Eyes not too good, does that affect what you see? (1 Viewer)

I have always had problems getting good sharp images with my digital camera's. Prior to a few weeks ago I had a 990 now I have a new 4500. I have a sun shade with 2 x magnification for using when it's bright as I can't see the screen without it.

Once on the subject, I want to take, I focus my scope up, half depress the button, then sharpen up the focus on the scope so in effect my image looks good. Then take the photo - easy. But in reality my images seem to come out soft and slightly blurry.

The other day I was out with a friend who is a good photographer in his own right. I saw a Linnet on a branch and decided to try for it. I set up as usual and clicked off a couple of shots (having gotten the image as sharp as I thought possible) and then asked my mate to take a photo. He tweaked up the focus and took a couple of shots, both coming out with a sharper image. I couldn't see the difference but he could.

I am now wondering just what part my eyes are playing in all this. My eyes are not good without my glasses and I have to take them off when I use the sun shade but even on darker days when I use the screen (and I keep my glasses on) I find that my shots are more or less the same.

Has anyone else come across this?

BTW I use a Kowa 824 scope so the scope's up to doing the job properly.

This is an interesting subject. I have given a lot of thought to being fitted with a contact lens for my scope eye. Just not sure whether they would fit for distance or just 20x20 or how the doctor would decide just what I needed.

As an after thought, have you adjusted the diopter on your camera?

Yep, your eyes and the camera's "eye" won't see the same thing. I keep the 4500's Focus Confirmation turned on at all times, and it seems to help...


GR

Although no optician, I just don't see how you can see an image as 'sharp' when it isn't (which would have to be the case). Our eyes can do the opposite, of course, very easily - make a sharp image as blurred, but never the reverse - because the image's "unsharpness" (i.e. the image on the camera's LCD) is being created by a different lens from that of the eye.

An interesting query Reader,

I too wear glasses but only for long distance. It does mean that when I use the scope or LCD on it's own I can keep them on to focus with, but as you say for using the magnifier I have to take them off. I much prefer using the magnifier as I seem to get more keepers that way. I guess that makes sense for me as my close focus vision is fine.

Everything you all say is correct of course but I still can't get away from the fact that my mate still managed to sharpen an image up that I thought was spot on.

How do I cope with that?

Was the image very still or perhaps moving slightly.The shots your friend took the subject could have been still yours could have been moving.Try taking something that does'nt move and focus till you think its sharp take a couple of shots refocus the scope take 2 more do this several times and look at you results and see which are the sharpest.Try and do it on a bright day then you'll have a highshutter speed dont go up to high on the cameras zoom between 2-3 max.

As a type 2 diabetic my eyes are going through constant changes, while i believe some of my focus problems are due to my inexperience with cameras i have to accept that my eyesight is in a state of deteriation.

\cuddy

Ragna said:

Was the image very still or perhaps moving slightly.The shots your friend took the subject could have been still yours could have been moving.Try taking something that does'nt move and focus till you think its sharp take a couple of shots refocus the scope take 2 more do this several times and look at you results and see which are the sharpest.Try and do it on a bright day then you'll have a highshutter speed dont go up to high on the cameras zoom between 2-3 max.

Click to expand...

The bird in question was virtually motionless, just perched. It was the perfect opportunity to make comparisons. The light was right and there was no wind either.

I had looked at all the variables such as bird movement, wind movement, bad light etc but none of these applied.

So it's back to the drawing board? I will try the method you have suggested by using something in the garden, on a sunny day if possible and see what happens.

I noticed the same thing with quite a few photos I took last year, after a few years away from photography.

It could be that the 2X telephoto converter is giving a softer image or that I am experiencing a bit of camera shake, but I noticed the problem even with fast shutter speeds.

I used to have an prescription eye piece attached to the viewfinder of my manual camera, and will probably get a new one made up this year.

Reader, I know exactly what you mean. I think most of the problems with my digiscoping results were caused by my deteriorating eyesight.

I was prescribed glasses for reading and computer work last year, and I tried using them when digiscoping, but results were no better. Even the Xtend-a-view didn't help matters for me.

Images looked sharp when reviewing them in the camera monitor, but at home they were abysmal. I think the camera sharpens them to a certain degree for viewing, but it's not always an indication of what you're actually going to get. I sometimes noticed the image 'jumping' into focus as I was reviewing them in camera.

I'm still having some problems with the new D-SLR, but it is getting better. If manual focusing, which I have to do with the lens converter on, I move the focus slightly after each picture, as recommended above with the digiscoping technique. This is OK as long as the bird sits still!! I do find that using the lens on auto focus, when not using the converter, works pretty well - much better on the D-SLR than having to fiddle with focusing the camera and then the scope.

Focus confirmation never worked for me, as the camera would say it was in focus - it was, but focused on a branch to the left or right of the bird.

As for seeing a sharp image when it isn't - I don't know how that would work either. I just know that I was under the impression that the subject was in focus, but it obviously wasn't.

Someone I met while out digiscoping one day actually tried my camera (I had the 995 then) and he was quite surprised at the inability of the camera to focus properly, so in my case it could have been the camera at fault - something I suspected for some time. His cheapy digicam was producing some fantastic shots, even though he was only hand-holding to his scope. That's when I changed to the G3, which did produce more in-focus shots, but still not enough to make me want to continue, not being very patient. I thought two years was enough of a test!!