This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I've had my Nikon D5000 for a few years and I love it however one thing still alludes me and that is getting pin-sharp results of subjects moving towards me at speed.
Before this camera I owned a Nikon D50, and that camera practically nailed pin-sharp images every time.
Could it be something to do with the D50 having the focusing motor in the body of the camera while the D5000 has the focusing motor in the lens itself?
Am I asking too much from a nikon 18-105 lens to begin with?
The same lens was used on both cameras.
I've tried shooting with:
VR off
Focus mode in single servo, continious servo and auto servo
Am I using the wrong aperture setting with too shallow a depth of field?
I've included some roughly cropped shots that I took today of my pooch in the hope that somebody can tell me where I am going wrong.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the1lemming/sets/72157647497271007/
Post edited at 21:18
In reply to The Lemming:
Can you compare the EXIF data from pin-sharp images off the D50 with the poorer ones from the D5000? Shutter speeds OR apertures may hold a clue. Also try to compare like for like. Were the pin sharp results from the D50 with subjects moving at the same speed as the pooch? What was the ISO? What was the noise like?
And were those D50 shots REALLY pin sharp or is that just your memory of them? Maybe your standards (or demands) have simply increased?
Can you compare the EXIF data from pin-sharp images off the D50 with the poorer ones from the D5000? Shutter speeds OR apertures may hold a clue. Also try to compare like for like. Were the pin sharp results from the D50 with subjects moving at the same speed as the pooch? What was the ISO? What was the noise like?
And were those D50 shots REALLY pin sharp or is that just your memory of them? Maybe your standards (or demands) have simply increased?
In reply to The Lemming:
I think you'll find that breed of dog is *supposed* to be fuzzy round the edges...
Martin
Ps has that puppy had all its jabs yet?
I think you'll find that breed of dog is *supposed* to be fuzzy round the edges...
Martin
Ps has that puppy had all its jabs yet?
In reply to The Lemming:
There are two factors to consider - shutter speed and focus.
Looking at the EXIF data on Flickr, your aperture sizes are around F8, which I suspect is too small to perform fast autofocus - this is likely to be your problem. Are you shooting in automatic mode? Switch to manual aperture adjustment and set your aperture to around F2.0-2.8 ( or the smallest F-number your lens will support if it doesn't support these sizes ), while trying to get the shortest shutter speed you can.
There are two factors to consider - shutter speed and focus.
Looking at the EXIF data on Flickr, your aperture sizes are around F8, which I suspect is too small to perform fast autofocus - this is likely to be your problem. Are you shooting in automatic mode? Switch to manual aperture adjustment and set your aperture to around F2.0-2.8 ( or the smallest F-number your lens will support if it doesn't support these sizes ), while trying to get the shortest shutter speed you can.
Post edited at 21:36
In reply to The Lemming:
Fast shutter speed, focus, tracking and luck I think.
Most cameras can't track a fast moving object quickly enough to keep it in focus if it is coming straight for you, so it's a good idea to practice manual focusing. Stopping down helps but that works against shutter speed.
Tracking an object going across your field of view so it is stationary and the background moves is a skill worth practicing, and it gives those great blurred backgrounds for an impression of speed.
Combine all those things and take lots of pics, because you still have to be lucky.
Fast shutter speed, focus, tracking and luck I think.
Most cameras can't track a fast moving object quickly enough to keep it in focus if it is coming straight for you, so it's a good idea to practice manual focusing. Stopping down helps but that works against shutter speed.
Tracking an object going across your field of view so it is stationary and the background moves is a skill worth practicing, and it gives those great blurred backgrounds for an impression of speed.
Combine all those things and take lots of pics, because you still have to be lucky.
In reply to The Lemming:
Or... focus on a shell or something static and as your dog runs towards that area fire off a burst and keep firing! Prob best not to use raw? I would have thought f8 and 1/1000 would be ok - that seems to be what you have been trying. You might get lucky.
Or... focus on a shell or something static and as your dog runs towards that area fire off a burst and keep firing! Prob best not to use raw? I would have thought f8 and 1/1000 would be ok - that seems to be what you have been trying. You might get lucky.
In reply to The Lemming:
Have you tried changing the Auto Focus Area to '3D tracking'?
Edit: I've never tried it on my D5000 but I seem to remember reading somewhere to use this for 'fast moving object' such as kids or animals.
Have you tried changing the Auto Focus Area to '3D tracking'?
Edit: I've never tried it on my D5000 but I seem to remember reading somewhere to use this for 'fast moving object' such as kids or animals.
Post edited at 21:57
In reply to The Lemming:
Very easy now with digital cameras which are about a bout 10- 100 times 'faster' than old film stocks. Just go for a very high shutter speed i.e shutter priority.
Very easy now with digital cameras which are about a bout 10- 100 times 'faster' than old film stocks. Just go for a very high shutter speed i.e shutter priority.
In reply to The Lemming:
Ramp up the ISO settings, but be careful about 'noise' and exposure. Also try panning the subject.
Ramp up the ISO settings, but be careful about 'noise' and exposure. Also try panning the subject.
In reply to planetmarshall:
I'm interested to learn what role the aperture has on the AF tracking ?
> There are two factors to consider - shutter speed and focus.
> Looking at the EXIF data on Flickr, your aperture sizes are around F8, which I suspect is too small to perform fast autofocus - this is likely to be your problem. Are you shooting in automatic mode? Switch to manual aperture adjustment and set your aperture to around F2.0-2.8 ( or the smallest F-number your lens will support if it doesn't support these sizes ), while trying to get the shortest shutter speed you can.
I'm interested to learn what role the aperture has on the AF tracking ?
In reply to Henry Iddon:
I guess he just means a smaller apature will lead to a slower shutter speed.
Try and keep the shutter close to 1000 to stop any motion blur or camera shake. You will need a wide apature or high iso for that, or both depending on light conditions.
> I'm interested to learn what role the aperture has on the AF tracking ?
I guess he just means a smaller apature will lead to a slower shutter speed.
Try and keep the shutter close to 1000 to stop any motion blur or camera shake. You will need a wide apature or high iso for that, or both depending on light conditions.
In reply to Sean Kelly:
How do you pan something that is heading straight for you? Have I missed a definition? (genuine question!)
> Also try panning the subject.
How do you pan something that is heading straight for you? Have I missed a definition? (genuine question!)
In reply to Henry Iddon:
Not the aperture that you shoot at as I said in my post, but the *maximum aperture of the lens*. This directly affects how many autofocus sensors are available. This doesn't seem to be applicable with the D5000 though as all 11 focus points should be available with a maximum aperture of F5.6 or faster.
Interestingly the D50 only had 5 focus points.
I assume the OP is already focusing in what Nikon term "Continuous-Servo AF" (AF-C) which is designed for fast moving subjects.
Not the aperture that you shoot at as I said in my post, but the *maximum aperture of the lens*. This directly affects how many autofocus sensors are available. This doesn't seem to be applicable with the D5000 though as all 11 focus points should be available with a maximum aperture of F5.6 or faster.
Interestingly the D50 only had 5 focus points.
I assume the OP is already focusing in what Nikon term "Continuous-Servo AF" (AF-C) which is designed for fast moving subjects.
In reply to Henry Iddon:
Don't some cameras struggle in low light, and a small aperture means less light available? I guess it depends how the camera works, is the aperture kept open until you take the shot?
Lemming, is the 'unsharpness' due to motion blur, or not being focussed at the right point in the image (i.e. the subject has moved towards you since the camera focussed and the focal point is now behind the subject)? That will determine the correct answer to your question.
> I'm interested to learn what role the aperture has on the AF tracking ?
Don't some cameras struggle in low light, and a small aperture means less light available? I guess it depends how the camera works, is the aperture kept open until you take the shot?
Lemming, is the 'unsharpness' due to motion blur, or not being focussed at the right point in the image (i.e. the subject has moved towards you since the camera focussed and the focal point is now behind the subject)? That will determine the correct answer to your question.
In reply to The Lemming:
Thank you everybody for your ideas. There is quite a bit of food for thought there to work on.
As to my current set-up, the camera is set to:
Lens set with the vibration reduction turned off
Continuous servo
A single focus point
1,000 shutter speed. The camera selects the aperture
ISO 500, to allow the shutter speed of 1,000 in sunlight
Zoom maxed out to capture the wee beastie
I've tried different focus point settings but tried to keep the central focus point chosen and just aim that at the dog as he runs to me. I've not tried the Dynamic focus and I have never used 3D focusing, yet. I seem to remember reading somewhere that 3D focusing needed specific requirements to be useful but maybe the contrasting colours of the dog and sand would suffice.
I'm guessing that it is all a game of luck when a subject is barrelling towards a lens at speed rather than being able to pan a moving subject which keeps a relatively similar distance from the lens?
Should it really matter where the actual focusing mechanism is such as in camera or in the lens itself?
Another question, sorry, is it better to have an aperture
Here are some photos of fastish moving subjects taken with my D50 + 18-105 lens. I have to say that I am very impressed with Lightroom and its ability to search out metadata.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the1lemming/sets/72157647530584788/
Cheers all
Thank you everybody for your ideas. There is quite a bit of food for thought there to work on.
As to my current set-up, the camera is set to:
Lens set with the vibration reduction turned off
Continuous servo
A single focus point
1,000 shutter speed. The camera selects the aperture
ISO 500, to allow the shutter speed of 1,000 in sunlight
Zoom maxed out to capture the wee beastie
I've tried different focus point settings but tried to keep the central focus point chosen and just aim that at the dog as he runs to me. I've not tried the Dynamic focus and I have never used 3D focusing, yet. I seem to remember reading somewhere that 3D focusing needed specific requirements to be useful but maybe the contrasting colours of the dog and sand would suffice.
I'm guessing that it is all a game of luck when a subject is barrelling towards a lens at speed rather than being able to pan a moving subject which keeps a relatively similar distance from the lens?
Should it really matter where the actual focusing mechanism is such as in camera or in the lens itself?
Another question, sorry, is it better to have an aperture
Here are some photos of fastish moving subjects taken with my D50 + 18-105 lens. I have to say that I am very impressed with Lightroom and its ability to search out metadata.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the1lemming/sets/72157647530584788/
Cheers all
Post edited at 11:39
In reply to The Lemming:
You might want to try posting the image on 4chan's photography board ( http://boards.4chan.org/p/ ). One of the better photography boards around when you get past the reposts/shitposts, they'd probably be able to give some advice.
Exif data is automatically included in the posts so that goes a long way towards people being able to give accurate replies.
You might want to try posting the image on 4chan's photography board ( http://boards.4chan.org/p/ ). One of the better photography boards around when you get past the reposts/shitposts, they'd probably be able to give some advice.
Exif data is automatically included in the posts so that goes a long way towards people being able to give accurate replies.
In reply to The Lemming:
I must admit that these don't look any sharper than your D5000 photos to me, and I'd say in some cases they are less sharp.
> Here are some photos of fastish moving subjects taken with my D50 + 18-105 lens. I have to say that I am very impressed with Lightroom and its ability to search out metadata.
I must admit that these don't look any sharper than your D5000 photos to me, and I'd say in some cases they are less sharp.
In reply to The Lemming:
A fast shutter speed will "freeze" the image and is always something to aim for when shooting things moving at speed.
In normal situations, you would open the aperture to compensate for the fast shutter speed. However, as a wide aperture reduces the depth of field, a subject that is moving towards you will move out of the field that is in focus very quickly - possibly too quickly for the camera to keep up with. For this reason, in this particular situation, a smaller aperture would also be bettter.
Obviously, you still need to let enough light in. In your photos it looks like you had good light, but ramping up the ISO setting might allow you to close your aperture a bit (obviously at the expense of a bit more noise).
Otherwise, try setting up the camera manually with a variety of different combinations of aperture and shutter speed until you hit a sweet spot.
The suggestion above of manually focusing on something static and shooting off a few frames when the dog hits that point may also work for you - this is how I do this as my camera is manual focus only.
A fast shutter speed will "freeze" the image and is always something to aim for when shooting things moving at speed.
In normal situations, you would open the aperture to compensate for the fast shutter speed. However, as a wide aperture reduces the depth of field, a subject that is moving towards you will move out of the field that is in focus very quickly - possibly too quickly for the camera to keep up with. For this reason, in this particular situation, a smaller aperture would also be bettter.
Obviously, you still need to let enough light in. In your photos it looks like you had good light, but ramping up the ISO setting might allow you to close your aperture a bit (obviously at the expense of a bit more noise).
Otherwise, try setting up the camera manually with a variety of different combinations of aperture and shutter speed until you hit a sweet spot.
The suggestion above of manually focusing on something static and shooting off a few frames when the dog hits that point may also work for you - this is how I do this as my camera is manual focus only.
In reply to The Lemming:
A dog will probably move faster than the lens can autofocus from scratch, so set it to MF, pre-focus at the right distance, then use high speed burst - you should get a frame in focus. Apparently you need a shutter speed of 1/500th to freeze motion, so shutter priority with that set is the way to go. You could work out your depth of field for the apertures the camera selects and work out if you should bump up your ISO to allow a smaller aperture.
So, for example if your dog is 2 feet long and the DoF at focus distance is 1.5ft at F5.6 and 3ft at F8 then you should set the ISO to allow you to use F8 to get all the dog in focus....assuming the ISO selected isn't too noisy.
DoF is shallower the closer you are to your subject, so move further away...which means you'll want to use a longer lens to fill the frame....and longer lenses have shallower DoF....argghhh!
A dog will probably move faster than the lens can autofocus from scratch, so set it to MF, pre-focus at the right distance, then use high speed burst - you should get a frame in focus. Apparently you need a shutter speed of 1/500th to freeze motion, so shutter priority with that set is the way to go. You could work out your depth of field for the apertures the camera selects and work out if you should bump up your ISO to allow a smaller aperture.
So, for example if your dog is 2 feet long and the DoF at focus distance is 1.5ft at F5.6 and 3ft at F8 then you should set the ISO to allow you to use F8 to get all the dog in focus....assuming the ISO selected isn't too noisy.
DoF is shallower the closer you are to your subject, so move further away...which means you'll want to use a longer lens to fill the frame....and longer lenses have shallower DoF....argghhh!
In reply to planetmarshall:
Hmm.
I think I may be pixel peeping too much. However I never really got on with this lens and much preferred my Sigma 17-70. But sadly that broke after almost 3 years.
Ho, how I loved that lens and how sharp it was. Is all this in my head and that I will just have to accept the limitations of punter kit compared to expensive professional kit?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the1lemming/sets/72157647929783652/
> I must admit that these don't look any sharper than your D5000 photos to me, and I'd say in some cases they are less sharp.
Hmm.
I think I may be pixel peeping too much. However I never really got on with this lens and much preferred my Sigma 17-70. But sadly that broke after almost 3 years.
Ho, how I loved that lens and how sharp it was. Is all this in my head and that I will just have to accept the limitations of punter kit compared to expensive professional kit?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the1lemming/sets/72157647929783652/
In reply to The Lemming:
I am very new to digital so have no real experience to comment, but my thoughts anyway :-0.
Dog moving too fast (looking at content probably much faster that your last dog?) for the camera settings and particularly for auto focus. My limited experience for head on fast subjects needs shutter in excess of 1/1000 and needs to anticipate movement forward (manual focus or manual assist?).
Your latest photos seem all taken at a higher ISO? Relevant?
They also have "low gain" recorded in the EXIF c/w others at "none". Is this significant?
Is your dog's colour part of the cause (shiny uniform black hair/reflective harness?) confusing camera leading to slight delays in responding? My very limited experience of glossy black/shiny reflective moving subjects is much harder for the camera to focus on accurately. Your last dog (not a shiny black and lots of white) and other photos have a range of contrasting areas to more easily focus on.
To my eyes there is not much difference in sharpness between the two cameras for most of the photos. The horse ones to me show panning of subject is involved also to get focus better.
Is your camera set to take picture before focusing complete (my camera allows a setting for that or to delay shutter until focusing complete which of course in some circumstances the latter can lead to no shot being taken but this is sometimes better than taking a photo slightly out of focus).
I am very new to digital so have no real experience to comment, but my thoughts anyway :-0.
Dog moving too fast (looking at content probably much faster that your last dog?) for the camera settings and particularly for auto focus. My limited experience for head on fast subjects needs shutter in excess of 1/1000 and needs to anticipate movement forward (manual focus or manual assist?).
Your latest photos seem all taken at a higher ISO? Relevant?
They also have "low gain" recorded in the EXIF c/w others at "none". Is this significant?
Is your dog's colour part of the cause (shiny uniform black hair/reflective harness?) confusing camera leading to slight delays in responding? My very limited experience of glossy black/shiny reflective moving subjects is much harder for the camera to focus on accurately. Your last dog (not a shiny black and lots of white) and other photos have a range of contrasting areas to more easily focus on.
To my eyes there is not much difference in sharpness between the two cameras for most of the photos. The horse ones to me show panning of subject is involved also to get focus better.
Is your camera set to take picture before focusing complete (my camera allows a setting for that or to delay shutter until focusing complete which of course in some circumstances the latter can lead to no shot being taken but this is sometimes better than taking a photo slightly out of focus).
In reply to The Lemming:
With AF-C on you usually get options
Release=photo taken whenever shutter is pressd
Release+focus= photos taken even when not in focus (from a Nikon manual)
Focus= photos taken only when the focus indicator is displayed
Ken R recommends AF-C with 3D for your camera
There is also a function on some cameras for focus tracking with lock on and the amount of time the camera takes before it re adjusts the focus probably best off with only one subject
With AF-C on you usually get options
Release=photo taken whenever shutter is pressd
Release+focus= photos taken even when not in focus (from a Nikon manual)
Focus= photos taken only when the focus indicator is displayed
Ken R recommends AF-C with 3D for your camera
There is also a function on some cameras for focus tracking with lock on and the amount of time the camera takes before it re adjusts the focus probably best off with only one subject
In reply to planetmarshall:
Autofocus doesn't work like this. The lens is only stopped down when the shot is being taken, not during the focusing process. Autofocus performance is limited by the maximum aperture of a particular lens, not the aperture it is set to for taking a photo. So a f/2.0 lens will autofocus better (especially in poor light) than an f/5.6 lens, but the autofocus performance of neither lens will change whether set to shoot at max aperture or at f/16.
> There are two factors to consider - shutter speed and focus.
> Looking at the EXIF data on Flickr, your aperture sizes are around F8, which I suspect is too small to perform fast autofocus - this is likely to be your problem. Are you shooting in automatic mode? Switch to manual aperture adjustment and set your aperture to around F2.0-2.8 ( or the smallest F-number your lens will support if it doesn't support these sizes ), while trying to get the shortest shutter speed you can.
Autofocus doesn't work like this. The lens is only stopped down when the shot is being taken, not during the focusing process. Autofocus performance is limited by the maximum aperture of a particular lens, not the aperture it is set to for taking a photo. So a f/2.0 lens will autofocus better (especially in poor light) than an f/5.6 lens, but the autofocus performance of neither lens will change whether set to shoot at max aperture or at f/16.
In reply to Garbhanach:
Had a play with this setting today while the sun was out. I ramped the ISO to 650, even in the bright sun, to keep the shutter speed quick and I got one or two good shots.
However when I ditched the 3D focusing and turned the image stabilising setting I got a few more positive results.
I'm guessing that a lot of all this is down to sheer numbers of shots taken and quite a lot of luck for such a small subject moving so quickly.
Thank you everybody for your advice and suggestions.
> Ken R recommends AF-C with 3D for your camera
Had a play with this setting today while the sun was out. I ramped the ISO to 650, even in the bright sun, to keep the shutter speed quick and I got one or two good shots.
However when I ditched the 3D focusing and turned the image stabilising setting I got a few more positive results.
I'm guessing that a lot of all this is down to sheer numbers of shots taken and quite a lot of luck for such a small subject moving so quickly.
Thank you everybody for your advice and suggestions.
In reply to The Lemming:
Through out this discussion nobody has commented on the merits of having a camera with an internal motor focusing the lens compared to a camera which relies on the lens having its own focusing motor.
Does it really matter which part of the combination of camera + lens has the focusing motor for a punter setup?
Through out this discussion nobody has commented on the merits of having a camera with an internal motor focusing the lens compared to a camera which relies on the lens having its own focusing motor.
Does it really matter which part of the combination of camera + lens has the focusing motor for a punter setup?
In reply to eduardo:
See previous post.
> Autofocus performance is limited by the maximum aperture of a particular lens, not the aperture it is set to for taking a photo.
See previous post.
In reply to eduardo:
My previous post. The one that starts
My previous post. The one that starts
> Not the aperture that you shoot at as I said in my post, but the *maximum aperture of the lens*. This directly affects how many autofocus sensors are available. This doesn't seem to be applicable with the D5000 though as all 11 focus points should be available with a maximum aperture of F5.6 or faster.
In reply to planetmarshall:
'Diddy question' here then: presumably the camera still has the same number of auto-focus points, it just doesn't have access to all of its sensors? I must admit I didn't realise a camera had more than one sensor!
'Diddy question' here then: presumably the camera still has the same number of auto-focus points, it just doesn't have access to all of its sensors? I must admit I didn't realise a camera had more than one sensor!
In reply to The Lemming:
Planning! figure out where your focus point will be before you need to shoot.
what others have said already high shutter speed like 1/2000s
or
a rear curtain flash can give you the 'in motion' look with the subject in focus.
Planning! figure out where your focus point will be before you need to shoot.
what others have said already high shutter speed like 1/2000s
or
a rear curtain flash can give you the 'in motion' look with the subject in focus.
In reply to The Lemming:
consider how will the subject move than pan with it, fast shutter obviously helps and continuous focusing is a good help too. aaah and practice a lot... or use off camera flash to freeze the motion that way ...
consider how will the subject move than pan with it, fast shutter obviously helps and continuous focusing is a good help too. aaah and practice a lot... or use off camera flash to freeze the motion that way ...
In reply to The Lemming:
Where is it focussing? Is it focusing behind the subject or in front of it, or is nothing in focus? I'd do a few experiments with some other objects, or even a metre rule next to the dog as it's running towards you.
I had a quick look, but I couldn't tell on my small screen. I had originally thought it might be to do with the contrast ratios... Focussing on fur is very challenging for AF systems. but then you have the orange mess and so on and it's still not focussed on that.
Where is it focussing? Is it focusing behind the subject or in front of it, or is nothing in focus? I'd do a few experiments with some other objects, or even a metre rule next to the dog as it's running towards you.
I had a quick look, but I couldn't tell on my small screen. I had originally thought it might be to do with the contrast ratios... Focussing on fur is very challenging for AF systems. but then you have the orange mess and so on and it's still not focussed on that.
In reply to The Lemming:
In my experience and according to Ken rockwell, the 18-105 gives soft images anyway. Its an inexpensive do it all lens, so you arent going to get great images from it.
A prime lens will almost always give sharper images than a tele, unless its a top of the range uber expensive one.
In my experience and according to Ken rockwell, the 18-105 gives soft images anyway. Its an inexpensive do it all lens, so you arent going to get great images from it.
A prime lens will almost always give sharper images than a tele, unless its a top of the range uber expensive one.
In reply to The Lemming:
Just my 2p worth... those images look heavily cropped (you say they are 'rough crops' and some of the lack of sharpness seems to be chromatic aberration and compression artefact which are all exaggerated by cropping. Also, I suspect the lens isn't super sharp at the extremes of it's range anyway - have a look for some lab tests of the lens to see what settings give the best results.
However, the main problem is the focussing, the subject is out of focus in most of the shots. In some cases you can see that the back legs are sharp but the face is soft. Unfortunately the AF in the D5000 is not that great (I have a D3200 with the same AF and it's the only thing I dislike about it). Try some of the tips on here for manual focussing and/or panning rather than standing front-on to the subject.
Just my 2p worth... those images look heavily cropped (you say they are 'rough crops' and some of the lack of sharpness seems to be chromatic aberration and compression artefact which are all exaggerated by cropping. Also, I suspect the lens isn't super sharp at the extremes of it's range anyway - have a look for some lab tests of the lens to see what settings give the best results.
However, the main problem is the focussing, the subject is out of focus in most of the shots. In some cases you can see that the back legs are sharp but the face is soft. Unfortunately the AF in the D5000 is not that great (I have a D3200 with the same AF and it's the only thing I dislike about it). Try some of the tips on here for manual focussing and/or panning rather than standing front-on to the subject.
In reply to The Lemming:
Thank you everybody for your advice on my focusing problem. I may just have to live with the limitations of my camera and lens in that they just are not fast enough to focus on a small creature running towards a cheap lens.
There is still only one question that I have not had any views on and that is the best place for the focusing motor, should the motor best be placed in the body of the camera or the lens?
Thank you everybody for your advice on my focusing problem. I may just have to live with the limitations of my camera and lens in that they just are not fast enough to focus on a small creature running towards a cheap lens.
There is still only one question that I have not had any views on and that is the best place for the focusing motor, should the motor best be placed in the body of the camera or the lens?
In reply to The Lemming:
I dont know for certain, I would have thought that having the motor in the lens would be preferable but thats just a guess.
I dont know for certain, I would have thought that having the motor in the lens would be preferable but thats just a guess.
In reply to The Lemmingoesn’t matter where the motor is – if you technique is crap its crap and if your equipment is not up to it then its not up to it !!
In reply to Brian:
The other 'technique' to consider is... Vallium for the Dug!
> Doesn’t matter where the motor is – if you technique is crap its crap and if your equipment is not up to it then its not up to it !!
The other 'technique' to consider is... Vallium for the Dug!
In reply to The Lemming: try this - http://www.ephotozine.com/article/photography-techniques-that-need-fast-shu... or this http://www.ephotozine.com/article/goodwood-festival-of-speed-13981 - might be of help
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...