Focus Problems (Page 2): Really high ISO settings will allow smaller apertures. Stan...

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Jules Karney wrote:

Your right, I just thought someone would have a magic solution.

Really high ISO settings will allow smaller apertures.

Stan

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Jules Karney wrote:

I am looking for insight on focusing with my D4 + 70-200 2.8. In shooting basketball when I focus on a player coming right at me one will be sharp and the rest not so much. 1/1000 at 2.8. Left to right much better, what am I missing?
Lens is calibrated, focus point 9 squares. I use bbf.
Looking forward to everyone's comments.

Jules
First shot without editing, 2nd shot went through Topaz Denoise and Sharpening

Using a crop frame camera and shorter focal length lens will increase your DOF and probably focus faster because of the smaller lens elements........but noise will then be a concern ..... and yes, a newer/better/ mirror less body will most likely have faster more accurate focus. You ARE using a Nikon 70-200 aren't you ??
You can also try fewer FPS - so as to give the camera a little more to AF .......
.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

Thank you for all the comments and suggestions to help me with my focus problem.
Much appreciated.

Jules

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

The AF tracking function is not fast enough to maintain focus on the player running directly at the camera. Newer cameras of some brands have advanced beyond this limitation. Time for a justified GAS attack.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Don, the 2nd son wrote:

The AF tracking function is not fast enough to maintain focus on the player running directly at the camera. Newer cameras of some brands have advanced beyond this limitation. Time for a justified GAS attack.

Check the equipment involved, and the details of the player's center-chest jersey. Unlikely observation based on these details.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Don, the 2nd son wrote:

The AF tracking function is not fast enough to maintain focus on the player running directly at the camera. Newer cameras of some brands have advanced beyond this limitation. Time for a justified GAS attack.

The AF Tracking function on the F5, was capable of maintaining focus of an object approaching at over 200 mph. The D4 can do better, I would assume. The ability to maintain focus has a lot to do with the photographer, and both those photos are in focus somewhere, and both are excellent photos. When I shoot sports action it is always at the maximum aperture of the lens and I've been involved in this since 8th grade. Yes the D5, D6 and Z9 make improvements, but I know that Jules has no intention of purchasing those right now. If you don't know what you are talking about, and it's not just you, please stop giving incorrect advice!

mostsports Loc: Mid Atlantic

The issue is DOF. Re my own shooting strategy, similar for both running and dungeon-lighted basketball events, is to use continuous bf,short bursts, and settings of 1/640,group area focus,f/5. Keeper rate is 64%.Total great shots a lot, lot lower. Since i do not emphasize mommy photos, i can take more parallel-to-the-court photos in addition to many coming at you races down the sideline. Focus remains sharp at my settings. My focus on opponent interaction, goes over very ell with players and family. I avoid the artificiality of over-processing. I find that 70-200 mm lenses are OK for many sports, but not for Basketball.
If you try similar settings, i appreciate your feedback.

tomc601 Loc: Gilbert, AZ

Do you have Face Tracking on? Seems to me the camera is focusing on the body.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

As many have stated, it's a depth of field issue; f/2.8 will give you a narrow depth of field. That can be good in a lot of situations. The example would be out-of-focus people in the bleachers (a distraction) while your subject is tack sharp. To keep players in focus (and the background out of focus) perhaps shoot at f/4 or 5.6 and adjust your ISO accordingly. For sports I do not think you want to go below 1/1000 shutter speed.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

photoman022 wrote:

As many have stated, it's a depth of field issue; f/2.8 will give you a narrow depth of field.

It is not "a depth of field issue".
The "issue" is that the focus plane is not on the subjects face which we would assume the Op planned for and where he expected it to be. Unfortunately there is no way of knowing why that was not achieved.

Whilst a smaller aperture deepens the field of focus it does not change the focus plane.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Grahame wrote:

It is not "a depth of field issue".
The "issue" is that the focus plane is not on the subjects face which we would assume the Op planned for and where he expected it to be. Unfortunately there is no way of knowing why that was not achieved.

Whilst a smaller aperture deepens the field of focus it does not change the focus plane.

That may be true, but there is still a dog problem. Some of the subject is in focus but not all.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

frankraney wrote:

That may be true, but there is still a dog problem. Some of the subject is in focus but not all.

But that is exactly what the thread is about.

mostsports Loc: Mid Atlantic

iT IS STILL A DEPTH OF FIELD ISSUE. THE ENTIRE BODY, HEAD TO FOOT SHOULD BE IN "ACCEPTABLE" FOCUS. IN ANY PHOTOGRAPH THERE IS ONLY ONE very narrow PLANE THAT IS IN BEST ACHIEVABLE FOCUS. DEPTH OF FIELD settings to achieve a wider "acceptable" focus is a function of distance, any movement, aperture opening' and lens characteristics. The two photos are well composed and lighted, but as my wife immediately noticed, the upper parts are in focus but the lower parts are not. That is what has to be fixed by focal point selection and increased apparent (read "acceptable") in-focus modifications. The issue is the same even if the eye is selected as the focus point. Camera to subject can be changed as well as a different lens.

mostsports Loc: Mid Atlantic

Baring camera malfunction, note that it is possible that a person's feet could be moving more rapidly than the upper body. Then shutter speed comes into play. Buy at 1/100 that is a non-issue.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Grahame wrote:

But that is exactly what the thread is about.

The op said part of photo is in focus, part not, what's my problem. That's depth of field, to wife an aperture,