Xpozr Loc: Mesa, AZ

Hi, all,

I'm hoping the experts here can either confirm my suspicions or point me in a new direction.

I've posted two shots of the eave of a neighbor's house about 130 yards away on a sunny afternoon in Arizona. You can confirm this via the EXIF data from the RAW files, but I'm shooting with a Nikon D5600, Tamron 150-600mm (first gen) (all the way out to 600mm), F6.3, ISO 800 and 1/2500.

The first shot is the best of 6 photos I took through the view finder and the second one is the best of the 6 I took via Live View. I auto-focused in on the small patch of horizontal stucco at the top of the eave with the view finder and let Live View auto focus on the same (but larger) area. (I did have to crop both RAW files in LR to be able to post them here.)

Comparing the images side by side in LR, to me, the first shot is soft and the second shot is noticeably sharper, especially when looking at the details of the stucco and cement to the right of it. (At the top of the eave.)

One additional note: I rented the Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens over the weekend and compared its images to my Tamron's images under identical circumstances and the Tamron actually won out by just a hair, so I know the lens(es) are probably not not the issue, unless two completely separate lenses yield almost identical 'soft' images.

So, based on what I've read, I believe this means my camera is either front or back focusing, correct? Before I rented the Sigma last weekend, I was ready to get LensAlign, but now I'm leaning towards taking the camera to a reputable service center to have it calibrated. (I read online how to do it for the D5600, but that involves taking off the bottom plate and making small sensor adjustments with an allen wrench via the holes under that plate; and don't feel comfortable going that route.)

Or is difference between the two images not large enough to warrant a camera tune-up? (I'd really like to take shots as sharp as possible and only blame myself for soft images; not my equipment.)

Thanks in advance to anyone that can offer a little advice.

Attached file:
(Download)

Attached file:
(Download)

Joe Blow

The Tamron 150-600 is not known for sharpness at it's extreme ends.

Xpozr Loc: Mesa, AZ

I can't disagree with you on that, but with my budget (and knowing the Sigma Sport yielded similar results), why would Live View show sharper images? I'm ok with the images from the Live View test, but not necessarily through the view finder.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

You might just be screwed. First you should know that contrast detection (live view) is more accurate than phase detection (viewfinder).

Second, whether you or someone else adjusts your camera/lens combo, it will be adjusted ONLY for that lens/camera combination and any other lens you mount on the camera may be soft focused.

I don't particularly like this solution, but your best bet without AF fine tune may be a viewfinder loupe, such as by Hoodman.

Robert Bailey Loc: Canada

As "OddJobber" has said, the focus system used in Live View (Contrast Detection) is generally considered to be sharper (but slower) than the focus system used when you are looking through the viewfinder (Phase Detection).

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Also live view is using the actual sensor to focus (contrast detection) while through the view finder (phase detection) is using a second focus sensor. So your conclusion that the lens is either front or back focusing (on the focus sensor) seems correct.
Articles on this can be found at
https://fstoppers.com/education/difference-between-dslrs-viewfinder-autofocus-and-live-view-autofocus-195881
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/how-focus-works

Xpozr Loc: Mesa, AZ

Thanks, Larry and I agree, Hoodman isn't an ideal solution, but it is a solution. I wasn't aware there was a product like that available for LCD screens. From reading its description, it's pretty much just meant for reviewing the shots I've already taken, but I suppose in a pinch, I could possibly use it while I'm shooting, to make sure the lens AF is doing its job.

Xpozr Loc: Mesa, AZ

Thank you, dsmeltz. I'd read up on the differences between the two, which helped me come to my original conclusion.

Maybe it's time to bite the bullet and move up to the D500 a little quicker than I expected to? :-) I'm not sure if that would be considered GAS or not, but I mainly shoot outdoor wildlife [eagles, hawks etc.] in Arizona, so shots per second and the camera's buffer are a big deal to me. I'm also looking for more in-camera options and flexibility for fine-tuning the AF system.

Even if I did have the sensor calibrated on the D5600, I'd still have my eye on the D500 and how much more it offers while out in the field.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

How does the camera know you are looking through the viewfinder?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Because you did not switch to live view.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Thanks. That's the beauty of having an electronic viewfinder, IMHO.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

As I often say, if I were starting out today, I would go mirrorless. The advantages just keep stacking up.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Does LensAlign work with the 5xxx series bodies? I know it didn't in the past, but I'm not familiar with the 5600.

agillot

the original tamron is ok up to 550mm , after that it looses sharpness .the G2 does not .

Xpozr Loc: Mesa, AZ

Thanks, bkyser; that's a good point. The LensAlign ad on Amazon states: "Adjust the Auto-Focus Fine Tune and Micro-Adjustment on compatible DSLRs", but the D5600 doesn't have those options. And not that it's the final answer, here's an excerpt from page 291 of Steve Perry's "Secrets to the Nikon Autofocus System":

"We’re going to examine four of the most common systems / methods for AF
fine-tuning below - LensAlign, FoCal, DotTune, and Nikon’s Auto AF
fine-tune (Nikon D5/D500/D7500/D850). However, there are some general
guidelines that apply to every setup, so I wanted to go over those now."

He didn't list the D3XXX and D5XXX series in there, so I think you're on to something and thanks again. More reason for me to consider the D500 a little quicker than I anticipated.