- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
After one year with D7000 and service poitn check-up, still having problems with sharpness!
- Thread starter morel22
- Start date
evan47
Senior Member
silent tim
Leading Member
Are you serious? None of my lenses allow you to mount the lens hood in such a way that you can do this, the thread only locks when the lens hood has the petals in the correct orientation."fact."
evan47
Senior Member
i have owned this lens and know it is a fact. others have done it too. it is a bayonet fitting not a threaded fitting. if you have the 18-105 dx nikon and its supplied hood try it. you will find that i am correct.
silent tim
Leading Member
My 18-105 must be 'defective' then, because I have just tried it and the bayonet does not engage unless it is on correctly.
Just like my Sigma, Tamron, and Nikon lenses - they all behave the same way and the lens hood will only lock in place in the correct orientation.
Shrug, this is no value to the thread, I'll say no more on the matter, just seemed like a strange observation to make.
Just like my Sigma, Tamron, and Nikon lenses - they all behave the same way and the lens hood will only lock in place in the correct orientation.
Shrug, this is no value to the thread, I'll say no more on the matter, just seemed like a strange observation to make.
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
I have it and checked it. silent tim is correct. You can force it on wrong but it will not lock as designed unless lined up correctly. If you continue to force it on wrong....the retaining notches may eventually wear and the hood might no longer stay in place as designed.
I definitely learned a couple of new very useful stuff so far.
What about the NR reduction? Does that affect RAW or only addresses JPEGs? I believe setting it off should result in sharper photos and then deal with the noise in PP is definitely a better approach?
However I checked the 18-105 and it's the same mount. The bigger petals top and bottom while smaller petals right and left.
What about the NR reduction? Does that affect RAW or only addresses JPEGs? I believe setting it off should result in sharper photos and then deal with the noise in PP is definitely a better approach?
Here's how the 16-85 hood is mounted:evan47 wrote:
actually, with the 18-105, (not sure about the 16-85).the lens hood is a petal type and must be fitted with the larger , (wider) petals positioned top and bottom, the smaller petals left and right. if not you will get corner vignetting at wide angle settings.fact.Mako2011 wrote:
With the manufacture's supplied lens hood....there is no vignetting issue as they by design avoid that.morel22 wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.Mako2011 wrote:
No, he is asking about the lens hood with regard to contrast as having it in place can often increase the contrast and greatly improve image quality in some lighting situations.morel22 wrote:
I don't use UV filters.. And you mean to keep the hood in order to avoid scratches?PasD50 wrote:
do you use a protective filter in front of your lens? make sure to use the lens hood all the time!
--
--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
So does the lens hood pros outdo its cons at all cases?
The con being vignetting as far as I know.
--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
However I checked the 18-105 and it's the same mount. The bigger petals top and bottom while smaller petals right and left.
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
That is my approach as well except for long exposure Noise reduction. Long Exposure Noise reduction only kicks in at exposures longer than 8 seconds and can be very beneficial as a dark exposure is taken and hot pixels (lack of a better term) get mapped out. For other noise I use Topaz DeNoise and find it far more effective than the in camera noise reduction. Other folks here may have better advice than me though....I'm no pro.
Ok, i'm back to settle this sharpness issue with my D7000..
This time I shot two comparison photos with each of the 16-85 and 35/1.8 to compare how they fair under bright light at ISO 100..
Shot in raw, converted in ViewNX to JPEG at 100% without any touches..
Picture Control set to standard, Noise reduction off, Aperture Mode at F11, matrix metering, single fixed focus point, mounted on a tripod, VR off..
Somehow the camera went with slightly different SS with each lens.. 1/60 with the 16-85 and 1/50 with the 35..
I shot one at 1/60 with the 35 but no difference.. I rather use the ones shot at 1/50 since the other two were shot with a smudge on the lens that I noticed later..
To the photos:
16-85mm, focus point set at the far trees in the backround
35mm, focus point set same place as the above one
16-85, focus point at center
35, focus point at center
Ok, I think the difference is obvious:
The 35mm is significantly sharper and consistent all over the image, and delivers better contrast!
The 16-85 two images look a bit washed out and blurry in comparison!
The other three areas for lenses, vignetting, fringing, and distortion are both out of interest and comparison here as these are two different purpose lenses..
What matters is contrast and sharpness. And the question to be posed, is the 16-85 performance acceptable?
And could there be any issues with the body instead, if there're any??
This time I shot two comparison photos with each of the 16-85 and 35/1.8 to compare how they fair under bright light at ISO 100..
Shot in raw, converted in ViewNX to JPEG at 100% without any touches..
Picture Control set to standard, Noise reduction off, Aperture Mode at F11, matrix metering, single fixed focus point, mounted on a tripod, VR off..
Somehow the camera went with slightly different SS with each lens.. 1/60 with the 16-85 and 1/50 with the 35..
I shot one at 1/60 with the 35 but no difference.. I rather use the ones shot at 1/50 since the other two were shot with a smudge on the lens that I noticed later..
To the photos:
16-85mm, focus point set at the far trees in the backround
35mm, focus point set same place as the above one
16-85, focus point at center
35, focus point at center
Ok, I think the difference is obvious:
The 35mm is significantly sharper and consistent all over the image, and delivers better contrast!
The 16-85 two images look a bit washed out and blurry in comparison!
The other three areas for lenses, vignetting, fringing, and distortion are both out of interest and comparison here as these are two different purpose lenses..
What matters is contrast and sharpness. And the question to be posed, is the 16-85 performance acceptable?
And could there be any issues with the body instead, if there're any??
Last edited:
teddoman
Senior Member
How can you tell? Is this something you can see in ViewNX 2 in the metadata? Or is it because you don't see a focus box in NX2 so that means it didn't achieve a focus lock?
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
The differences you see are because you are using two different lenses and the light is different in each. Light dif resulted in slightly different exposure.Which was exaggerated, shot to shot, because you had ADL set to "Auto"morel22 wrote:
Ok, i'm back to settle this sharpness issue with my D7000..
This time I shot two comparison photos with each of the 16-85 and 35/1.8 to compare how they fair under bright light at ISO 100..
Shot in raw, converted in ViewNX to JPEG at 100% without any touches..
Picture Control set to standard, Noise reduction off, Aperture Mode at F11, matrix metering, single fixed focus point, mounted on a tripod, VR off..
Somehow the camera went with slightly different SS with each lens.. 1/60 with the 16-85 and 1/50 with the 35..
I shot one at 1/60 with the 35 but no difference.. I rather use the ones shot at 1/50 since the other two were shot with a smudge on the lens that I noticed later..
To the photos:
16-85mm, focus point set at the far trees in the backround
35mm, focus point set same place as the above one
16-85, focus point at center
35, focus point at center
Ok, I think the difference is obvious:
The 35mm is significantly sharper and consistent all over the image, and delivers better contrast!
The 16-85 two images look a bit washed out and blurry in comparison!
The other three areas for lenses, vignetting, fringing, and distortion are both out of interest and comparison here as these are two different purpose lenses..
What matters is contrast and sharpness. And the question to be posed, is the 16-85 performance acceptable?
And could there be any issues with the body instead, if there're any??
Sharpness issue is most likely due to mirror slap dif between the two lenses (mirror slap worse at 1/15s-1/80s)...next time just shoot in MUP mode or live view to medicate that. Other differences are just due to different lighting (see the shadows) and minor differences in lens sharpness/contrast. Bottom line....your fine. Don't worry.
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
Lack of focus lock is a known due to the missing focus box in ViewNX2. It can also be seen in data represented in other EXIF viewers. The a2 setting is also shown in other EXIF viewers but not in ViewNX2.
Hope you don't mind, but they really aren't that bad. I did a quick sharpen (perhaps too much), boosted saturation, and denoised the background. Someone with better PP skills than me could probably make much better. Took 1 min or so.
But I think you've received some good advice.
But I think you've received some good advice.
Again big thanks for the info..
I know I should get different results from the two lenses, but just wasn't sure about the 16-85 performance as I thought it should deliver sharper images out of the camera!!
Maybe I was expecting too much from the lens.. Thanks for the confirmation that nothing is wrong with neither the lens nor the body..
I have few remaining questions though if you don't mind:
Regarding ADL I forgot to turn it off.. And that we mention this feature, is it wise to keep it on all the time? And on auto too?
About mirror slap, why would it have different effects on different lenses? If it's too much to explain briefly I'd appreciate a link or any article about the issue.. Same thing about the range where the slap is at its worst.. Just out of curiosity..
And regarding MUP, does it have any disadvantage other than needing to press the shutter button twice?
Final point is about the Exif! I couldn't find the info concerning A1 and A2, as well as focus lock, and ADL was assigned a value so how to tell it was on Auto.. What Exif reader are you using?
Thanks for the PPed image..
I'm aware of the possibilities available with PP.. I use LR4 and I develop all of my photos there..
I was amazed though by the image you did! Maybe a little oversharpened but how did you achieve all that sharpness without any artifacts? Specially given that it's a JPEG as well..
Denoising the background is also new to me.. It's not there on LR is it not?
I use CS5 and have an action called MCP high definition sharpening. It creates a new layer and you can adjust the opacity to reduce the sharpening to your liking. It works well and is quick, but I use a combination of USM and high pass filter too.
I'm by no means an expert but the background looked a little rough so I created a new layer with the subjects masked and ran my noise ninja plug in on low setting. I use it to smooth out skin every once in awhile and just used it on the background. I'm sure there are more complicated ways to do it, but I'm for simple. I have the LR plug in, and I know there is noise reduction, but not layers and masks. I'm not that knowledgeable about the stand alone version.
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
That lens is a good one. Like all lens though...they have sweet spot where they are at their very best. In the case of the 16-85...fair light, f8, and around 1/250s, IMO
ADL
Current Gen ADL overrides your set brightness and contrast settings. In settings higher than "low", it also affects the actual exposure by adjusting aperture/shutter speed/ISO either alone or in combination depending on the exposure mode set. In manual exposure mode (no auto ISO) it only affects the meter and not the actual aperture/shutter speed/ISO....but will still affect the brightness, contrast, and tone curves. CaptureNX2 can reverse this in manual exposure mode with the raw file. Note though if shooting in other than full manual and ADL set to higher than "low"....the effects on actual exposure can not be un-done, even with the RAW file.
It's possible to "add" a similar treatment with tone mapping and selective brightness/contrast control but it's not really the same exact thing as taken by the camera. If you shoot raw, only ViewNX2/CapturNX2 can apply the tone mapping accurately. For that reason, if you use third party RAW conversion it's suggested to turn ADL off.
It's designed to work with matrix metering and there is no way of knowing if it was actually active as it's dynamic and scene dependent. So if you have ADL set to "normal" (as an example) and the scene is very straight forward with no major highlights or shadows (small dynamic range)...ADL may not even be noticed and your normal brightness and contrast settings get applied.
I often have ADL set to "normal" and shoot RAW only. The DR of the scene determines if I change that. Shooting multiple HDR exposures is also another place where ADL seems to have a very positive affect on the final product. I do not recommend using ADL with flash.
Bottom line...I use ADL when I think it will better my results and don't just turn it on and forget...takes a bit of experience to get a feel for it and what it can do, but I do use it a lot.
Mirror slap imparts a vibration to the camera and lens. How much that vibration affects the image depends on how that vibration affects the lens/camera combo. A rock steady tripod lets the camera/lens take all the vibration...a longer lens vibrates in larger moments (amplitude) than a short one just as a short pole vibrates in shorter stokes (up and down) than a really long pole. Simple things can mitigate that vibration....a heavy towel laid over the lens can dampen the vibration. Really long or really fast shutter speeds can make the vibration less noticed (at 1/500s the amplitude and frequency of the vibration is not noticeable, for example).
Not really other than you simply have to plan for it and not really practical using it to photography the family dog running around or needing to take lots of shots real fast. Remember..mirror slap is only a problem on tripod around 1/15s-1/80s (for the most part). Some consumer VR lens element seem to be affected by it in the 1/100s -1/200s range but school still out on that one.
This one
Good Luck!
toomanycanons
Forum Pro
Man, am I glad my experience with my D7000 was all good. No focus problems, no sharpness problems, all good all the time. Lucky me, right?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum