Recently got a Nikon D70 and very early days of playing to try and understand the camera, how it works, and what I should / shouldn't be doing. I've got a rough grasp of photography from years ago with a v simple 35mm SLR so somewhat confounded by the ability to customise with the Nikon.

Couple of pics below from yesterday that I'm confused with – why the vertical highlight on the sunset?

And why's my pup so out of focus – she was central in the viewfinder, lots of light, 50mm lens, aperture set at 1.8? Any ideas would be great – took a bunch of pics yesterday and most very disappointing so morale low!!!

Cheers

Now, I don't know much, so you can take this with a pinch of salt!

but in the second one you may need to check which point the camera is using to focus – looks like it's not focussing in the centre of the frame but on one of the other points.

Vertical line in the sunset suggests you're maxing the cameras sensor out and/or you have lens issues – photos into the sun are hard to achieve and can damage the camera in rare cases. Small lens aperture will help there. I've only seen this on compact cameras where they use an electronic shutter, but I'm not sure if it's actually the case – were you using "live view" rather than the lens?

The pup – I presume you were on auto-focus and possibly the "green square" mode? What's probably happened is you camera has picked up on the busy background (lots of nice vertical lines to "see") and focused there, itd doesnt know your dog is what you wanted to see. This can be aided by switching your auto focus point to a known one, like the centre one, and using that alone to set focus on what you want. Takes a bit more time but the results are much better.

Whats the camera/lens? I went through the same morale killing learning curve too – DSLRs are far far harder to get good shots from, but the shots they get are well worth it when you get it right. But it is, with the right settings, perfectly possible to get sunset pics with either type of camera (canon A720 compact:)

Thx – thought that and had the autofocus on AF-S, center-weighted. Interestingly half dozen pics were like this and when I changed the AF setting to AF-C the pics focus was much better – but not nearly as great (ie. the percentage that were really well focused) as usual.

Generally the pics were inferior in terms of focus as when using the 18-200mm zoom … I had imagined it'd be the other way round? But more than likely to be my inability (or some odd setting I had inadvertently used!)

Aus – is your lens/filter clean ad scratch free? that is an odd flare! Is there any chance that the sensor could be scratched or otherwise damaged?

the second pic – the issue is more than certainly down to which autofocus setting you used. Did you not notice that it was out of focus before you released the shutter?! if you can't get the AF to focus properly and don't have time to play with settings – you can always flick the AF off and focus manually?

Centre-weighted only works if you have stuff in the centre to "see", and it outweighs the lots of lovely vertical hard lines behind. You should be able to select an individual focus point to work with, that's teh way forward in 90% of cases IME.

Need a bit more info I think, using an 18-200 zoom is compromised in general IMO – thats a MASSIVE focal length range, lenses with that sort of range (and reasonable price) tend to be hugely compromised in focus ability except in their "sweet spot", meaning lots turn out looking soft all over. Maybe you were using too long a shutter duration, or such a wide aperture that your depth of field is tiny, so the slightest change in focal plane is leaving the subject OOF? Or maybe you're focus-locking and then letting the subject or you move before taking the shot?

To get the focus business sorted out try something called "back button focusing"
Not that au fait with Nikon, but its basically a custom setting that allows you to lock focus using a button on the rear of the camera

This leaves the shutter button to just deal with exposure and stops focus shifting when you recompose

Setting the aperture so wide will not help on the dog picture, since the depth of field will be so shallow. I'd use manual focus, since you want the eyes pin sharp and everything else OOF, or choose a narrower aperture.

using an 18-200 zoom is compromised in general IMO

I've taken around 100,000 shots with mine and found it quite good, and it usually focusses fine

Maybe you were using too long a shutter duration,

in which case the grass would have been equally fuzzy

thanks coffeeking – it's a Nikon D70 with a Nikon f1.8mm lens for the pup, and a 18-200mm Nikon lens for the sunset.

In fairness, to the sunset pic – I pulled over in the car, quickly reset the exposure compensation(? +3 I think) snapped, and drove off, so not a lot of thought. Checking the pic, it was a large aperture setting, and I had the ISO set high (1000 by accident).

Need to play with the autofocus controls – and the busy background makes sense.

A couple maybe that worked better? (with the zoom)

But another with the 50mm lens that's disappointing re the focus? Or maybe just a very shallow depth of field and lack of skill on my behalf?

With digital, you can fix lots of stuff later, but never focus. Always focus on the eyes, if you can't get your camera to do it on auto, you have to do it yourself. More than one pair of eyes? You then need a high enough f stop to give sufficient depth of field to give a sharp image everywhere you need it. This used to be easy to judge with manual lenses as there would be a funnel shaped guide printed on the focus slide. Often using a depth of field preview button makes it too dark to judge in the viewfinder so you end up going back to the screen and zooming in to check focus. Nothing wrong with throwing away a few to get a good one, it just used to be hellish expensive with film.

I've taken around 100,000 shots with mine and found it quite good, and it usually focusses fine

in which case the grass would have been equally fuzzy

Quite good = not amazing, but ok it's a decent lens. It won't be as crisp and happy as a prime, or a much shorter variable length unless it defies physics. But then I'm not suggesting he do that, I'm suggesting that longer variable length lenses are compromised to some degree, which it's undeniable that they are.

Yes, in the case of the dog shot the grass would be fuzzy too, but I was talking about his large number of OOF images rather than that one specifically, I'd already covered why I thought that one was the way it was.

Well, when you half-depress the shutter button, the focus locks, so maybe you inadvertently did that when focusing on the grass behind the dog? Usually matrix autofocus works fine on scenes like that. Must be some error to cause such a problem.

18-200 may be "compromised" for pixel-peepers, but it is fine for normal folk 🙂

thanks all … will continue trying and playing, and have some good pointers to check/think about next time. Maybe one day I'll get it right!

'tis a frustration sometimes when you think a P&S compact prob would produce a better pic 😉

18-200 may be "compromised" for pixel-peepers, but it is fine for normal folk

A compact is fine for normal folk 😉

But yes I am a pixel peeper, can't help it, I spent 4 years not so long ago doing image processing and manipulation work 🙂

f1.8 is pretty impractical unless you are looking for the specific effect of a very narrow depth of field and using a tripod or fast shutter speed

f1.8 is pretty impractical unless you are looking for the specific effect

other apertures may be selected and it gives a brighter viewfinder…

she was central in the viewfinder, lots of light, 50mm lens, aperture set at 1.8

Or maybe just a very shallow depth of field and lack of skill on my behalf?

Shooting at f/1.8 doesn't give you a lot of room for error.

For a subject 4 metres away at f/1.8, the DOF is only about 45cm (21cm in front of the subject and 24cm behind it).

At a more reasonable f/3.6, it is twice that

f1.8 is pretty impractical unless you are looking for the specific effect of a very narrow depth of field and using a tripod or fast shutter speed

On the contrary, I find it highly practical. The effects you list are the main reasons I use my 50 f/1.8. Other than it being very dark, which is when it obviously is the only aperture you can use without flash etc…

The effects you list are the main reasons I use my 50 f/1.8

urm…..i just said that