# Bridge not sharp - why?



## EOBeav (Mar 11, 2013)

I have a Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L and a 5DmkII. I've used this setup regularly for awhile now, and I've come across something I can't quite explain. I recently shot this bridge in Oregon. I used a sturdy tripod (Manfrotto ballhead/tripod combo), so stability isn't an issue. Still, several of these images came out much less sharp than I've been used to seeing from this lens. It looks like motion blur to me, but like I said, I was using a sturdy tripod. I shot at f/8, and even one of the images at f/11 had this same issue. Shutter speed was 1/20 and ISO was 125, and autofocus was directly on the front of the bridge itself. I can't imagine this lens is suddenly misfocusing so badly.

I'm at a loss. I ~thought~ I had all three legs on steady ground, but of course anything is possible, and it's possible one of them may have been in some soft ground, slowly sinking during that shutter time. I just don't think that's the case, though. I don't have any other explanations than this. Like I said, I'm used to getting much sharper photos with this lens. I thought I would throw this question out to the many qualified photogs on here. I'm not a beginner, I'm just not sure what happened. Thanks in advance for your helpful comments and suggestions. I'm posting an unedited, straight-from-lightroom- image. You can pixel peep at the full version size here. (2.4MB file)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2013)

You can check the lens on a flat building or target and see if it is sharp. There could have been some vibration or motion.

I avoid slow shutter speeds even with IS in favor of higher ISO settings.


----------



## EOBeav (Mar 11, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You can check the lens on a flat building or target and see if it is sharp. There could have been some vibration or motion.
> 
> I avoid slow shutter speeds even with IS in favor of higher ISO settings.



There's no IS, but I was using a tripod.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 11, 2013)

I would suggest the following. 1/20 is really slow, and you're shooting something really far away. Other things will affect the image and things that a tripod cannot stop. Shutter pressing causes vibration as does the mirror motion. I would try two things. The first, use a remote trigger that plugs into the camera and/or secondly mirror lockup. Like another poster said, if I have to go 1/20 to get a low ISO, I'll forgo the low ISO and typically I won't shoot slower than 1/60-1/80. The tripod cannot stop those two things. 

That of course isn't necessarily what's going on, but I just wanted to add to the discussion and that's what I was able to produce. I'll try to think of more things.


----------



## EOBeav (Mar 11, 2013)

Thanks dunbar...I neglected to mention that I use a cable remote. I pretty much take every precaution I can to keep my camera as still as possible. More to the point, though, was that I was wondering if this kind of non-sharpness was due to motion blur or just not being focused in the right area. To me, it looks like slight motion blur, but I'm not 100% for sure.


----------



## jhanken (Mar 11, 2013)

On telephoto, setting, the mirror lockup special function gives you an additional way to reduce camera shake, there will be no mirror slap to cause motion-induced blur.

It hard to imagine the setting where 1/20 exposure would be required for such a shot in sunlight, even at golden hour. Are you stopping way down?


----------



## EOBeav (Mar 11, 2013)

jhanken said:


> On telephoto, setting, the mirror lockup special function gives you an additional way to reduce camera shake, there will be no mirror slap to cause motion-induced blur.
> 
> It hard to imagine the setting where 1/20 exposure would be required for such a shot in sunlight, even at golden hour. Are you stopping way down?



ISO was 125, aperture was at f/8, normally the sweet spot for sharpness on this lens. I normally shoot as far to the right as I can go on the histogram, just before I start blowing highlights. I'm going to do a few tests tomorrow to see what's going on. I'm thinking one of the legs was just in some soft ground (it was fairly wet up there). I'm used to much sharper images than this.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 11, 2013)

Could the cable remote also have triggered the AF at the time of taking the photo resulting in the camera focusing on the wrong spot?


----------



## MatthewLewis (Mar 11, 2013)

I would bet, due to your location that wind and heat would be the culprit... couple that with your low shutter speed. That would be my bet. That lens is long, no IS, and everything else I mentioned... I don't see how you could get an ultra sharp shot actually, now that I think about it. 

Just my thoughts

M


----------



## infared (Mar 11, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> I have a Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L and a 5DmkII. I've used this setup regularly for awhile now, and I've come across something I can't quite explain. I recently shot this bridge in Oregon. I used a sturdy tripod (Manfrotto ballhead/tripod combo), so stability isn't an issue. Still, several of these images came out much less sharp than I've been used to seeing from this lens. It looks like motion blur to me, but like I said, I was using a sturdy tripod. I shot at f/8, and even one of the images at f/11 had this same issue. Shutter speed was 1/20 and ISO was 125, and autofocus was directly on the front of the bridge itself. I can't imagine this lens is suddenly misfocusing so badly.
> 
> I'm at a loss. I ~thought~ I had all three legs on steady ground, but of course anything is possible, and it's possible one of them may have been in some soft ground, slowly sinking during that shutter time. I just don't think that's the case, though. I don't have any other explanations than this. Like I said, I'm used to getting much sharper photos with this lens. I thought I would throw this question out to the many qualified photogs on here. I'm not a beginner, I'm just not sure what happened. Thanks in advance for your helpful comments and suggestions. I'm posting an unedited, straight-from-lightroom- image. You can pixel peep at the full version size here. (2.4MB file)



If you have IS make sure it is off adn hang weight on the tripod and make sure that the weight is not swaying to ad more stability...also...lock up the mirror....basically do everything in your power to make sure your equipment can do its job. If it looks like motion blur...it probably is....I know sometimes we all get caught up in the excitement of taking a great photo...and make mistakes...just try to eliminate all variables....


----------



## jcns (Mar 11, 2013)

other things to consider
humidity can affect how light travels
distance. the further away you are from the subject the more light diffraction you will encounter


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Mar 11, 2013)

Far distance can cause problems because if the air between. Not only the moisture, sometimes its a flow of warm or cold air in it that causes blur and the pictures suffers being not sharp.
Telefotos are different; its not just getting things closer.....


----------



## cervantes (Mar 11, 2013)

After inspecting the full-res image I'm pretty sure that there is no motion blur involved.
The Lens is either bad or misfocused. Luckily this is pretty easy to find out:

Make a picture of something (preferably something flat) by using manual live-view focus with magnification. When you can't get sharp results then there is something wrong with the lens.


----------



## SlothLovesChunk (Mar 11, 2013)

Eh, this looks like motion blur. Not one thing is in focus, even in what you can obviously see is the focus field. Don't see glare (as if from moisture in the lens). 

A few things:
1/20th is waaaay too slow a shutter speed if you're shooting over 70mm...tripod or not. In cinema, even on a 50lb, $20,000 tripod, we never start action until a few seconds after rolling, as you need time for the camera to settle. Remote or not, the mirror flip in a DSLR causes vibration...even when it's locked up, the shutter itself will cause minor vibration. If you're ever in California, like me, you know that there's no such thing as "stable ground". Don't ever count on it. When I shoot long exposures, I always hold a black card in front of the lens before the shutter opens, wait a second, then open it up for exposure...camera shake is a sneaky beast. 

125 ISO is way too low. Boost it and increase your shutter speed. Canon sensors seem to be the least noisy in increments of 160, so the cleanest ISOs are 160, 320, 640, etc, so actually 640 will probably have less noise than 125, oddly. There is virtually no significant visible noise until you get past 800...I think even 1250 is very pristine, and better than many of the lower ISOs. Go up to 640 or 800, increase your shutter speed...1/500 and above are pretty safe.

Doesn't really look like a glass issue, but do make sure your filters are awesome. I don't know what you've got on there. L lenses are brilliant and expensive...but the g's you spend on 'em are worthless if you have a murky $25 dollar Japan Optics plexi-glass filter in front of it. B+W/Schneidder filters are immaculate. They're painfully expensive, but they are sharp as a tack and they disappear in front of your lens. I've had a $120 B+W filter take the fall on a volcanic rock in New Zealand for my $1600 L lens, and saved its life. It's like an insurance policy. 

Hope this helps. Sloth hates fuzzy images.


----------



## Jan (Mar 11, 2013)

SlothLovesChunk said:


> A few things:
> 1/20th is waaaay too slow a shutter speed if you're shooting over 70mm...tripod or not. In cinema, even on a 50lb, $20,000 tripod, we never start action until a few seconds after rolling, as you need time for the camera to settle. [...]
> 
> 125 ISO is way too low. Boost it and increase your shutter speed.


+1


----------



## PavelR (Mar 11, 2013)

I vote for motion blur (camera [wind...], engaged AF, ...). Try the similar shot (distance, F number) with more light / higher ISO and faster shutter speed - about 1/250 (1/320).


----------



## aprotosimaki (Mar 11, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> I have a Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L and a 5DmkII. I've used this setup regularly for awhile now, and I've come across something I can't quite explain. I recently shot this bridge in Oregon. I used a sturdy tripod (Manfrotto ballhead/tripod combo), so stability isn't an issue. Still, several of these images came out much less sharp than I've been used to seeing from this lens. It looks like motion blur to me, but like I said, I was using a sturdy tripod. I shot at f/8, and even one of the images at f/11 had this same issue. Shutter speed was 1/20 and ISO was 125, and autofocus was directly on the front of the bridge itself. I can't imagine this lens is suddenly misfocusing so badly.



You say that several of your images came out blurry, which implies that others did not. How do the settings compare between these two sets? 

I would suspect mild shake due to the wind or the mirror flipping up. As others have suggested mirror lockup could address this. But it might just be that your AF had a rough day. Did you try manual focus as well?


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 11, 2013)

I have another idea (laugh if you want). 

If the camera isn't moving, and the air/humidity isn't what's affecting how the light hits the sensor, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that the bridge might have some slight movement? maybe enough flex in the wind to show motion blur at 1/20? I mean, the top tip of the Empire State Building sways from side to side. Either the bridge is moving slightly or the platform you're standing on is moving. Any civil engineers on the forum?


----------



## sandymandy (Mar 11, 2013)

I think metal buildings can sway but not concrete buildings like the bridge in the photo.


----------



## weixing (Mar 11, 2013)

Hi,
How heavy is your tripod? Make sure your tripod is steady and your setup is heavy enough... if you are using those carbon tripod, your setup might not be heavy enough to prevent the slight shake that cause by wind, people walking nearby & etc. You didn't see your camera shake, doesn't mean the camera didn't shake... at 1/20s, a slight shake during the exposure can cause your image to be blur. You can use the hook (a lot of modern tripod had that) below the tripod to hang something heavy to increase the weight of the setup.

Best is to increase your ISO to get a higher shutter speed. If not, I recommend you to use live view to focus at the object using 10x, make sure everything is lock down and make sure you see that the image is perfectly still before you trigger the shot... also, try to be as still as possible when trigger the remote cable... don't laugh... during some macro shot, I can see the image shake a bit in live view when I move my feet a bit.

Also, the blur might be cause by air turbulence which is very possible by looking at your image... the temperature different between the heated stone bridge and the cooler environment in the shadow might create some air turbulence which blur the image.

Just my $0.02.

Have a nice day.


----------



## cocopop05 (Mar 11, 2013)

aprotosimaki said:


> EOBeav said:
> 
> 
> > I have a Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L and a 5DmkII. I've used this setup regularly for awhile now, and I've come across something I can't quite explain. I recently shot this bridge in Oregon. I used a sturdy tripod (Manfrotto ballhead/tripod combo), so stability isn't an issue. Still, several of these images came out much less sharp than I've been used to seeing from this lens. It looks like motion blur to me, but like I said, I was using a sturdy tripod. I shot at f/8, and even one of the images at f/11 had this same issue. Shutter speed was 1/20 and ISO was 125, and autofocus was directly on the front of the bridge itself. I can't imagine this lens is suddenly misfocusing so badly.
> ...



I agree, it may be the AF. This may sound stupid as you have probably already tried this, but I would set the lens to MF, then use live mode with largest magnification and then adjust the focus until pin sharp. Then switch out of live view and take the photo. 

Again, I apologies if my advice is very obvious, just posting this in case you have not tried it yet.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 11, 2013)

cocopop05 said:


> I agree, it may be the AF. This may sound stupid as you have probably already tried this, but I would set the lens to MF, then use live mode with largest magnification and then adjust the focus until pin sharp. Then switch out of live view and take the photo.



Why not take the shot in live-view itself? It has the added advantage of avoiding the mirror slap.


----------



## GammyKnee (Mar 11, 2013)

You should have used a *bridge camera* rather than your 5DII. They are after all specifically designed for this kind of photography. 

Seriously though, it really looks like motion blur to me. As to what caused it, it could be one thing, or a combination of things. 

I can't find the link but someone did a vibration test on a range of tripods and it's surprising just how long a little vibration from touching the camera, or from a breeze, or from the mirror itself can take to damp down, even with a really expensive well respected tripod & head. 

I've now come round to always shooting from live view when doing a landscape, with silent shutter mode 1. I frame the shot through the vf, slip into live view, give it at least ten secs for residual vibration to damp down, then take the shot with my cable release. This procedure doesn't protect me from the effects of a breeze, but it has got me sharper shots.

But I would also agree with comments about the shutter speed. The sub 1/60 - 1 sec range leaves you really vulnerable to any movement. Longer is OK. Shorter is OK. But 1/40 is still living on the edge.


----------



## Northstar (Mar 11, 2013)

agree with others that 1/20th is too slow.....there is almost no discernible difference in IQ at any ISO under 800 on that camera so why not use it and shoot at a faster shutter speed?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 11, 2013)

In reality it's likely a combination of things:
-Motion smearing at the camera level
-Wind/Atmospheric effects
-Wavefront error

That fact that you got good results sometimes suggests an environmental culprit, not faulty equipment (unless it's failing sporadically). 



AudioGlenn said:


> Either the bridge is moving slightly or the platform you're standing on is moving. Any civil engineers on the forum?



Can the bridge move? Yes. But if it's moving, the camera probably isn't still. 



dilbert said:


> btw, is this the Bixby Bridge?



The columns are different (more ornamental), plus he said it's in oregon.


----------



## rpt (Mar 11, 2013)

Looks like mirror slap to me. Reminds me of my first attempt at star trails 

However, on pixel-peeping I thought the rear columns looked a bit more in focus but then may be it is that the light on the front columns is distracting my eyes.


----------



## KyleSTL (Mar 11, 2013)

You're using the 70-200mm with the optional tripod mount, right? Just making sure you're not attaching a fairly long, and slightly heavy lens to the camera and using the camera's tripod mount. Did you use any kind of weight on the bottom of your tripod (i.e. hanging your camera from the centerpost? I also agree with 3kramd5 about a combination of those three things, and with others that say a shorter SS and higher ISO would have been beneficial. However, one should not be prevented from using longer SS when adequate support is used and stationary subject matter are being photographed, so I would be more interested in trying to decide the root-cause of your unsharpness than just telling you to dial it up next time.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 11, 2013)

1/20 is pretty slow. If it was windy that day, the tripod could still shake. Also, when @ 200mm, you might want to engage mirror lockup to prevent mirror slap.

or it could be the lens but I doubt it.


----------



## John Strung (Mar 11, 2013)

The valley under the bridge will act as a chimney causing thermals to rise and the bridge appear to move slightly as the air rises past it. Next time you are in this situation, try turning on Live View and zooming in all the way and I will bet you can see the air movement.


----------



## lux (Mar 11, 2013)

I agree with the "chimney" effect. I suspect that if you had used video you could have seen the thermals rise kind of like the mirage on a road on a hot day.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> Thanks dunbar...I neglected to mention that I use a cable remote. I pretty much take every precaution I can to keep my camera as still as possible. More to the point, though, was that I was wondering if this kind of non-sharpness was due to motion blur or just not being focused in the right area. To me, it looks like slight motion blur, but I'm not 100% for sure.


It does look like motion blur, I see no evidence of front or rear focus.
I have a cable remote too, sometimes, the cable sometimes transmits a twitch to the camera as I push the button, so a 2 or 5 sec delay helps damp out movement, as does hanging a weight on the under hook of the tripod. Wind can move the tripod / lens setup as well, it does not take much. I have a heavy duty tripod and head, but it can occasionally be a issue in wind, or just me and my remote cable release.(That took a while to figure out, since it had slack in the cable, but it still transmits a slight twitch.)


----------



## EOBeav (Mar 11, 2013)

Thanks to everybody who weighed in on this. I believe I have found the culprit and it is me. Yes, a higher ISO and/or IS would have eliminated this motion blur. However, it wouldn't have happened in the first place had I taken the time to make sure everything was solid before I snapped the photo. That's what happens when you get in a hurry; you skip over some of the basics that you've been doing for a long time! All of the Canon 70-200 L's, regardless of aperture or IS, are really sharp, so that's why I was surprised to see this at first. I've used this same set up in creeks with exposure settings of .5 to a full second without any problems before. 

In any event, I'll take care to keep everything still next time. Thanks again for the feedback.


----------



## applecider (Mar 11, 2013)

Took your invitation to look at the larger pixel peeping image and for some reason that file looks pretty sharp. The bridge is in focus and there is little evidence of blur. Check it out and see if you see the same.

If someone else confirms this it would put the culprit in the post processing department.. maybe some kind of image depth or resolution downsizing. Or maybe noise reduction is loosing the detail.


----------



## aprotosimaki (Mar 11, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> Thanks to everybody who weighed in on this. I believe I have found the culprit and it is me. Yes, a higher ISO and/or IS would have eliminated this motion blur. However, it wouldn't have happened in the first place had I taken the time to make sure everything was solid before I snapped the photo. That's what happens when you get in a hurry; you skip over some of the basics that you've been doing for a long time! All of the Canon 70-200 L's, regardless of aperture or IS, are really sharp, so that's why I was surprised to see this at first. I've used this same set up in creeks with exposure settings of .5 to a full second without any problems before.
> 
> In any event, I'll take care to keep everything still next time. Thanks again for the feedback.



What was not solid?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 11, 2013)

applecider said:


> Took your invitation to look at the larger pixel peeping image and for some reason that file looks pretty sharp. The bridge is in focus and there is little evidence of blur. Check it out and see if you see the same.
> 
> If someone else confirms this it would put the culprit in the post processing department.. maybe some kind of image depth or resolution downsizing. Or maybe noise reduction is loosing the detail.



This happens to me ALL THE TIME. I will post-process and then export to jpeg and the file looks blurry. I'll then crop just a tad more, let's say off the top, then the file is sharp. This can also be seen with a blurry file, then you zoom in on it in your viewer and it is again razor sharp. I'm not an expert in resizing, downsampling, etc. and there has to be a very well known reason for this happening, and I cannot possibly be the only one that is seeing this.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 12, 2013)

applecider said:


> Took your invitation to look at the larger pixel peeping image and for some reason that file looks pretty sharp. The bridge is in focus and there is little evidence of blur. Check it out and see if you see the same.
> 
> If someone else confirms this it would put the culprit in the post processing department.. maybe some kind of image depth or resolution downsizing. Or maybe noise reduction is loosing the detail.


 
I looked at it as well, and its not up to expectations, it should be much sharper. If your images are not sharper, something might be wrong.


----------



## EOBeav (Mar 12, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> applecider said:
> 
> 
> > Took your invitation to look at the larger pixel peeping image and for some reason that file looks pretty sharp. The bridge is in focus and there is little evidence of blur. Check it out and see if you see the same.
> ...




Agreed, this has nothing to do with image conversion. The full size image I posted was just that...a full size jpg export from LR, unedited. 

Thankfully, I did a little test tonight and the lens is performing just fine. It was my own oversights that caused the blurriness.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 12, 2013)

So what ended up being the problem?


----------



## EOBeav (Mar 12, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> So what ended up being the problem?



A few things come to mind:

I was in a hurry and hit the shutter before I let the camera completely stop vibrating after moving it
At least one of the legs was in some soft ground, so it wasn't 100% stable
I didn't turn off the AF after getting the focal point where I wanted it, shaking the camera that much more

That bridge hasn't moved for 80 years or so, so it had to have been the camera. It was just a perfect storm of events caused from me not minding the store.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 12, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > So what ended up being the problem?
> ...



Good ... I was on the verge of suggesting there might have been an earthquake in the area!


----------



## agierke (Mar 12, 2013)

did you confirm that Mirror Lock was on? didnt see that in any of your replies. anyone else having issues like this in the future should understand that this is a likely cuplrit for camera shake at slow shutterspeeds on a tripod.

you also have to be careful of your own movement when making exposures like this. even if you are not physically touching the camera or tripod, walking around the camera position can cause vibration in the ground (depending on the surface you are on) and that can be transferred through the tripod and show up in exposures. this is not as likely outdoors but i have seen it happen on several occasions indoors when i or someone else walked by my rig during a long exposure.


----------



## EOBeav (Mar 12, 2013)

agierke said:


> did you confirm that Mirror Lock was on? didnt see that in any of your replies. anyone else having issues like this in the future should understand that this is a likely cuplrit for camera shake at slow shutterspeeds on a tripod.
> 
> you also have to be careful of your own movement when making exposures like this. even if you are not physically touching the camera or tripod, walking around the camera position can cause vibration in the ground (depending on the surface you are on) and that can be transferred through the tripod and show up in exposures. this is not as likely outdoors but i have seen it happen on several occasions indoors when i or someone else walked by my rig during a long exposure.



Didn't use mirror lock. It might be helpful in some situations, but it wouldn't have caused this kind of motion blur.


----------



## weixing (Mar 12, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > did you confirm that Mirror Lock was on? didnt see that in any of your replies. anyone else having issues like this in the future should understand that this is a likely cuplrit for camera shake at slow shutterspeeds on a tripod.
> ...


 Err... Mirror lock-up is use to prevent this kind of blur... not create it. You should use mirror lock-up or live view when shooting at slow shutter speed.

Have a nice day.


----------



## brett b (Mar 12, 2013)

Did you manually focus?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> Didn't use mirror lock. It might be helpful in some situations, but it wouldn't have caused this kind of motion blur.



Actually, a 1/20 s exposure is right in the range of shutter speeds (around 1/60 s to 1/2 s) where mirror slap can result in the camera shake-type blur you're seeing.


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> EOBeav said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't use mirror lock. It might be helpful in some situations, but it wouldn't have caused this kind of motion blur.
> ...



+1. I always use mirror-lock it's that slow or slower especially when taken relative to the focal length being used, even on a tripod. I'd also use live-view to focus manually. I'm not over-reliant on AF. For non-moving objects, sometimes it's better to use live-view as this is more accurate.


----------



## agierke (Mar 12, 2013)

as neuro stated...around 1/20th of a sec mirror lockup is really needed. the initial impact of the mirror opening and residual vibrations are enough of a percentage of exposure during that speed of shutter to have a significant effect. at even slower shutterspeeds (2 secs +) its its not as big of a concern because the initial moment of impact is far less of a percentage of overall exposure.


----------



## EOBeav (Mar 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> EOBeav said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't use mirror lock. It might be helpful in some situations, but it wouldn't have caused this kind of motion blur.
> ...



Looks like I just learned something. I can now see where mirror shake would be a bigger issue at this speed/focal length than it would at, say 1/500 or going the other way, at .5. Thanks to neuro, agierke, jason, et al, for setting me straight on this one. I'm going to read up on doing that with my 5DmkII.


----------



## Studio1930 (Mar 12, 2013)

And for future reference (as someone else already mentioned), ISO 125 is not the best ISO for that camera body. Check out this chart that shows the sawtooth noise produced by the type of amplifiers used in the 5D2. You are better off at ISO 160. 

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20II_14


----------



## EOBeav (Mar 12, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> And for future reference (as someone else already mentioned), ISO 125 is not the best ISO for that camera body. Check out this chart that shows the sawtooth noise produced by the type of amplifiers used in the 5D2. You are better off at ISO 160.
> 
> http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20II_14



Interesting, I hadn't seen that before. According to this chart, it looks like the sweet spots are ISO 160, 320 and 640.


----------



## John Strung (Mar 12, 2013)

Personally, I use live view, set the shutter to a 20 second delay and fire it using the infrared remote.

But in this case, I still thing the blurriness is caused by thermals rising from the canyon.


----------



## brett b (Mar 12, 2013)

John Strung said:


> Personally, I use live view, set the shutter to a 20 second delay and fire it using the infrared remote.
> 
> But in this case, I still thing the blurriness is caused by thermals rising from the canyon.



Interesting thought, John. I would never have thought about the rising thermals. Thanks!


----------

