EXIF: Subject Distance on a D7100? Am I expecting too much from the Nikon AF-s DX VR 55-300

michael66

Does anyone know how to get the 'Subject Distance Range' in the EXIF to show up? I've googled the topic quite a bit and found that it is a common question. Poor google-fu?

And a second question. Am I expecting too much from this lens? In the first picture ( 200mm ) below, I am using a Nikon AF-s DX VR 55-300, 4.5-5.6 zoom lens. Because the sun was so bright, I put a Tiffen ND.9 filter on it. As you zoom in on the girl, you can almost read the brand name of her equipment; 'Black Diamond'. Almost. Dang! I don't care all that much about this shot, but what did I do wrong? I was using a single focus point, aimed directly on the carabiner on her lower back.


@200mm - http://www.flickr.com/photos/98961297@N06/11901484385/
@450mm - http://www.flickr.com/photos/98961297@N06/11901484385/

PB_PM

There are no images...

michael66

There are no images...

Sorry, I was trying to imbed them, but it wouldn't work for me. I edited my post and put in links to the pics on flickr.

Paperman

No EXIF to see but I will just guess and say "camera shake". Why put on an ND filter to decrease the light when you could have used it for high shutter speeds? ND filters serve a much different purpose.

spraynpray

The 55-300 will not give you 80-400G sharpness, plus, consider this:

It looks like you used 1/320 sec SS at 300mm? when using a DX I always (now) multiply the reciprocal of the focal length by the 1.5 crop factor to get the right SS i.e. 1/450 sec.

You will not get much better than that, plus what Paperman said above is right. If I were you I would have upped the ISO and shot at 400 ISO to get a sure fire high enough shutter speed.

Don't forget auto-ISO is your friend with the D7100.

Ade

For the EXIF… Nikon SLRs don't fill in the "Subject Distance Range" field, but there is a similar one called "ApproximateFocusDistance" (often just labeled "Focus Distance" in software). The value of this field isn't very reliable.

Here's an excerpt from your Flickr image:

Focus Position: 0x04
Focus Distance: 29.85 m
Lens IDNumber: 172
Min Focal Length: 55.0 mm
Max Focal Length: 302.0 mm

Juergen

Is it hand-held or did you use a tripod?

Your EXIF states that VR was on. Always keep it off when you are using a tripod or your camera is well supported. And of course at high shutter speeds it also does not make sense.
The ND Filter in this situation is not necessarily a bad thing, because in can increase the contrast of your overall image. But then you do not want to pixel-peep.

Jürgen

Msmoto

First, I can read the "Diamond" on the pouch, but there is a slight softness about this. Would suggest shooting at 1/1000 sec, no VR. No real need for a ND filter and it may have reduced the resolution.

And, than You Ade for explaining the Exif data re: subject distance

sevencrossing

The ND Filter in this situation is not necessarily a bad thing, because in can increase the contrast of your overall image.

Jürgen

????

can you explain how a ND filter increases contrast

spraynpray

I think Jurgen mixed up ND with polarising?

Juergen

The ND Filter in this situation is not necessarily a bad thing, because in can increase the contrast of your overall image.

Jürgen

????

can you explain how a ND filter increases contrast

Sorry increasing contrast was the wrong word to use.
If you look at the photo, we have a very bright wall even with highlighted reflections. The key subject is the girl, and she is wearing black pants. Her black shadow is masking her siluette.
The ND Filter helps a bit to balance out those different light levels and gives you more room in post, in order to bring back the body shape. But it goes at the expense of detail sharpness, that is what I meant by "then you do not want to pixel peep".

Does that make my point (right or wrong) clearer?

Jürgen

sevencrossing

<<i>The ND Filter helps a bit to balance out those different light levels and gives you more room in post, in order to bring back the body shape. But it goes at the expense of detail sharpness, that is what I meant by "then you do not want to pixel peep".

Does that make my point (right or wrong) clearer?

Jürgen

Not really

A ND filter will have the same effect as stopping down OR increasing the shutter speed OR lowering the ISO value.

As other have said , the most likely cause of the softens is camera shake

I would suggest the OP experiments

Removing the ND filter and shoot at a higher shutter speed e.g. 1/1000

using a heavy solid tripod, decide if stopping down to f 9 increases the sharpness of the lens ( rather than shooting at f 5.6 or f 8)

see what effect increasing the ISO value from 400 to 800 has on IQ

adding a ND filter (or any filter) will slightly degrade the image. The amount of degradation will be dependent on the quality of the filter . With only one, high quality, filter, the degradation will be minimal

tc88

All ND does is reducing effective ISO without improving noise. Other than long exposures, ND is used to reduce the shutter speed when it approaches the fastest allowed by the camera (such as 1/8000). Since you were never close to that, it should not be used. It will only add imperfection to the picture.

Juergen

Alright, I am convinced now also, an ND filter in this situation is a bad thing.

michael66

Many thanks for your help folks.

To answer your questions;
Using the ND filter was suggested to me that it might help with the glare and to the warm the skies. I've only used a polarizer or CFL correction filter. Not a mistake to repeated.
It was hand-held with VR on. Isn't the purpose of VR to use a telephoto without support; to dampen the shaking effects of the mirror and a human hand? Okay, more research and reading.

@Ade - thanks for the EXIF breakdown. It's a shame that number isn't reliable.

@spraynpray - I never thought of that. I use the labeled focal length of 300 for a minimum SS. It makes sense to go by the crop facter.

As for noise, I haven't had that much luck with Picasa or Gimp and would rather not deal with Photoshop. I see that DxO is on sale for $99 at Amazon. Would that be a worthwhile investment?

spraynpray

Have you got something against Lightroom? Once you've got the hang of never moving/editing the original files outside of Lightroom, it is very good - and simple.

sevencrossing

It was hand-held with VR on. Isn't the purpose of VR to use a telephoto without support; to dampen the shaking effects of the mirror and a human hand?

It is indeed, Nikon only suggest you turn it off when using a tripod ( to be honest, I have not found it makes any difference, on all my lenses, the VR is taped over, in the ON position
even with VR on 1/320 is a tad slow for hand holding a 300m, so we are suggesting a tripod or a higher shutter speed. A higher shutter speed will be possible with out the ND filter
If that does not work, I afraid you are going to need Nikons amazing new 80 -400

michael66

@spraynpray - Against Lightroom specifically? No, I've never used it. I just have big issues with Adobe itself and how they do business. Perhaps another thread. As for DxO Optics, I've heard a lot of rave reviews and I just got a notice that it is on sale.

@sevencrossing - I will have you speak to my wife about the 80-400. How about the older 80-400 F4.5-5.6 D ED VR? I can get that for $700. Whereas the newest version runs in the mid-20's. Or maybe, @Coastalconn can recommend a Sigma. I am wowed by that $900 150-500 he uses, I just don't understand all those letters they use in the description! "AF APO DG OS HSM " Is it that good? And thus the topic for another thread! I'll have to work on getting the most out of the gear I have and then get something better as I outgrow it.