Fran -
There is a simple procedure used by a lot of experienced photographers that would cure 99% of peoples' focus problems. This requires a camera that will allow you to confine the focus to the single center focus sensor.

Are you using a Canon? If so, since I am a Nikon shooter I can't give you the specific buttons/menu items/terminology, but I am sure there are plenty of Canonites here that can help you with that if you can't get it from the manual.

Anyway, once you have set the center spot as your focus point, place that center point on what you want to be in focus (that would typically be the nearest eye if you are doing a portrait). Now, press the shutter release half way down and wait for the focus affirmation beep or whatever other indicator your camera provides. If you want to recompose the shot to get the eye you focused on somewhere else in the frame (rule of thirds?), keep the shutter button 1/2 pressed to maintain the focus, move the camera to recompose, then press the shutter down the rest of the way to take the shot. This becomes 2nd nature with very little practice.

Even if you don't end up using the "focus and recompose" procedure regularly, it is good to know how to do it because it will quickly indicate whether the lens and/or camera truly has a focusing issue. In your case, I would bet that the lens is just fine, and that the camera is just getting confused and focusing on the Christmas Tree instead of the young woman.

I don't care how sophisticated modern camera focus systems are, the best of them focus on the wrong thing now and then, blow the exposure, etc - they can't know what you want, they can only guess. That is why a lot of experienced photographers ignore 90% of the automation in modern cameras and use manual settings most of the time. Being able to do this gives YOU the control over your camera rather than leaving the critical decisions to a faceless engineer somewhere in Asia.

I hope this helps - Let us know if and how this works out for you.

Amen, brother - one of several reasons why I like my Lumix GH2 so much is that the 16mpxl sensor is really an 18mpxl sensor, and Panasonic lets you choose from a variety of formats, each of which uses as much of the sensor space as possible, unlike just about every other camera out there that simply crops the base image to give you a different format, which just results in a cropped image with less resolution. Unfortunately, Panasonic has apparently done away with that special sensor with the new GH3, and now simply crops its base (16mpxl) image like everyone else. I hope someone in the know will tell me what I just said is not so. That new GH3 looks like a terrific camera in every other way.

When I had my D200, I had to clean it regularly (I do a lot of lens changing), so I got really good at the sensor cleaning thing. The D700 is a whole different animal - I have yet to clean the sensor after 4 years and many thousands of images. I finally saw a single very small spot a couple of days ago when working on a background replacement at 200%. Not nearly enough to do a manual senor cleaning yet. The difference between the D200 and D700? The D700 has the "ultrasonic" automatic sensor cleaning function, and it obviously works very well. I believe that the D700 probably has superior body sealing as well, so probably is not as prone to sucking in dust during normal operation. If I am remembering correctly (not a given at my advanced age) your D300 has a similar sensor dust removal system.

We own an IT business in addition to my photography business and have several Android tablets, a bunch of Windows laptops and tablet PCs, netbooks, iphones, MACs, you name it. When working/shooting on the road, we always take laptops AND tablets. The laptops are for doing real work - the tablets are for surfing the net, doing email and reading kindle books along with playing an occasional game of Angry Birds.

Having said that, we are really looking forward to getting a Microsoft Surface to play around with - they are the first modern tablets that I can see us using for everything, since they have a real Windows OS that can run the software that is essential to our work.

I have the GH2 and had the GH1 before that - IMHOP, neither of them really needed the video "hacked" for the vast majority of users, especially the GH2. Now the GH3 is coming, and it is even closer to full pro video right out of the box, if that matters to you, along with being upgraded in every other category to compete with the Olympus OM. It is also now deserving of a "pro" label with its all metal body, full weather sealing, the new f2.8 lenses, etc. I can't wait to upgrade.

I do 90% still photography, and have all the current zoom lenses, along with the 17 and 20mm primes. I also have an adaptor for my Nikkor lenses. I am happy with the performance of all of the Lumix lenses - the main thing I would like is more speed, which Panasonic will be providing with the new 2.8 constant aperture zooms.

I love MFT (Micro Four-Thirds) cameras, and their small, light, high-quality lenses that cost much less than lenses from the big boys. I am just waiting for someone to come out with a tilt-shift lens and some really good extreme wide angles for MFT so I can finally get rid of all the big heavy SLR gear that I still use for my paying work. Sure, if you are a pixel-peeper, MFT images fall short compared to the upper-echelon DSLRs with really good lenses, but most people would not notice unless they are looking at them on the computer screen at 100%. The attached image says it all for me - 90% of the performance at a little over 1/4 the weight - 8.7lbs 500mm vs 2.3lbs 600mm!

GH2 600 equiv. vs D700 500mm

Leica, but hang on to your wallet - admission to the cult of Leica is very steep!

Sony only purchased 11% of Olympus, and the partnership is focused primarily on medical imaging products (Olympus has 70% of the endoscope market). Olympus has always made excellent cameras and lenses, and continues to do so in spite of the accounting fraud perpetrated by a group of corrupt executives. I have nothing but respect for the people at Olympus who actually do the work, and am glad that the company hasn't given Sony a controlling share in the camera business. I expect that there will be some cross-pollination of lenses and sensors between the two camera brands, which could be a good thing.

Hi, Gaffer -

I know this is long, but I hope you might find at least some of it helpful.

I have had a whole bunch of digital cameras with a range of sensor sizes from tiny shirt pocket to FF Nikon, and I have been shooting landscapes including flowers/foliage/fine detail for more than 40 years. What I have found is that NO shirt-pocketable (meaning tiny sensor) digital camera is capable of giving me satisfactory fine detail such as you are looking for in the samples you provided. Even my FF D700 falls short in that regard. Also, your camera has a 6.3 Mpxl sensor. In my opinion, based on a lot of experience with a lot of cameras, Megapixels certainly do matter, especially when looking for expression of fine detail in images/prints bigger than snapshot size.

Apparent sharpness is strongly related to subject matter. Getting REAL sharpness in fine detail of foliage, flowers, blades of grass, etc. shot from a distance like your samples requires a ton of resolution, and your camera simply doesn't provide that. Neither does my 12 Mpxl D700. That is why serious landscape photographers spend piles of money on medium format digital cameras. That is why I am going to bite the bullet and invest in a Nikon D800.

The only way I can get satisfactory fine detail from my FF D700 is to use a VERY sturdy tripod on a totally breezeless day, AND use mirror lockup and/or a remote shutter release or the self-timer. Even with that, the fine detail is often still inadequate for the print sizes I prefer for landscapes (at least 12 x 18 or thereabouts in 2:3 (FF) format). That is why I often resort to doing multi-shot (sometimes multi-row) panos with tele lenses.

Another consideration is the anti-aliasing ("AA") filter that most digital cameras have. That filter introduces slight blur in order to minimize the potential for moire patterns in images. That can be compensated somewhat by sharpening in post, but never totally, because you can't really recreate detail that is lost at the time of capture. That is why medium format cameras do not have AA filters, and that is why Nikon offers a version of the high-resolution D800 that has a very weak filter. I have two cameras with weak or nonexistent filters - they are the Fuji X100 and X-pro1, and they both produce much sharper OOC (out-of-camera) images than any of my other digital cameras.

Also, most, if not all, digital cameras apply noise reduction to images to a varying degree even when you have turned it off in the menus - especially small sensor cameras, due to the fact that they tend to produce significant noise even at low ISO settings. The noise reduction also blurs fine detail.

Now, having said all that, there are a number of high-quality COAT-POCKETABLE cameras available now with decent sized sensors, much higher resolution, and which are much cleaner in terms of noise. To mention just a few, you might want to look at the Nikon V1-V2, Fuji E-X1, MFT (Micro Four-Thirds) cameras from Panasonic and Olympus, Sony's NEX-5,6,7 and the Sony RX100. All of those except the Sony RX100 require the added expense of interchangeable lenses.

The RX100 is probably the only one that could be called shirt-pocketable with a lens attached. It is a very impressive camera, and I would be considering one myself if I wanted a high quality pocket camera and could be content with a fixed short zoom lens. Here is a link to a good review:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_rx100.shtml.

Finally, in order to get the best possible sharpness, or just to find out what your camera/lens are capable of, you must:

Use the largest format (film or digital sensor) camera that is feasible for YOU with the best lenses you can afford.
Don't use auto focus if your camera has a decent manual focus facility
Use a STURDY tripod
Do not use "protective" filters unless you are shooting in a sandstorm
Use mirror lockup if shooting with an SLR.
Use the highest shutter speed possible
Use the lowest practical native ISO
Turn off or at least minimize the in-camera noise compensation.
Use a remote shutter release or the self timer.

That's it for now - Let the controversy begin. ;-)

I have been using my 12-24 DX Nikkor on my FX D700 for over 3 years - it works just fine. When you disable (deselect) the DX mask/crop function in the camera, the DX lens works just like an FX lens in that the full (uncropped) image projected by the lens is used. The negative consequences of using the full image from the DX lens is the distortion and blurriness that occurs at the outer extremes of the long dimension of the image - this gets worse as you go to shorter focal lengths. That is why I only use my 12-24 over the 18-24mm range.

I have been using my 12-24 DX Nikkor on my FX D700 for over 3 years now and nothing has broken yet - Nikon obviously designed the lenses/cameras for full compatibility. No one with a clue has ever said "this isn't supposed to work" - Your post is nonsense.

I purchased an X10 right after they came out - it was about the 5th high-end small sensor camera I had tried in my quest for a take-everywhere camera that will give me RAW, full manual controls, and good all-around performance - I have gotten rid of most of them (including the X10) due mainly to their crummy optical finders (if they had one at all) and their universally poor low light capabilities (unacceptable noise at anything over ISO 200-400). I was already generally unhappy with the X10 after really trying to like it for about a week, then when the orb thing happened in a big way, that was the last straw - I sent it back to Amazon, and bought a Nikon bridge camera about 2 weeks later (which I still have - details below).

I also have a GH2 (and a GH1), and I don't know what the basis of your displeasure is with the GH2, but it is a far better camera than the X10 in just about every way that matters to me. The only area in which it falls short is build quality - it has an alloy frame with a plastic wrapper and feels cheap in the hand - unlike the X10, which like all of the X series cameras, feels like it is machined from a solid block of metal. Too bad the actual performance of the X10 comes no where near the (apparent) build quality.

In fact, I am getting ready to get the new GH3 because the early reports have just about convinced me that this will be the camera that will finally allow me to get rid of my DSLRs and all their big heavy lenses.

And in case y'all might think that I just have a bias against Fuji, think again- I have both an X100 and the X-pro1 with a full complement of lenses. They are both terrific cameras. I will probably NEVER part with the X100 - it is that good, and it fits nicely in a jacket pocket or a small Domke bag that I always have with me. Its only drawback is that it has a 35mm fixed lens. That happens to be one of my favorite focal lengths, but sometimes I want something longer or shorter in focal length, so it is not a camera that I take everywhere. The 35 is an excellent lens for street photography and that is what I use the X100 for mostly. As for the X-pro1, the only reason that I might give it up is if the GH3 is as good as I hope it is, I can't justify keeping the Xpro as well. I will sell it and purchase a couple of the new fast lenses that Panasonic is introducing along with the GH3.

My last small sensor camera purchase was a Nikon Coolpix P7100. I have had it for about 3 months now, and it will be in my bag until someone comes up with something better. It provides clean images up to and including ISO 800, has a terrific 28-200 zoom lens, enough buttons and wheels to give me direct access to all of the manual controls I want without getting into the menus, is built like a tank, and while the optical viewfinder isn't great, it is good enough when needed.

By the way, I would be interested in knowing what you don't like about the GH2.

Re filters: I don't use them all the time, but sometimes find either a polarizer or a neutral density filter to be essential and I never go on a shoot without them. For that reason, I will not have a lens that doesn't accept filters.

Now for my reasoning behind my not liking extreme wide angle lenses for what I regularly do: If you already know all of the following and really want to shoot with extreme wide angles in spite of their shortcomings, then ignore my blather please, and follow your muse by all means!

I have attached 2 examples below of 14/17mm distortion on my D700 compared to the same scene with my 35-135 at 35mm. Any wide angle will have similar stretching/warping distortion at similar focal lengths, including all of the $2000 Nikkors. This distortion is a focal length dependent characteristic of ALL lenses, and the shorter the focal length, the more pronounced it becomes, and it is not easily correctable unlike the other types of distortion that all lenses tend to have to a greater or lesser degree (such as pincushion, barrel, and chromatic distortion). The excellent distortion control that the 14-24 reviewers rave about is about pincushion, barrel, and chromatic distortion, NOT the focal length related stretching/warping thing.

I want my landscapes, cityscapes, etc to reflect reality as close as is practicable - extreme wide angles simply do not do that. To me, they are special purpose lenses only unless you are like Ken Rockwell, and like using the distortion they produce as a kind of surreal element in your photographic art.

Another major consideration for me is the resolution (resolvable detail) in my landscapes - the wider the lens, the poorer the detail resolution. For example, my 35mm images will have 4 times the detail resolution of a 17mm image of the same subject shot from the same distance with the same camera. If I need more field of view, I simply make a multi-shot panorama. If you use a tripod when shooting landscapes, this literally takes seconds to do and the pano will be produced in photoshop in about 30 seconds. Then you have what is equivalent to an image from a $20,000 medium format camera (with low distortion) to work with instead of mushy detail that falls apart when printing at anything beyond about 8 x 12.

I will undoubtedly become much more enthusiastic about wide-angle lenses if and when I finally talk my wife into letting me have a D800!

Finally, here is a link to a good Amazon user review of the 16-35 from a guy who owns both the 17-35 and the 14-24 - Bottom line is he says the 16-35 is a superior lens (to the 17-35) - I guess a lot of people agree, since Nikon has just discontinued the 17-35.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1BWKZ3QJGEENW/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg2?ie=UTF8&asin=B0037KM0XA&cdForum=Fx9BM1RA8XBUN8&cdPage=2&cdThread=Tx2BDARI47Q8ZDA&store=photo#wasThisHelpful

Cheers,
Harry

14/17 stretch/warp - print size 5x13.75


35mm 2 shot pano reality - print size 8.5x23


SamsGap-5shotPano - print size 36x16.5

[quote=Stef C]

I do not and would not have the 14-24. It is big, heavy, and expensive, and its bulging front lens element does not allow the use of filters. I do not use anything wider than 18mm on my full-frame D700. For general photography, my most often used lens by far on that camera is a manual Nikkor 35-135. Extreme wide angles have way too much distortion for my purposes, and I consider anything wider than 28mm on a full-frame as extreme wide angle.

On the other hand, if you have a need for it, the 14-24 gets very high marks from most reviewers. If I was forced to buy either of the zooms you are considering, I would personally go for the 17-35, which IMHOP is a much more useful range, has an aperture ring, and allows the use of filters.

However, If I were starting from scratch and wanted modern auto lenses for a full-frame Nikon, my first purchase would be the 24-120mm f/4G VR, which is to me an almost perfect range for 90% of the shooting that I do, and is a lot less expensive than either of the super-wide zooms that you are looking at. YMMV of course.

My only application for ultra wide lenses is for architectural photography, which is the only professional shooting that I do these days. For that, when shooting interiors, I mostly use either a 24mm PC-E or the 12-24 DX lens, which works well on the D700 over the range of 18-24 mm. I put up with the ultra-wide lens distortion when doing interiors because there just isn't any other way to get the coverage needed without using multi-shot stitched panorama techniques with longer lenses, which is what I do when time and budget allows it.

Check out the clock to the left of my messy desk in the attached image - that was shot at 17mm. Also, the right hand display in the picture is the same size and aspect ratio as the one to the left of it and is rotated to portrait position - the extreme distortion makes it look as though it is a much larger display in landscape position.

Messy Office at 17mm

Here you go - I took the two pictures then masked the 14mm image to show the 17mm inside it - so the dark border is the part that the slightly longer lens cuts out of the field of view of the 14 when taken from exactly the same distance. Hope this helps. Of course, the original images would be the same size OOC, thus the books in the 14mm image would look a little bigger if the actual images were viewed side by side.

17mm over 14mm

Your camera will do the "Automatic" DX crop only if you HAVE NOT turned off the factory default setting. I disabled that "feature" as soon as I got my D700 so I could see what what kind of coverage my DX lenses were capable of with the full-frame sensor. That is how I discovered that my 12-24/f4 DX lens would give me very useful 18mm wide end coverage without vignetting in full-frame mode. I liked the lens a lot with my D200 and like it even more with the D700.