cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

6D gave me really blurry photos?

Sophós
New Contributor

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...

 

 

IMG_7790b.jpg

118 REPLIES 118

What software are you using for RAW processing?

John Hoffman
Conway, NH

1D X Mark III, Many lenses, Pixma PRO-100, MX472, LR Classic


@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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Doctor told me to get out and walk, so I bought a Canon."


@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.

 

Musician


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?

 

EOS 6D2017_05_068836.jpg

 

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.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Doctor told me to get out and walk, so I bought a Canon."

diverhank
Respected Contributor

@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...

================================================
Diverhank's photos on Flickr


@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.

 

3114863D-4259-4BFF-B048-366B79BE4228.jpeg

 

Both hands are OOF because of motion blur.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Doctor told me to get out and walk, so I bought a Canon."

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. 

John Hoffman
Conway, NH

1D X Mark III, Many lenses, Pixma PRO-100, MX472, LR Classic

TTMartin
Respected Contributor
The bassist hands are fuzzy because they were moving and you were using too slow of a shutter speed to freeze their movement.

AndreaW
Frequent Contributor

Oh God... 🙂

TTMartin
Respected Contributor

@TTMartin wrote:
The bassist hands are fuzzy because they were moving and you were using too slow of a shutter speed to freeze their movement.

Or they are infront of the depth of field of the camera, or a combination of the two..

The problem is with the PHOTOGRAPHER not understanding basic photography, and has nothing to do with the camera.

AndreaW
Frequent Contributor

Here we go...  If you don't know the answer then it's okay to not respond.  Really.