[jacqui2]

And another, although this one is at a lower shutter speed and higher iso

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[jacqui2]

And this is what I was getting with a Panasonic bridge camera. Admittedly this was at a lower ISO but still I think it looks better focused.

[jacqui2]

Ok, so managed to get all the exif info up (couldn't make head or tail of the silkypix camera utility, but found a way to see exif info on here) and it is saying Shake reduction on, AA simulation off, so I guess it is working ok. Maybe just need a bit more practise with a new kind of IS system. Will keep trying

[othar]

And this is what I was getting with a Panasonic bridge camera. Admittedly this was at a lower ISO but still I think it looks better focused.

Because of the smaller sensor size the depth of field of your bridge camera is larger than with your K-70 so more is in focus and you had better lighting, that beeing said the examples of your K-70 don't do the camera justice, although I tink it has more to do with missed focus and less with motion blur from camera shake.
Try to focus in Life View (it's an independent AF system from the one the OVF uses), if you get sharp images that way you have to adjust your AF system.

By the way I checked with my K-3 and (besides when turning the camera on the first time) the SR symbol is always activated right after the lights in the OVF are activated too.

[jacqui2]

Ok thanks. I will keep that all in mind. Yes I realise it was a bit better lighting, but generally the focus was much better on the bridge, but as you say, depth of field helps with that. I have tried adjusting the AF micro adjust, but will give that another go over the weekend. We are going out tomorrow to a local nature reserve so will give it a good go, and try to get used to working with the different SR system. Thanks again for your replies.

[VILLAINofOZ]

If you are looking directly through the optical viewfinder, you DON"T see the effect of image stabilization

Isn't that is basically backing up what I said?

looking through the viewfinder of my K-70 and my 55-300PLM lens,

Notice the comma - I just made it bold and bigger so you can see it better.

the image is stabilized in the viewfinder

Meaning it is not shaking and not that the 'in camera stabilization' is done, seen or controlled from the viewfinder which I know is incorrect.

and does not shake for me

I thought that's what I said.

so it took a little getting used to with the image not being stabilised in the viewfinder,

This part of jacqu2's post is is why I answered the way I did.

I think you needed to quote someone else like :

This is impossible. The SR system only works by moving the sensor. How are you getting a stabilized image in an optocal viewfinder except you are using in-lens stabilisation with a Sigma lens?

I didn't actually appreciate being told I am wrong when in fact I was correct in what I said all along.
Forums are supposed to be informative and helpful an not picking on a correct point of view.

[Penview52]

The first photo the focus is behind the grass or at the wall which is not so clear.
The second photo - the bird - the focus is at front as seen on the left side of the bird.
Maybe your lens adjustment is the reason for not having sharp image. Return back to zero adjustment and work with different AF active area.

[othar]

Isn't that is basically backing up what I said?

As I understood your sentence, you suggest that the image in the optical viewfinder should be stabilised when SR is working correctly, but the only way to get a stabilized image in the optical viewfinder is with in-lens stabilization and not with SR (or IBIS), so in my opinion he is not backing up what you said.

I didn't actually appreciate being told I am wrong when in fact I was correct in what I said all along.Forums are supposed to be informative and helpful an not picking on a correct point of view.

English is not my first language so I don't preclude missunderstanding your sentence, but the way I read your sentence I don't think it is correct and that was the only thing I wanted to communicate

[jacqui2]

The first photo the focus is behind the grass or at the wall which is not so clear.
The second photo - the bird - the focus is at front as seen on the left side of the bird.
Maybe your lens adjustment is the reason for not having sharp image. Return back to zero adjustment and work with different AF active area.

The first photo I took with the single focus point directly on the drawn circle in the middle, and I am fairly sure this was with the AF adjustment at 0, not adjusted. I did take several series of shots with AF adjust at 0, -2, +2, and it didn't seem to make any difference. All 3 photos looked pretty much the same.

[35mmfilmfan]

My two penn'orth (not that it's even worth that much) is that you might benefit from reading threads on here concerning front and back focus, then do some rigorous testing of the lens along the lines suggested. Kits for this are available on-line (not tried one myself, just saying) which may (or may not) help. Good luck anyway, and please let us know how you get on.

[othar]

The first photo I took with the single focus point directly on the drawn circle in the middle, and I am fairly sure this was with the AF adjustment at 0, not adjusted. I did take several series of shots with AF adjust at 0, -2, +2, and it didn't seem to make any difference. All 3 photos looked pretty much the same.

Did you find the time to test AF in Life View (CDAF...Contrast Detection AF) opposed to AF with the optical viewfinder (PDAF...Phase Detection AF) and are your result with this the same as with the OVF?

[jacqui2]

Thanks 35mmfilmfan, yes I am going to give it another go at testing the lens. Othar, I have tested live view and it does seem fine, although that is placed on a solid surface with timer, and the others (through the viewfinder) are handheld, and I think that is where the issue is, I just can't seem to hold it as steady without optical stabilisation, but maybe with practice that will improve.

[othar]

Othar, I have tested live view and it does seem fine, although that is placed on a solid surface with timer, and the others (through the viewfinder) are handheld, and I think that is where the issue is, I just can't seem to hold it as steady without optical stabilisation, but maybe with practice that will improve.

While it could be your techniques I am not totally convinced it is, if you have the time maybe try AF through the viewfinder also on a tripod or solid surface with timer.

[Penview52]

The first photo I took with the single focus point directly on the drawn circle in the middle, and I am fairly sure this was with the AF adjustment at 0, not adjusted. I did take several series of shots with AF adjust at 0, -2, +2, and it didn't seem to make any difference. All 3 photos looked pretty much the same.

To see a nice contrast of DoF take a shot of object ( like a ruler ) in 45 degree position from your place and the center of photo ( no. 6 ) as your target object and place a standing AA battery on the side of 5, 6, 7 . Use auto focus and no manual zooming in. The result will clearly identify your lens as front or back focus oriented.
Yes I believed that whatever adjustment you made like -2,0,+2 will not make any difference, they will just look closer or further. As I said you have to work on AF active area that best fits to your lens that gets a sharp look and AE metering also that fits to your chosen AF active area. This sounds complicated but trial and error will give you the correct use of your lens.

[rogerstg]

And this is what I was getting with a Panasonic bridge camera. Admittedly this was at a lower ISO but still I think it looks better focused.

It looks like what you are thinking is poor focus is really less processing. Bridge cameras are more consumer oriented and thus are more processed straight out of the camera than many DSLRs' default settings. I added some sharpening and clarity to your "unfocused" image and, despite a half year of weathering, appears sharper than the Panasonic. (IMO, I added too much, but wanted to make the point)

Bridge camera:


K-70 with sharpening and clarity seems properly focused now: