2nd try

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
This is an *awesome* lens and there is no reason what so ever
that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

nospam:
there are plenty of reasons, such as misfocusing, the camera is
out of adjustment, camera shake, subject motion, crappy filters
and more.

Sandman:
All of those are user-induced, and can be controlled. I think we
can rule out camera adjustment problems, since Peter should have
noticed that on other shots.

he might not.

most people never test their camera and lenses and would never know
if they're properly adjusted or not.

Since we are discussin these particular images, and if they were caused by
a grossly "misadjusted" camera, there would be no reason for him not
noticing it.

Sandman:
Camera shake is only a problem when shooting at low shutter speed,
which Peter did, but didn't have to.

that's false. camera shake can be a problem at any speed. it's
*less* of a problem at faster speeds, and it depends on the focal
length of the lens and how steady the camera is.

Again, since we're discussing a particular result with these two images, we
know that camera shake could have been avoided.

if someone is shooting from an unsteady platform, such as a boat or
moving vehicle, there can be camera shake issues at any shutter
speed.

Peter wasn't shooting from a boat as far as we know.

Sandman:
The subjects in these images doesn't really seem to be moving at
all. And I've never head of any crappy filters that cause motion
blur.

i didn't say a filter causes motion blur.

No, but you brought up filters when discussing these two images, that both
suffer from motion blur.

this is obviously an extreme test, but it shows what can happen:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

Right, but remember what you replied to:

Sandman
08/02/2014

"This is an *awesome* lens and there is no reason what
so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp."

And you replied with:

nospam
08/03/2014

"there are plenty of reasons, such as misfocusing, the camera
is out of adjustment, camera shake, subject motion, crappy
filters and more."

Here you are listing reasons why *these images*, i.e. Peter's images would
not be needle sharp. But you're just listing a number of reasons why any
photo could be less than sharp at any point in time.

His photos could have been needle sharp, there is no technical reason for
why they couldn't be.

Sandman:
He shot it at 1/60 at f/8 and ISO 2500, which means that he could
have shot it at three stops larger and thus three times faster,
i.e 1/200 at f/2.8, which is exactly what I said he should do.

1/60th is fine at any length, since it's a stabilized lens.

But I disregarded that, as I said, since I have a feeling that Peter is a
bit more shaky than you and I might be, so the rule of thumb felt as a safe
ballpark number for him to work from. It is obvious that 1/60 is *not* fine
for him in these circumstances.

Also 1/60 and VR only helps makes the lens stable, it doesn't make the
subject move less. They don't look to be jumping around in the pictures,
but they may not have been perfectly still either. 1/200 would have been
much preferred.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Sandman
wrote:

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
This is an *awesome* lens and there is no reason what so ever
that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

nospam:
there are plenty of reasons, such as misfocusing, the camera is
out of adjustment, camera shake, subject motion, crappy filters
and more.

Sandman:
All of those are user-induced, and can be controlled. I think we
can rule out camera adjustment problems, since Peter should have
noticed that on other shots.

he might not.

most people never test their camera and lenses and would never know
if they're properly adjusted or not.

Since we are discussin these particular images, and if they were caused by
a grossly "misadjusted" camera, there would be no reason for him not
noticing it.

there could be.

Sandman:
Camera shake is only a problem when shooting at low shutter speed,
which Peter did, but didn't have to.

that's false. camera shake can be a problem at any speed. it's
*less* of a problem at faster speeds, and it depends on the focal
length of the lens and how steady the camera is.

Again, since we're discussing a particular result with these two images, we
know that camera shake could have been avoided.

you don't know that.

you weren't with him when he shot it nor do you know if he has a
degenerative disease affecting his motor skills, although his inability
to type properly does suggest that possibility.

if someone is shooting from an unsteady platform, such as a boat or
moving vehicle, there can be camera shake issues at any shutter
speed.

Peter wasn't shooting from a boat as far as we know.

it's an example.

Sandman:
The subjects in these images doesn't really seem to be moving at
all. And I've never head of any crappy filters that cause motion
blur.

i didn't say a filter causes motion blur.

No, but you brought up filters when discussing these two images, that both
suffer from motion blur.

you said there is no reason whatsoever that an image should not be
needle sharp.

i gave *many* reasons why it could be less than perfect.

this is obviously an extreme test, but it shows what can happen:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

Right, but remember what you replied to:

Sandman
08/02/2014

"This is an *awesome* lens and there is no reason what
so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp."

And you replied with:

nospam
08/03/2014

"there are plenty of reasons, such as misfocusing, the camera
is out of adjustment, camera shake, subject motion, crappy
filters and more."

Here you are listing reasons why *these images*, i.e. Peter's images would
not be needle sharp. But you're just listing a number of reasons why any
photo could be less than sharp at any point in time.

that's correct. your statement is overly broad and therefore wrong.

His photos could have been needle sharp, there is no technical reason for
why they couldn't be.

since they weren't, there obviously is a reason.

Sandman:
He shot it at 1/60 at f/8 and ISO 2500, which means that he could
have shot it at three stops larger and thus three times faster,
i.e 1/200 at f/2.8, which is exactly what I said he should do.

1/60th is fine at any length, since it's a stabilized lens.

But I disregarded that, as I said, since I have a feeling that Peter is a
bit more shaky than you and I might be, so the rule of thumb felt as a safe
ballpark number for him to work from. It is obvious that 1/60 is *not* fine
for him in these circumstances.

he's shaky in more ways than one, notably his arguments.

Also 1/60 and VR only helps makes the lens stable, it doesn't make the
subject move less. They don't look to be jumping around in the pictures,
but they may not have been perfectly still either. 1/200 would have been
much preferred.

to stop subject motion it would but not camera shake, which is covered
by stabilization.

In article , nospam wrote:

Since we are discussin these particular images, and if they were caused by
a grossly "misadjusted" camera, there would be no reason for him not
noticing it.

there could be.

Then all his images would look as bad as these ones, and they don't, so no.

Sandman:
Camera shake is only a problem when shooting at low shutter speed,
which Peter did, but didn't have to.

that's false. camera shake can be a problem at any speed. it's
*less* of a problem at faster speeds, and it depends on the focal
length of the lens and how steady the camera is.

Again, since we're discussing a particular result with these two images, we
know that camera shake could have been avoided.

you don't know that.

Yes, I do know that, because his EXIF tells me he could have removed the TC
and bumped the shutter speed up, that reduces the effect of camera shake by
a great deal.

you weren't with him when he shot it nor do you know if he has a
degenerative disease affecting his motor skills, although his inability
to type properly does suggest that possibility.

Haha! Yes, I have assumed that Peter is a bit more shaky than most, which
is, again, why bumping up the shutter speed helps a lot.

if someone is shooting from an unsteady platform, such as a boat or
moving vehicle, there can be camera shake issues at any shutter
speed.

Peter wasn't shooting from a boat as far as we know.

it's an example.

But an unneeded one unless it is related to these two images.

Sandman:
The subjects in these images doesn't really seem to be moving at
all. And I've never head of any crappy filters that cause motion
blur.

i didn't say a filter causes motion blur.

No, but you brought up filters when discussing these two images, that both
suffer from motion blur.

you said there is no reason whatsoever that an image should not be
needle sharp.

That *THOSE* images, not "an" image.

i gave *many* reasons why it could be less than perfect.

Generally, yes, but as I shown below, the discussion was about these two
images, not a general discussion about why and when images can be blurry.

this is obviously an extreme test, but it shows what can happen:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

Right, but remember what you replied to:

Sandman
08/02/2014

"This is an *awesome* lens and there is no reason what
so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp."

And you replied with:

nospam
08/03/2014

"there are plenty of reasons, such as misfocusing, the camera
is out of adjustment, camera shake, subject motion, crappy
filters and more."

Here you are listing reasons why *these images*, i.e. Peter's images would
not be needle sharp. But you're just listing a number of reasons why any
photo could be less than sharp at any point in time.

that's correct. your statement is overly broad and therefore wrong.

No, it was *very* specific and concerned only two images, specified by the
word "these" in the above quote.

His photos could have been needle sharp, there is no technical reason for
why they couldn't be.

since they weren't, there obviously is a reason.

There is a reason for why they were blurry yes, but not a technical one -
only due to user error. Anyone can take crappy pictures with a $7,000
Leica.

For reference, here is a shot of another monkey:

http://sandman.net/media/modules/articleimages//SND/2014/08/03/19/_DSC6639.jpg

That's shot with a D3s that has better ISO performance than the D800, but
both handle ISO 4000 fine. It's shot at a longer focal length (300mm) with
a much crappier lens (the Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3) that has no IS what
so ever.

I shot it at f/6.3 and 1/160s, and this little guy moved around a lot, so
if I had shot it at 1/60 it would probably have been a lot blurrier.

While "needle sharp" isn't really apt for my picture, since the lens is a
bit crap, it's still a lot sharper than the two images we're discussing
here, so compare the numbers:

Crap lens 1/160 f6.3 ISO 4000 Very sharp
Super lens 1/60 f8 ISO 2000 Super blurry

It's simple math, really. There is no reason why Peter's images wouldn't
look as sharp as my image.

Sandman:
He shot it at 1/60 at f/8 and ISO 2500, which means that he could
have shot it at three stops larger and thus three times faster,
i.e 1/200 at f/2.8, which is exactly what I said he should do.

1/60th is fine at any length, since it's a stabilized lens.

But I disregarded that, as I said, since I have a feeling that Peter is a
bit more shaky than you and I might be, so the rule of thumb felt as a safe
ballpark number for him to work from. It is obvious that 1/60 is *not* fine
for him in these circumstances.

he's shaky in more ways than one, notably his arguments.

True, but I disregarded from that as well, since I was only commenting on
the photos

Also 1/60 and VR only helps makes the lens stable, it doesn't make the
subject move less. They don't look to be jumping around in the pictures,
but they may not have been perfectly still either. 1/200 would have been
much preferred.

to stop subject motion it would but not camera shake, which is covered
by stabilization.

Which is why you would use 1/200 or 1/160.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Camera shake is only a problem when shooting at low shutter speed,
which Peter did, but didn't have to.

that's false. camera shake can be a problem at any speed. it's
*less* of a problem at faster speeds, and it depends on the focal
length of the lens and how steady the camera is.

Again, since we're discussing a particular result with these two images, we
know that camera shake could have been avoided.

you don't know that.

Yes, I do know that, because his EXIF tells me he could have removed the TC
and bumped the shutter speed up, that reduces the effect of camera shake by
a great deal.

it doesn't, since the stabilizer takes care of camera shake.

shutter speed affects *subject* motion, and if it's too fast, it will
interfere with the stabilizer.

In article , nospam wrote:

In article , Sandman

Sandman:
Camera shake is only a problem when shooting at low
shutter speed, which Peter did, but didn't have to.

nospam:
that's false. camera shake can be a problem at any speed.
it's *less* of a problem at faster speeds, and it depends on
the focal length of the lens and how steady the camera is.

Sandman:
Again, since we're discussing a particular result with these
two images, we know that camera shake could have been avoided.

nospam:
you don't know that.

Sandman:
Yes, I do know that, because his EXIF tells me he could have
removed the TC and bumped the shutter speed up, that reduces the
effect of camera shake by a great deal.

it doesn't, since the stabilizer takes care of camera shake.

shutter speed affects *subject* motion, and if it's too fast, it
will interfere with the stabilizer.

Shutter speed affects all motion blur, including camera shake blur. Image
stabilization only affects camera shake.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Yes, I do know that, because his EXIF tells me he could have
removed the TC and bumped the shutter speed up, that reduces the
effect of camera shake by a great deal.

it doesn't, since the stabilizer takes care of camera shake.

shutter speed affects *subject* motion, and if it's too fast, it
will interfere with the stabilizer.

Shutter speed affects all motion blur, including camera shake blur. Image
stabilization only affects camera shake.

nobody said otherwise.

On 2014-08-03 19:08:17 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , nospam wrote:

In article , Sandman

You two guys have been going over ground already covered.
There are issues with the shooting settings for that image, and I
expressed my feelings regarding the use of the TC1.7 with the 70-200mm
f/2.8. I also raised the issue of camera shake. I believe all of those
were factors in producing such a damaged RAW image.

Then Peter revealed to us the real villain in all this. He was shooting
through a thick slab of glass wall/barrier which was part of the zoo
enclosure. Add to that he was using a camera mounted flash. So the real
reasons for the damaged RAW image can be nailed down to poor on-site
preparation on Peter's part. That and his insistence on using
camera-lens combos and exposure settings he is guessing might work. He
thinks longer is better, so add a TC even if it is not needed, even in
questionable light. A direct flash is going to cause light diffusion
and other issues, but he used it anyway.

Peter is on a quest for the magnificent accident shot. If he doesn't
quite pull it off he calls it artistic expression, when in fact it is
sloppy photography with more than capable great equipment. He didn't
even realize he had dialed in f/11, he thought he was shooting at
f/2.8, not that that would have been the correct setting for that
mandrill shot.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014080313352695711-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

You two guys have been going over ground already covered. There are
issues with the shooting settings for that image, and I expressed my
feelings regarding the use of the TC1.7 with the 70-200mm f/2.8. I
also raised the issue of camera shake. I believe all of those were
factors in producing such a damaged RAW image.

Then Peter revealed to us the real villain in all this. He was
shooting through a thick slab of glass wall/barrier which was part
of the zoo enclosure. Add to that he was using a camera mounted
flash. So the real reasons for the damaged RAW image can be nailed
down to poor on-site preparation on Peter's part. That and his
insistence on using camera-lens combos and exposure settings he is
guessing might work. He thinks longer is better, so add a TC even if
it is not needed, even in questionable light. A direct flash is
going to cause light diffusion and other issues, but he used it
anyway.

Correct, and I have been telling him this for years.

Peter is on a quest for the magnificent accident shot. If he doesn't
quite pull it off he calls it artistic expression, when in fact it
is sloppy photography with more than capable great equipment. He
didn't even realize he had dialed in f/11, he thought he was
shooting at f/2.8, not that that would have been the correct setting
for that mandrill shot.

No, something around f4 would have been my choice.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 3 Aug 2014 10:03:04 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

PeterN:
My 2nd attempt at a mandrill in which I incorporated some of the
suggestions he

The guy is the boss:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mamdro%3B%3B%202nd%20try.jpg

In this image he looks friendlier.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mandrill3648.jpg

Sandman:
Well, what can I say. Dump your teleconverter in the trash and
crop your images in your computer. Youv'e got 36 wonderful
megapixels of data and you can crop a *lot*

Crank up the shutter speed to at least 1/focal length, and open
up that aperture. You don't need to shoot at 2.8, but f11 gave you
nothing in this particular instance. The reason for going with a
smaller aperture is for sharpness and greater depth of field, but
the 70-200/f.28 is pretty much as sharp throughout the focal
length.

If you use VR, you can lower the shutter speed somewhat if needed,
but in this case it wasn't. Set your aperture to f4 if you fear
that not enough of the subject will be in focus, and your shutter
speed to 1/200 at 200mm.

As Ken Rockwell said: "If you can't get sharp photos with this
lens, you are a sad excuse for a photographer."

That's from the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. It's not clear from
PeterN's EXIF whether his f/2.8 VR or VR II.

Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image stabilization.

I've never thought to look at DxO before. The results are interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/mh2cro2
The newer lens is slightly sharper and better in both other respects
as well, but the differences are so small that most people would be
hard pressed to notice them. You would get bigger variations from
processing.

Sandman:
His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and there is no
reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

I have the f/2.8 VR and from my experience, tests and what have
read, it is sharper at the shorter focal length. I've never tried it
with a teleconverter.

And you shouldn't. The blur in Peter's images is not from shooting with the
70-200 at the longest focal length.

In this case it is the optical quality of the window pane through
which he was shooting.

Sandman:
Footnote: The VR II of the 70-200 claims four stops of
improvement, but that's in ideal conditions, and I'm assuming here
that Peter may be a bit shakey to begin with, so I stand by the
shutter speed of 1/focal length in spite of the VR II.

If he is using a tripod it may be that he shoould turn off the VR.

I think it's obvious that these shots were not shot using a tripod, and
there is also no reason to turn off VR just because you use a tripod.

I don't know about the VR II but according to Nikon you should with
the earlier lens. I've already posted a copy of the relevant pages
from the instruction book in a response to nospam.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That's from the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. It's not clear from
PeterN's EXIF whether his f/2.8 VR or VR II.

Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image stabilization.

I've never thought to look at DxO before. The results are interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/mh2cro2
The newer lens is slightly sharper and better in both other respects
as well, but the differences are so small that most people would be
hard pressed to notice them. You would get bigger variations from
processing.

that's what i said originally.