f/1.4 focus

camblercambler Registered Users Posts: 277 Major grins
edited March 17, 2006 in Sports
The "sweet spot" at f/1.4 is terribly narrow. Yet the best sports shots I've taken were done at such a huge aperture both because of the light it lets in as well as the great smooth depth of the background.

But how does one avoid the simple fact that only one out of every four or five shots is going to have anything even NEAR the right focus. Even shooting continuous AF and 1/320 shutter, they're moving faster than my D70 and my Nikon 50mm f/1.4 can keep a tight lock.

Am I missing something obvious? :-)
Photography: http://www.AmblerPhoto.com
Cheerleading: http://www.CheerPhoto.com
Blog: http://cambler.livejournal.com

Comments

  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited March 12, 2006
    Well, it's tough no doubt. Obviously you could do better than the D70 for fast focusing....I don't know how fast that lens is at focusing, either...

    I'll be watching this thread for someone with some REAL help....
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • CookieSCookieS Registered Users Posts: 854 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2006
    The main reason i sold my D70 was its inabilty to consistantly track focus. expecially coming at me. so maybe you can try to predict Where your focus/subject will be moving into or shoot the leading line of your subject. for better DOF manuvering.
  • Steve CaviglianoSteve Cavigliano Super Moderators Posts: 3,599 moderator
    edited March 17, 2006
    Cambler,
    Cookie brings up an excellent point. Action coming towards the camera is tough for any camera to handle. They seem to do better when the action is parallel to the lensface. At least as far as AF tracking goes.

    I also agree with David. Sounds like you may have some hardware issues. I know that some of the fast Canon primes, are not the fastest AF performers. For example the sweet 85mm F1.2 Canon prime AF's slower than the inexpensive 85mm F1.8. Fast isn't always fast, if you get my drift. Combine a sluggish AF performer with pushing the limits of your camera and you wind up frustrated rather than satisfied ne_nau.gif

    I can't see DOF being an issue. I don't think you can get close enough to the players physically to allow shallow DOF to cause any focusing issues.


    Good luck and let us know if things don't get any better.

    Steve
    SmugMug Support Hero
  • galaxycowpokegalaxycowpoke Registered Users Posts: 155 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2006
    cambler wrote:
    The "sweet spot" at f/1.4 is terribly narrow. Yet the best sports shots I've taken were done at such a huge aperture both because of the light it lets in as well as the great smooth depth of the background.

    Take a look at this depth of field calculator.

    If the calculator is correct, the DOF varies significantly based on the the camera and lens combination used.

    Sports photos are generally captured at a much greater distance than portraits. A camera/subject distance of about 30 feet gives you a wide depth of field with the 50mm and narrower depth of field with a telephoto at all apertures.

    The other focus problem you might be having with the "tracking" sports is camera shake with an non-stabilized lens. That makes a difference, too.
  • DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,952 moderator
    edited March 17, 2006
    cambler, I hate to say it, but you've simply got the worst combination you could ask for! lol3.gif

    1. while the d70 is an awesome camera, it doesn't have pro sport level fast AF, a la D2. If it did, I wouldn't have bothered taking the hit in pixels to shoot with a D2H.

    2. even though the D2 is better, it's already been said, action moving directly in/out of the line of focus is not easy for any AF sensor.

    3. the 50/1.4 is a great lens, but remember, it's an AF-D, not an AF-S. The drive is different. Did I mention I love that lens? You couldn't ask for more sharpness or color rendition to die for. Leave it in the bag for portraits and landscapes.

    4. At 1.4 and the best you can do is 1/320! Yikes! That is slower than molasses! I've done better in poorly lit hockey rinks, f/4 and 1/320 (that's a full two stops!). What/where on earth are you shooting? North pole, in winter?

    With all of the above added up, you're actually doing pretty good to get 1 good shot out of every 4 or 5. So really, I'm curious what sort of dark, close range sport (50 is an awfully short lens) are you getting these results with?
    Since 2004...
  • camblercambler Registered Users Posts: 277 Major grins
    edited March 17, 2006
    DoctorIt wrote:
    cambler, I hate to say it, but you've simply got the worst combination you could ask for! lol3.gif

    With all of the above added up, you're actually doing pretty good to get 1 good shot out of every 4 or 5. So really, I'm curious what sort of dark, close range sport (50 is an awfully short lens) are you getting these results with?

    Well, my typical genre is fashion and glamour, so yeah, the D70 and the 50mm f/1.4 is my bread and butter. But for sports, I'm rapidly discovering that you're right!

    I'm shooting cheerleading (my daughter competes), and the lighting SUCKS, and that's being kind. Stage competitions have the entire room dark except for the stage, which is lit much less than ideally. Even histograms at 1/320 and f/1.4 come at ISO 640 to ISO 800. Sure, I could bring the ISO up, but then (at least on the D70) the noise hurts.

    I'm thinking of renting a D2X for the next competition to see the difference, though I am upgrading to a D200 in about a month.
    Photography: http://www.AmblerPhoto.com
    Cheerleading: http://www.CheerPhoto.com
    Blog: http://cambler.livejournal.com
Sign In or Register to comment.