Lax Again - Some Shooting Issues

KED

I'm not sure what went on last weekend. I was shooting from the stands on a very overcast day, just using the 70-200 with a 1.4x extender, Av mode @ 4.0, pushing ISO to try to stay at or above 500. I had never thought of 500 as being inadequate for lax, but I got some results that appear to me to be oddly variable. This one apparently exhibits both motion blur and very shallow DOF (look at the passer's pole vs both his and his defender's right legs):



While this one, at identical settings, appears razor sharp to me:



I've done a lot of lax in overcast conditions at this point, but now I don't know why this is happening (and since it was a Mk III, there's that in the back of my mind too). DOF at 4.0 shouldn't be as shallow as it appears in the first one.

LUCKYSHOT

It strikes me as odd that the defenders leg that is in motion is sharp (in shot 1), while his planted leg is blurred Great shots though. I shoot LAX Indoors in a dungeon and I wish I had your light or your camera for that matter

Chris

ASkip

KED wrote:

I'm not sure what went on last weekend. I was shooting from the stands on a very overcast day, just using the 70-200 with a 1.4x extender, Av mode @ 4.0, pushing ISO to try to stay at or above 500. I had never thought of 500 as being inadequate for lax, but I got some results that appear to me to be oddly variable. This one apparently exhibits both motion blur and very shallow DOF (look at the passer's pole vs both his and his defender's right legs):


I've done a lot of lax in overcast conditions at this point, but now I don't know why this is happening (and since it was a Mk III, there's that in the back of my mind too). DOF at 4.0 shouldn't be as shallow as it appears in the first one.

Do you usually use the extender? I get weird stuff when I use my (nikon) 1.4TC on the 70-200 lens. Sometimes it's perfect and sometimes there are fuzzy bits like motion blur. Sometimes in bright sun I get glowing whites. I blame the TC for everything and try not to use it. 1/500 isn't always fast enough for lax either, though normally I see it in the ball or the head of the stick and not someone's leg that's planted, like the other guy said.

rwells

KED wrote:

I'm not sure what went on last weekend. I was shooting from the stands on a very overcast day, just using the 70-200 with a 1.4x extender, Av mode @ 4.0, pushing ISO to try to stay at or above 500. I had never thought of 500 as being inadequate for lax, but I got some results that appear to me to be oddly variable. This one apparently exhibits both motion blur and very shallow DOF (look at the passer's pole vs both his and his defender's right legs):


KED,

Looks like a couple of things going on here.

1) First; I think that 1/500 is giving you some motion blurr. That's going to show up the most if the action is moving parallel to your lens, as in this picture.

2) Second; I have no idea if this is a crop, but given the lens & 1.4 I'd guess that it is. On the original file, where is the focus point shown in Canon EX Browser? It looks to me to like the focus is this side of the players, hence the pole being in focus. Look at the grass, I see non of it in focus in this pic/crop.

It might not be a systemic focus issue, maybe just one of those "camera/lens" botched shots if the focus point is on the player.



While this one, at identical settings, appears razor sharp to me:

Again, the action here is moving more toward you. That will make the action easier to stop. Note the grass, it shows focus.



I've done a lot of lax in overcast conditions at this point, but now I don't know why this is happening (and since it was a Mk III, there's that in the back of my mind too). DOF at 4.0 shouldn't be as shallow as it appears in the first one.

You are getting quite good at action shots though

BTW, while each lens may be a little different, I have taken thousands of pics with that same combo without any QC issues. I don't think that has any ownership here.

KED

LUCKYSHOT wrote:

It strikes me as odd that the defenders leg that is in motion is sharp (in shot 1), while his planted leg is blurred

Chris

Exactly -- weird, right?

Stick around for a few more weeks of frustration and maybe you can have my camera!

KED

ASkip wrote:

Do you usually use the extender? I get weird stuff when I use my (nikon) 1.4TC on the 70-200 lens. Sometimes it's perfect and sometimes there are fuzzy bits like motion blur. Sometimes in bright sun I get glowing whites. I blame the TC for everything and try not to use it. 1/500 isn't always fast enough for lax either, though normally I see it in the ball or the head of the stick and not someone's leg that's planted, like the other guy said.

I've abandoned a 2X extender permanently but have had fine results with the 1.4. We can assume the optics of a Canon extender on a Canon lens on a Canon body should be fine, so the strange thing about this shoot (it's apparent in many more shots than I actually posted, of course) is the strangely narrow DOF -- yes, it's f/4.0, but I've gotten deeper DOF at f/2.0.

Tomorrow I move the 1.4 to my 300 f/2.8 on my Mk II N and do a two-body shoot with the 70-200 straight up on the Mk III. May the best body win!

KED

rwells wrote:

You are getting quite good at action shots though
.

Thanks -- was really hoping to hear from you on this one. I think my focal point was somewhere around the ball-handler's armpit, but I can't check it right now. Still, I'm puzzled by the thinness of the DOF; this seems like a new phenomenon to me. I am now convinced (and agree with you) that 500 is not fast enough for this sport. Nevertheless, if I froze one leg on a guy, wouldn't you expect that at 4.0 I'd get his other leg too (the stationary one, I might add)?

If this reply is a little "off" I apologize; I'm working literally from memory of your post because for some reason Dgrin is only putting up the last paragraph of your post.

rwells

KED wrote:

Thanks -- was really hoping to hear from you on this one. I think my focal point was somewhere around the ball-handler's armpit, but I can't check it right now. Still, I'm puzzled by the thinness of the DOF; this seems like a new phenomenon to me. I am now convinced (and agree with you) that 500 is not fast enough for this sport. Nevertheless, if I froze one leg on a guy, wouldn't you expect that at 4.0 I'd get his other leg too (the stationary one, I might add)?

If this reply is a little "off" I apologize; I'm working literally from memory of your post because for some reason Dgrin is only putting up the last paragraph of your post.

Most of my reply was "inside" your quote. I just put it in bold. I wanted the comments where you could also see your pic at the same time, to keep from scrolling the page.

I'm very interested to see what the actual focal point was on the first photo. After shooting thousands of sports pictures, I find that if my shutter speed is on the very edge of blur/no-blur, you get some strange/surprising results in your pictures. As in your first picture, are you completely positive that the right leg is moving slower than the left? I'm not sure, but the camera seems to think that the right leg is going faster = blur.

Again, I'm interested to hear when your able to pull the pic up in EX Browser and confirm the focal point in the first picture.

KED

rwells wrote:

Most of my reply was "inside" your quote. I just put it in bold. I wanted the comments where you could also see your pic at the same time, to keep from scrolling the page.

I'm very interested to see what the actual focal point was on the first photo. After shooting thousands of sports pictures, I find that if my shutter speed is on the very edge of blur/no-blur, you get some strange/surprising results in your pictures. As in your first picture, are you completely positive that the right leg is moving slower than the left? I'm not sure, but the camera seems to think that the right leg is going faster = blur.

Again, I'm interested to hear when your able to pull the pic up in EX Browser and confirm the focal point in the first picture.

In my LR workflow I can't find access back to Canon's Image Browser, so the specific focus point on that image is gone forever (I always erase my CF cards when I'm satisfied that it's safe to do so). I seem to be looking at similar conditions tomorrow, and will preserve everything for follow-up.

I am grateful, as always, for your time and interest -- to all of you who have posted in response.

KED

rwells wrote:

As in your first picture, are you completely positive that the right leg is moving slower than the left? I'm not sure, but the camera seems to think that the right leg is going faster = blur.

I'm not completely sure about anything that happens on the other side of the lens, but I can't imagine how a planted leg (the right here) could move faster than the leg that appears to be in motion.

I just can't even picture a flat focal plane on this image -- it seems to "slice through" somehow. As if I didn't have enough problems in two dimensions!