6D gave me really blurry photos?

[Sophós]

Hello everyone.

I'm posting here hoping to find someone who can help me.

I recently got a 6D mark 2 to shoot my videos and it was all fine. Last night I was asked to take some photos during a meeting but I immediatly saw the lack of quality in all of them. I can't explain this absence of details even in the darkest enviroment or with the slowest shutter...

[Waddizzle]

You said you were at 35mm and f/2.8?

The people in the rear are out of focus.  If the whole world does not understand your issue, whose fault is that?

[IgnacioSottano]

Well, honestly, im starting to think im crazy. You really dont see anything weird on that part of the hair you rightfulyl highlighted? thats not a normal out of focus, thats crazy, it has no details whatsoever, its like a mush of information instead of a what a normal out of focus hair (dreadlocks or not) should look like.

And the only reason i agreed with her (i know she didnt post anything) is because i have this exact same problem with the exact same camera, and i found her post when i tiped in google "canon 6d mark II gives strange out of focus" or something like that.

I did not bump into this, i was looking specifically for this problem with this camera.

Again, dont try to point at whose fault is it, try to be helpful. I know perfectly the subjects hair is out of focus, what seems odd to me is the way that out of focus looks like.

[Waddizzle]

---

@IgnacioSottano wrote:

Well, honestly, im starting to think im crazy. You really dont see anything weird on that part of the hair you rightfulyl highlighted? thats not a normal out of focus, thats crazy, it has no details whatsoever, its like a mush of information instead of a what a normal out of focus hair (dreadlocks or not) should look like..

---

You are looking for detail in OOF areas of the mage that are lost in shadows.  The hair looks like a tangled mess to me.

[IgnacioSottano]

no, i dont expect detail, but that rendering is just wrong, i expect a normal out of focus

[jrhoffman75]

What software are you using for RAW processing?

[Waddizzle]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:

What software are you using for RAW processing?

---

I believe he has previously said that the sample is a JPEG from the camera.    But, something had to be done to the file in order to get it under the 5MB upload file size limit.

[Waddizzle]

---

@AndreaW wrote:

The picture below I took with my 6D.  Had I taken that same shot using my 6D Mark II then the hands on the guy on the right would have been very fuzzy.  Again, the issue I am having is that I get heavy "fuzziness" where there is less light.

---

What are your exposure settings?  What lens and focal length are you using?  Where is the AF point?  Is this ambient lighting, or did you use a flash?

The above shot is ambient lighting.  The exposure was 1/125, f/2.8, ISO 10,000 @200mm, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.  

[diverhank]

---

@AndreaW wrote:

I'm glad you posted the picture of the musician because it illustrates a lot of what I am talking about.  Take a look at his left hand -- not the hand with the obvious motion blur.  Do you see the fuzziness on his hand?  I am getting that fuzziness wherever the lighting isn't strong -- even when the musician ISN'T MOVING.  That is the issue, not the motion blur.  🙂

By the way, great color in that photo!  It's a shame his hands came out looking that way as his right hand looks deformed with all of the blur.  It could have really been a nice shot. 

---

I'm convinced that TTMartin is right.  It's all depth of field.  When the light is low, your camera sets your aperture to a low value and that effects the depth of field, making the DOF shallow...blurring both the area in front and behind the point of focus.

By the way I thought Tom's musician shot was gorgeous...in that case I would not have liked it as much if the hands were razor sharp. Them being blurred conveyed the motion and the energy behind it...the musician was moving his hands after all, not frozen like a wax figure in real life.

If you continue with photography, one of these days, you will revisit this thread and have a good healthy laugh at your comments in here...this reminds me of a  guy I know...when he first started out taking pictures, he complained bitterly about the background in his pictures being too blurred and I had to show him how to get them to not blurred.  Now after a few years, he pays thousands to buy lenses that will do that for him...

[Waddizzle]

---

@AndreaW wrote:

I'm glad you posted the picture of the musician because it illustrates a lot of what I am talking about.  Take a look at his left hand -- not the hand with the obvious motion blur.  Do you see the fuzziness on his hand?  I am getting that fuzziness wherever the lighting isn't strong -- even when the musician ISN'T MOVING.  That is the issue, not the motion blur.  🙂

By the way, great color in that photo!  It's a shame his hands came out looking that way as his right hand looks deformed with all of the blur.  It could have really been a nice shot. 

---

The left hand is motion blur, too.

Both hands are OOF because of motion blur.  

[jrhoffman75]

I agree that left hand is motion blur. The fret lines on the guitar are sharp while the fingers touching them are not. The only variable between the two of them would be motion.