What is this? Is it normal?

[VaxinAxis]

I tried to take a picture of another camera I had and I saw that there was some weird effect going on where the “EOS” and the down arrow is and I don’t know what it is, if it’s normal, or if I should get something replaced? I used a Canon EOS R8 to take the picture with an RF 25-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and the camera settings I used were: Focal Length: 95mm. Aperture: f/4. Shutter Speed: 1/325. ISO: 1600. It can’t be motion blur because I took it with a high shutter speed so what is it?


The picture:

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

Most likely chromatic aberration I would think. But I'm no expert in optics, so someone will be along soon to say I'm wrong :-D

Scroll down in the linked Wikipedia article to the Photography section.

 

[Ellis Vener]

I looks like a combination of things: motion blur (which is more obvious at very short focusing distances and might magnification) , and chromatic aberration and maybe it’s a touch out of focus.

 

[alcelc]

I was so told many years ago.

Can be happened easily on the browser of bright object (usually white color, or it is a light source) against a dark background under the right lighting condition.

Bloom (shader effect) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[SmilerGrogan]

you’re right There’s something happening What happens if you put it on a table and use the self timer

I tried to take a picture of another camera I had and I saw that there was some weird effect going on where the “EOS” and the down arrow is and I don’t know what it is, if it’s normal, or if I should get something replaced? I used a Canon EOS R8 to take the picture with an RF 25-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and the camera settings I used were: Focal Length: 95mm. Aperture: f/4. Shutter Speed: 1/325. ISO: 1600. It can’t be motion blur because I took it with a high shutter speed so what is it?


The picture:

 

[Tom Axford]

I tried to take a picture of another camera I had and I saw that there was some weird effect going on where the “EOS” and the down arrow is and I don’t know what it is, if it’s normal, or if I should get something replaced? I used a Canon EOS R8 to take the picture with an RF 25-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and the camera settings I used were: Focal Length: 95mm. Aperture: f/4. Shutter Speed: 1/325. ISO: 1600. It can’t be motion blur because I took it with a high shutter speed so what is it?

It probably is motion blur.

At a focal length of 95mm, particularly in extreme close up, you need to use faster than 1/50s unless you have a very steady hand. Note that the EXIF says it was 1/50s although you claim it was 1/325s.

The picture:

 

[Nick on the Baltic]

I tried to take a picture of another camera I had and I saw that there was some weird effect going on where the “EOS” and the down arrow is and I don’t know what it is, if it’s normal, or if I should get something replaced? I used a Canon EOS R8 to take the picture with an RF 25-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and the camera settings I used were: Focal Length: 95mm. Aperture: f/4. Shutter Speed: 1/325. ISO: 1600. It can’t be motion blur because I took it with a high shutter speed so what is it?

It probably is motion blur.

At a focal length of 95mm, particularly in extreme close up, you need to use faster than 1/50s unless you have a very steady hand. Note that the EXIF says it was 1/50s although you claim it was 1/325s.

The picture:

Motion blur was my first thought but then, looking at other elements of the picture, you don't see similar blurring on edges.

As a test, the OP could try retaking the photo with the camera on a tripod or other steady surface and/or using a timer for shutter release.

--
Nick on the Baltic

 

[bodeswell]

Not sure how it could be motion blur since the subject is an inanimate object that is presumably sitting on a flat surface … or was someone holding it when you took the picture? Otherwise I think it may have been camera shake with some help from poor lighting. Were you in a hurry? All of the lettering is soft. Take your time, use the timer or a tripod, and the problem should go away.

 

[Tom Axford]

Motion blur = motion of the subject + motion of the camera

 

[MarshallG]

I looks like a combination of things: motion blur (which is more obvious at very short focusing distances and might magnification) , and chromatic aberration and maybe it’s a touch out of focus.

I think it’s a noise reduction artifact. He should look at the original out of camera image

 

[bodeswell]

1. Tom Axford wrote:

Motion blur = motion of the subject + motion of the camera

Really? I thought motion of the camera was called camera shake if unintentional, which would be the case here, or panning if intentional. Not sure using motion blur to refer to completely different things is helpful.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Motion blur = motion of the subject + motion of the camera

Really? I thought motion of the camera was called camera shake if unintentional, which would be the case here, or panning if intentional. Not sure using motion blur to refer to completely different things is helpful.

They're different causes (moving subject and moving camera) producing the same outcome: motion blur in the photo.

 

[lehill]

I tried to take a picture of another camera I had and I saw that there was some weird effect going on where the “EOS” and the down arrow is and I don’t know what it is, if it’s normal, or if I should get something replaced? I used a Canon EOS R8 to take the picture with an RF 25-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and the camera settings I used were: Focal Length: 95mm. Aperture: f/4. Shutter Speed: 1/325. ISO: 1600. It can’t be motion blur because I took it with a high shutter speed so what is it?

It probably is motion blur.

At a focal length of 95mm, particularly in extreme close up, you need to use faster than 1/50s unless you have a very steady hand. Note that the EXIF says it was 1/50s although you claim it was 1/325s.

In addition, this is a 1240x1320 pixel crop from the original 6000x4000 pixel image. My EXIF reader somehow calculates an equivalent focal length of 378 mm.

To the OP: There's a lot wrong with your example photo but there's is no indication the problem is with your camera.

 

[bodeswell]

Motion blur = motion of the subject + motion of the camera

Really? I thought motion of the camera was called camera shake if unintentional, which would be the case here, or panning if intentional. Not sure using motion blur to refer to completely different things is helpful.

They're different causes (moving subject and moving camera) producing the same outcome: motion blur in the photo.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Motion blur = motion of the subject + motion of the camera

Really? I thought motion of the camera was called camera shake if unintentional, which would be the case here, or panning if intentional. Not sure using motion blur to refer to completely different things is helpful.

They're different causes (moving subject and moving camera) producing the same outcome: motion blur in the photo.

Blur is blur, but as you observe, blur can be caused in more than one way. I refer to blur caused by the subject as (subject) motion blur. I would not use the same term to refer to the consequences of moving the camera. It is helpful to make a distinction since, if the problem arises from camera movement, IBIS or a tripod might help.

Agreed. It is indeed helpful to identify the cause of the blur, especially for someone trying to sort out what adjustments to make to improve image quality. I suspect that's why Tom broke down motion blur as being affected by subject and camera movement.

I also like the advice you offered of using a tripod and a timer. At the very least, it's a great way to confirm that there's no problem with the gear.

 

[ChelseaPhotographer]

I tried to take a picture of another camera I had and I saw that there was some weird effect going on where the “EOS” and the down arrow is and I don’t know what it is, if it’s normal, or if I should get something replaced? I used a Canon EOS R8 to take the picture with an RF 25-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and the camera settings I used were: Focal Length: 95mm. Aperture: f/4. Shutter Speed: 1/325. ISO: 1600. It can’t be motion blur because I took it with a high shutter speed so what is it?


The picture:

Hi VaxinAxis,

If you are still reading this, please disregard what most of these people are saying. As one person correctly said, some of the elements in the photo are sharp, which means there is absolutely NO MOTION BLURR, NO CAMERA SHAKE, that is unless the EOS letters (and anything bright white in the image) decided to move independently of the rest of the camera, which is safe to assume that they didn't since they are glued to the camera. This is 100% chromatic aberration which is due to the lens that you put on your camera. It should be easily fixed in Lightroom or Capture One.

 

[prosumerhobby]

I tried to take a picture of another camera I had and I saw that there was some weird effect going on where the “EOS” and the down arrow is and I don’t know what it is, if it’s normal, or if I should get something replaced? I used a Canon EOS R8 to take the picture with an RF 25-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and the camera settings I used were: Focal Length: 95mm. Aperture: f/4. Shutter Speed: 1/325. ISO: 1600. It can’t be motion blur because I took it with a high shutter speed so what is it?

It cannot be motion blur because all the outlines would be blurry. It looks like CA because the effect is prominent in highlights against shadows making it likely it's the lens.

 

[bagsonuts]

Could it be light reflecting inside the lens? Some of my lenses have done this. Back in film days I used a Quantaray 70-300. I took a shot f the full moon and ended up with a half dozen moons as it reflected all over inside the lens.