Why is this photo a little soft ?

the_monkey

Exposure: 0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 195 mm
ISO Speed: 320

5D MKII with 70-200 IS F2.8L (IS is on)

See his face is soft (this was focused area) especially in original photo




Original
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4598598300_28af0d0354_o.jpg



Is 1/160 too slow here ? I know the rule should be in this case min of 1/195, but i thought with the IS this would take it down a bit.

cheers

Ricky91t

IS Will not freeze the movement of the subject only reduce the camera shake, The only way to freeze the action would be a higher ISO/Lower aperture and a higher shutter speed.

the_monkey

OK, so in this case 1/160 too slow , I guess at 195mm any movement on the subjects part is magnified too ?

Ricky91t

the_monkey wrote: »

OK, so in this case 1/160 too slow , I guess at 195mm any movement on the subjects part is magnified too ?

See if you think about it, IS only reduces the shake with in the lens, Using IS on a rock steady tripod would be pointless( Say for example one that would not move no matter what ) as the lens is staying still but is the were taking a photo of a tree blowing, having the shutter at 1/60 may not freeze the branches, And switching on IS will make no difference what so ever only reducing camera shake which wouldn't exist with a rock steady tripod.

To freeze any action you'd want a quick shutter, the Person is sharp enough, there is little/ no camera shake just the fact the movement in the frame was to quick for 1/160

hbr

the_monkey wrote: »

Is 1/160 too slow here ? I know the rule should be in this case min of 1/195, but i thought with the IS this would take it down a bit.

cheers

The camera and the subject are both moving. The IS will try to counteract the movement of the camera, but it can't do anything about the movement of the subject. A faster shutter speed will help as long as you don't run out of light or DOF. If this isn't possible, take a burst of shots and hope that one is sharper than the others.

Heebie

This looks to me like a very, very, very shallow depth of field. His right arm looks like it's in razor-sharp focus.. you can see every hair pretty clearly. That's nearly straight down. Where his leg meets his hip is pretty in-focus.. you can se the texture of his jersey, but by the time you're forward as far as the ball.. it's decidedly soft. Bumping the aperture up from 2.8 to 5.6 or so would have probably given you the player in really sharp focus, along with the ball, but still give you a fairly blurred background.

daycent

Heebie wrote: »

This looks to me like a very, very, very shallow depth of field. His right arm looks like it's in razor-sharp focus.. you can see every hair pretty clearly. That's nearly straight down. Where his leg meets his hip is pretty in-focus.. you can se the texture of his jersey, but by the time you're forward as far as the ball.. it's decidedly soft. Bumping the aperture up from 2.8 to 5.6 or so would have probably given you the player in really sharp focus, along with the ball, but still give you a fairly blurred background.

Second line of the OP: Aperture: f/6.3

pete4130

If your focal length is 195mm, then 1/195th (200mm & 1/200th for arguements sake) is a bare minimum. Ideally the minimum shutter speed should be 1/400th (double the focal length numerically) to account for hand shake with the camera and increase that again to capture movement.

With 5D II you could easily shoot at 160 or 3200 ISO and get shutter speeds way faster and noise wont be an issue. I regularyl soot at 1600 and 3200 without a worry about noise. You paid the money for a 5D II for those capabilites, so don't be afraid to tap into them!
You might be still in the mindset that high ISO's are a bad thing but if you think about it, if you shot at 1600 or 3200 there wouldn't be any real noticeable noise and your shutter speed would have frozen any movement present and you wouldn't have started this thread. Upping your ISO is better than relying on IS. I've only got IS (VR) on one of my lenses (105mm 2.8 macro) and never use it. All my other lenses I'd rather up the ISO or underexpose and bring it back in post processing afterwards.

Thats just me anyway.

Heebie

I guess I misread that one pretty badly, didn't I? =O (he said..while wiping the egg off his face.)

Taking a closer look at the ball.. it does look like motion blur. I wouldn't expect that in a photo that looks somewhat posed, nor on one with a shutter of 1/160.

daycent wrote: »

Second line of the OP: Aperture: f/6.3