Focus Problems (Page 3): And exactly who has determined that rule? Or is it just what you consider it should be or prefer? Photography 101. Not sure what photos your wife is looking at...

Grahame Loc: Fiji

mostsports wrote:

iT IS STILL A DEPTH OF FIELD ISSUE. THE ENTIRE BODY, HEAD TO FOOT SHOULD BE IN "ACCEPTABLE" FOCUS.

And exactly who has determined that rule? Or is it just what you consider it should be or prefer?

mostsports wrote:

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.

Photography 101.

mostsports wrote:

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.

Not sure what photos your wife is looking at then.

mostsports wrote:

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

Really? Is that so the result meets some imaginary criteria that the entire body is within an acceptable focus to someone?

mostsports wrote:

Camera to subject can be changed as well as a different lens.

Are you suggesting that a photographer continually changes his camera to subject distance along with lens choice dependent upon where a player is on the court?

Grahame Loc: Fiji

frankraney wrote:

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

What Jules said was .............

Jules Karney wrote:

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?

mostsports Loc: Mid Atlantic

Sorry for an interruption preventing me from completing my last note. To continue, it is noted that both images are in vertical format. Out of my element here, but could it be a shutter delay issue? If increasing apparent depth of field does not correct the problem, then a camera check may be in order.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Deleted

mostsports Loc: Mid Atlantic

Jules,
If you publish on the Sports site, i believe that you are in the expert class. So i may need a little more understanding off your question. For example, when you state that one player is in focus but not others, were all lined up equidistant from the lens? How close were they to the lens? No need to be exact, a few feet either way is ok since they are running toward you. What was the focal length setting of the lens? It appears that you are on the same level as the players.Did you take a burst of shots or just one? Is the problem reoccurring? Were you shooting in raw?
Anything else that further describes the issue such as ISO SETTINGS?
My interest in your issue is that i shoot sports, including poorly-lighted basketball venues. Maybe i can help; maybe i can learn. Either makes it a winning day.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

To all who have commented on my problem I truly appreciate the time spent.
Here is what I have found to have helped. I went out this afternoon and did some test shots. Not basketball but moving targets.
In camera I changed the burst rate from 11 down to four. All the focus grabs was about 98%, focus was dead on. I was shooting at 1/1000 at 2.8. Went to some shots with one single point focus.
Much better and thank you.
I will try new settings this Tuesday for another bb game.
Jules

(Download)

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Jules Karney wrote:

To all who have commented on my problem I truly ap... (show quote)

These are better. What was you distance to subject, and is it the same as the others. Also did you use the same mm lens.

This all will affect your focus. One thing that can help is getting good at judging the distance to subject. The other is understanding which f stop to use. A good thing to help with that is a calculator. I use hyper focal pro. Play with it at different distances, lens length and f-stop. And you can see visually what is going on, and see the affects of changing the settings.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Jules Karney wrote:

............I went out this afternoon and did some test shots. Not basketball but moving targets.
In camera I changed the burst rate from 11 down to four. All the focus grabs was about 98%, focus was dead on. I was shooting at 1/1000 at 2.8.
Jules

Good one. I read this somewhere in the last two days, reducing the fps rate 'can' give the AF system more time to react. Possibly camera model specific?

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

frankraney wrote:

These are better. What was you distance to subject... (show quote)

The camera and the lens were the same Nikon D4 + 70-200 2.8. Distances were at 200mm maybe 150 feet with the truck, others 50 ft. I was kind of trying all sort of things looking for clarity. Thanks for your help.
Jules
New truck shots not edited. Shot our the window of the car. Wanted to see two shots in a row. and how it handled the focus at wide open.

(Download)

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

Grahame wrote:

Good one. I read this somewhere in the last two days, reducing the fps rate 'can' give the AF system more time to react. Possibly camera model specific?

I think they are right. I am seeing a difference. Now the big test will be in a poorly lit gym for basketball.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

mostsports wrote:

Jules, br If you publish on the Sports site, i bel... (show quote)

I was shooting in a very dimly lit gym Iso was constant at 10,000. On the Nikon D4 the camera doesn't handle high iso very well past 6400. I must shoot tight in order to minimize the noise. Or shoot less than 1/1000 which causes motion blur. I have better shots and no problems in a gym with decent lighting. I have changed burst mode to 4 instead of 11 and it seem to help quite a bit. Look at my other post samples. Focal lens on the shots in question was 200mm. I don't shoot raw. I hope you can learn from my posts on this subject.
Jules

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Jules,

The link to the article I read in connection to your post, not the most scientific testing but a bit different to lorries

https://naturalexposures.com/testing-the-nikon-d4-d800-d600-in-predictive-auto-focus/

This is what I saw in one of the comments, I have not undertaken any such testing myself so can not validate it.

(Download)

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

Grahame wrote:

Jules,

The link to the article I read in connection to your post, not the most scientific testing but a bit different to lorries

https://naturalexposures.com/testing-the-nikon-d4-d800-d600-in-predictive-auto-focus/

This is what I saw in one of the comments, I have not undertaken any such testing myself so can not validate it.

I am going to try the 4 clicks on Tuesday for basketball. I played around today at 4 clicks on the auto focus worked well. What it does on a dimly lit gym may be another story. We shall see Grahame and thanks for your continued comments and trying to help with this issue.
Jules

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Jules Karney wrote:

To all who have commented on my problem I truly ap... (show quote)

You are welcome ........

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Jules Karney wrote:

The camera and the lens were the same Nikon D4 + 70-200 2.8. Distances were at 200mm maybe 150 feet with the truck, others 50 ft. I was kind of trying all sort of things looking for clarity. Thanks for your help.
Jules
New truck shots not edited. Shot our the window of the car. Wanted to see two shots in a row. and how it handled the focus at wide open.

OK, the DOF is the same since you are at f/2.8 but the further you are from a subject the greater that DOF will be.
I can use one of my macro lenses on a table-top setup and the DOF is measured in mm but that same lenses pointed at a bird on the other side of the yard the DOF may now be over 1 foot and if I point it at a plane going over the DOF becomes enormous.

You were doing basketball players from the sidelines, so even on a diagonal the furthest you could be is less than 100 feet, and from the looks of your shots you were a lot less than that. So the F/2.8 at 200 mm might not even have enough DOF to include the entire body of the player. Example: The player is running with a long stride and the leading leg and body are in focus, but the trailing body and especiallly the foot are getting soft or totally out of focus. And the DOF may not even be enough for that much to be in focus.

I found a depth of field calculator and a 200 mm lens at f/2.8 has to be 40+ feet from the subject before the DOF exceeds 1 ft/12 inches.
https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-table