have a way to prove it. I was merely explaining my situation and describing it as best I could based on my experience and what I changed that started to cause issues.

 

[TheThunderKing]

...

thanks for your explanation of exposure. You bring up a good point, I will try shooting at f/8 next time I'm out and test the results. I was using f/11 as a guide based on some residential photography advice from photography magazine I read a while back. My brief understanding was that the idea was that since the entire house was in frame, I might want f/11 to get as much detail as possible. Unfortunately I can't use a tripod from the drivers seat while trying to take those 7 shots in under a min. I'll upload some example shots for sure next time I'm out. I did a test run yesterday and noticed the same issue happened again but I don't have any saved after my upload. Shooting in AP was dark, as my exposure compensation went up, it felt as if it was taking longer to save the pictures and the blur was getting worse the higher the exp comp went up.

Higher f numbers don't always give you more detail, they simply give you more depth of field.

When the camera is focused at 50 feet, a scientist might tell you that only objects at exactly 50 feet are in focus. An inch less or more, and it isn't technically "in focus". An engineer might point out that there are a range of distances, where the image looks in focus to the human eye. This range is the "depth of field".

If you are shooting the front of the house, most of the subject might be the same distance from you, and you don't need a huge depth of field. It's OK if the trees in the background/foreground are not perfectly sharp (this might actually produce a better image as it will draw the viewer's eye towards the house).

When you use a higher f-number, you get more depth of field, but less light. Either you image will be noisier, or you need a longer exposure (and a steady camera). if you are shooting from a car, turn off the engine, and brace the camera against something solid (perhaps roll down the window, and rest the camera on the top of the window opening.)

The other issue with higher f-numbers is diffraction. Higher f-numbers mean a smaller aperture (the hole that you are shooting through). Light that hits outside the hole is blocked. Light that passes through the hole hits the sensor. However, light that just hits the edge of the hole gets deflected just a bit. This causes blurriness due to diffraction. If the aperture opening is large (small f-numbers), the diffracted light is insignificant compared to the light that passes through the hole, thus we don't worry about diffraction. if the hole is small (high f-numbers), the diffracted light may be significant compared to the other light, and therefore blurriness form diffraction tends to become noticeable.

In terms of the lens itself, most lenses produce their sharpest results, about 1 or 2 stops down form wide open.

If you want the sharpest images, hold the camera steady, and use the widest aperture that yields sufficient depth of field (but don't open the lens all the way).

this is an excellent explanation and really answered a lot of questions I had. much appreciated.

 

[Chris R-UK]

If blurring only occurs when you are zoomed in at the longer focal length, that is a sure sign of camera shake.

Not being able to turn the engine off may be a problem because, if you rest the camera on the window, it will pick up the vibration. A beanbag may absorb the vibration, but you may have to experiment with foam or rubber underneath as a dampener.

Best of luck.