Should this photograph be more clear as you zoom in? (Page 3): I didn’t notice that! And I’m pretty sure at this point that the deer moved slightly.

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

photogeneralist wrote:

Check out the specular highlight reflection in his eyes (catchlight). In double download you can see that they are smeared out a bit. This indicates movement. either camera, sensor, or subject.

I didn’t notice that! And I’m pretty sure at this point that the deer moved slightly.

clickety

imagemeister wrote:

- and body !

Not the whole body, 3 feet in front, less in back.

suci Loc: Texas

Resqu2 wrote:

Thanks! that looks great. considering I was dealing with a wild animal and trying to check settings he could of moved a bit as I hit the shutter or maybe I moved the camera slightly as it was on a car roof and I had my hand on it.

He or she could of moved if there was such a phrase, but the phrase is he could have moved or could've moved. So no he could not of moved.
Doesn't anybody use spell check?

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Resqu2 wrote:

Pulled into work and a nice young deer was watchin... (show quote)

Yes, it is not as sharp as it should be, first of, I would turn off the IS in a situation like that, then I would make sure that my focus is set on the eyes!

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

speters wrote:

Yes, it is not as sharp as it should be, first of, I would turn off the IS in a situation like that, then I would make sure that my focus is set on the eyes!

It seemed like my focus point at that distance covered a lot of his head, I couldn’t just put it on his eye like I wanted to. I guess thats why they make longer lens lol. And yea IS should of been disabled. So many settings, so little time.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Every lens has its limit in range for a sharp, clear shot. This might be the far limit for your lens.

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

via the lens wrote:

Every lens has its limit in range for a sharp, clear shot. This might be the far limit for your lens.

That was a though also, I’d love to know if a number like that is published somewhere? I’m sure it is but I had no luck googling it. Probably used the wrong terms in my search.

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

suci wrote:

He or she could of moved if there was such a phrase, but the phrase is he could have moved or could've moved. So no he could not of moved.
Doesn't anybody use spell check?

Why are you criticising others when you are not perfect yourself.

You said "So no he could not of moved" should be "no, he could not have moved".

SonyBug

Dr.Nikon wrote:

It would seem that given the focus point you show it should have been spot on .., the long green weed in front of the front hoof is in focus and the leaves on the tree to the right or pretty much on focus ..

I sharpened up your photo a bit and while the deers face is now pretty clear for most ...when you zoom in .. the weed in front stays in focus while the deer gets blurry ...

Either the deer moved during the shot or the lens /camera needs a simple calibration ..

The sharpening certainly helped, but the lens (or camera) is FRONT FOCUSING. Just look at the picture and you can see that the ground way in front of the deer is in focus, and the deer is mostly out. Get a focus chart and adjust the camera. Or just use a ruler at 45 Degree angle and you will see what I mean. I have a thousand shots of a trip out west out of focus for the same reason. When I did the focus adjustment, things got a lot better.

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

nikonbug wrote:

The sharpening certainly helped, but the lens (or camera) is FRONT FOCUSING. Just look at the picture and you can see that the ground way in front of the deer is in focus, and the deer is mostly out. Get a focus chart and adjust the camera. Or just use a ruler at 45 Degree angle and you will see what I mean. I have a thousand shots of a trip out west out of focus for the same reason. When I did the focus adjustment, things got a lot better.

Is this something that I should let Canon do considering I’m 50yo, my vision is not perfect and I don’t have a calibrated monitor. Guess what I’m saying is I don’t think I’d know when I get it to the exact point that it needs to be.

SonyBug

Resqu2 wrote:

Is this something that I should let Canon do considering I’m 50yo, my vision is not perfect and I don’t have a calibrated monitor. Guess what I’m saying is I don’t think I’d know when I get it to the exact point that it needs to be.

I guess none of us has perfect vision, and mine at 80 is no different. But you don't need perfect vision to adjust your camera to a lens. I am sure that Canon, like Nikon, lets you register and adjust many lenses to your camera.
Here is how I do it.

Get a yardstick. Set it 20 feet in front of the camera, in a well lit area, at an angle of 45 degrees. Tripod your camera. Turn off IS (VR for Nikon) and put a pencil or some other small object standing up at 18 inches.
Now focus (spot focus) on the pencil or object. Take the shot. Take the card out of the camera and look at the photo blown up on your computer. You should see the in-focus area in a ratio of 1/3 in front of the 18, and 2/3 in back.
If not, put the card back in the camera, and adjust the camera in the menu forward or back. Then take another shot. Repeat until you get the 1/3 to 2/3 ratio. That will focus your camera to shoot properly.

You can check all of your lenses this way. BTW, the thought that a lens has a focus limit is just wrong. When a lens hits its limit, its called infinity and is at the end of the focus range. But, infinity goes on out forever. Thats why it is called infinity.

Good luck

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

nikonbug wrote:

I guess none of us has perfect vision, and mine at... (show quote)

Thank you for the instructions, as soon as I have some time I will be trying this. As for focus limit I guess I’m using the wrong term but what I’d like to know is there a chart/info on when you need to step up to the next length in zoom lens. Say if I’d wanted just a head shot of this deer with his eyes clear then I’m guessing at 67ft I’d probably would of wanted a zoom that was closer to 400mm. If I’d wanted just a photo of his eyes and nose then I may of needed a 600mm lens. Does that question make since at all? I guess another way to describe what I’m asking is with my moon shot at 200mm I can get a nice, in focus shot but it’s small vs someone with an 800mm lens can show you crater on the moon.

SonyBug

Resqu2 wrote:

Thank you for the instructions, as soon as I have ... (show quote)

Now I understand. I don't think that there is a chart for that, but you can google "angle of view" of various lenses. They will show the width of the shot at different distances and mm of focus. That should give you what you are looking for. My theory is to get as good of glass as I can afford, and adjust while shooting for the amount of the view I want in the shot.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

fergmark wrote:

It looks to me as if the sharpest area is a couple feet in front of the deer. Wide open will be a pretty shallow DOF. Could be the lens is needing some calibration.

And, if you follow to the left, some of the leaves on the tree also appear to be in better focus than the dear. They also appear to be inline with the in-focus stones in front of the deer. So there might be a little bit of front focusing going on.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

There’s low contrast in low light for starters. RAW to JPEG without PP will look pretty flat. No hard edges or bright color for the eye to latch onto. Maybe the IS should have been off since you had it anchored pretty well on the towels. Those are my thoughts. But I’m really curious about how you knew it was 67.5 feet to the deer's head.