Nikon D500 to replace Nikon D7000?

[george013]

Got it. Thank you! I haven't posted in CiC for a while. This is a great group. I'll spend more time here.

What's wrong to change the position of your focus point, focus and shoot. You must know on the forehand where you want your subject in the frame. Use af-c, or try it anyway. You avoid blurring due to recomposing and due to time if you've moving subjects like the conductor.
I don't think the af of your camera is your problem. Spending money won't help you.
George

[brucehughw]

Thanks, George. good suggestion. Bruce

[billtils]

Hi Bruce

I could be said that practically nobody needs a full frame. It just seemed to me that it was worthwhile thinking about given your subject preferences - better low light ISO and more latitude to crop being two instances. Having said that, by all accounts there is nothing wrong with the choice of a D500 .

For reasons not entirely of my own making, I've shot some very low light concert/choral scenes in the last 12 months and have no doubt that my D810 (and the D750 before it) were much better options than the D7100 that preceded them.

As an aside, I automatically used AF-C and BBF for those (mostly single point) since it's what I'm used to for wildlife and was happy how it worked here too. If I wanted to feature a soloist, I'd certainly take Manfred's advice on focus point.

[brucehughw]

Thanks, Bill. So with AF-C and BBF, do you acquire the subject and then just hold the BBF button while recomposing? If so, do you need numerous AF points enabled, so that there are points that can sense the subject?

[xpatUSA]

A 85 mm lens, f/2 and a assumed distance of 5m gives a dof of 27cm. Focussing on a moving subject and then recompose is asking for trouble. Recomposing itself is changing the focal plane with an amount depending on your angle of recomposing. Try to change your focus point before focussing, you might even use af-c than.

George

George makes a very good point by telling us what the DOF is and which is far less than the depth occupied by the conductor, let alone that of the visible orchestra.

I don't think the AF of your camera is your problem.

Agreed, George. IMHO, the camera selected a really good focus plane from what I can see at 400% zoom.

Looks like f/2 was chosen so as to get a fast-ish shutter speed - which sacrificed DOF thereby blurring some of the conductor.

Assuming APS-C, f/5.6 would have given over 0.7m DOF bringing much more of the conductor into "acceptable focus". With f/8, maybe the whole conductor i.e. over a meter DOF.

Heading off howls of dismay about shutter speed, I am assuming that upping the f-number is matched by upping the ISO.

As to the 1/180 sec itself - that is not a bad choice assuming that it is desirable to have a little motion blur, so's we know that the conductor is actually alive ...

[Manfred M]

So with AF-C and BBF, do you acquire the subject and then just hold the BBF button while recomposing? If so, do you need numerous AF points enabled, so that there are points that can sense the subject?

No - with BBF and AF-C you will lose the initial focus point using single point focus. The camera will keep on trying to focus on wherever the focus point is as long as you push the back button. If you want to lock in focus, you have to release the BBF button.

On AF-S, once you get focus lock, the camera will keep focus there, even if the subject moves.

If you move the camera's single focus point to where you want it on the subject where you want the focus to be and hold the BBF button on AF-C, the camera will keep updating the focus plane. I find that doing so does work, but is not a way I enjoy shooting. If you use one of the matrix or 3D focus modes and AF-C, the focus will adjust while you hold the button down, but there is no guarantee that the focusing method will select the subject you are focusing on.

In this shooting situation, I would follow Ted's advice and shoot with a smaller aperture to get a larger DoF and would use a higher ISO setting to keep the shutter speed at a reasonable point. I would continue to use BBF and a single focus point and would recompose as you were doing. That is the most likely method to give you the focus you want.

[Arjung]

No - with BBF and AF-C you will lose the initial focus point using single point focus. The camera will keep on trying to focus on wherever the focus point is as long as you push the back button. If you want to lock in focus, you have to release the BBF button.

On AF-S, once you get focus lock, the camera will keep focus there, even if the subject moves.

If you move the camera's single focus point to where you want it on the subject where you want the focus to be and hold the BBF button on AF-C, the camera will keep updating the focus plane. I find that doing so does work, but is not a way I enjoy shooting. If you use one of the matrix or 3D focus modes and AF-C, the focus will adjust while you hold the button down, but there is no guarantee that the focusing method will select the subject you are focusing on.

In this shooting situation, I would follow Ted's advice and shoot with a smaller aperture to get a larger DoF and would use a higher ISO setting to keep the shutter speed at a reasonable point. I would continue to use BBF and a single focus point and would recompose as you were doing. That is the most likely method to give you the focus you want.

I shoot a lot of wildlife. I do not use BBF and recompose my photo. If you have a moving animal it's out of focus.

I shoot with the D800 on AFC, Single Spot and Shutter Focus. I do not use subject tracking or AF area modes as I find these do not give me tack sharp photos. I have 51 focus points and move my focus point around to compose my photo. My focus point is always directed towards an animal's eyes - if the eyes are not sharp the photo belongs to my delete box.

In the 2 photos below you can see how I have moved my focus point around. In the 1st photo the focus is on the tiger lying on the ground, the tiger walking towards me is out of focus; I corrected this in the 2nd photo by changing the position of my focus point

[Shadowman]

Hi Bruce,

Sorry for not responding sooner, been away from the computer for awhile but did see the other forum members good suggestions for you. Regarding the images, one other point to make or observation: are these images straight out of camera or have you done any post processing? A bit of capture sharpening and a touch of contrast can make even the most controlled/top of the line camera shot look a tad better.

[Manfred M]

I shoot a lot of wildlife. I do not use BBF and recompose my photo. If you have a moving animal it's out of focus.

I shoot with the D800 on AFC, Single Spot and Shutter Focus. I do not use subject tracking or AF area modes as I find these do not give me tack sharp photos. I have 51 focus points and move my focus point around to compose my photo. My focus point is always directed towards an animal's eyes - if the eyes are not sharp the photo belongs to my delete box.

In the 2 photos below you can see how I have moved my focus point around. In the 1st photo the focus is on the tiger lying on the ground, the tiger walking towards me is out of focus; I corrected this in the 2nd photo by changing the position of my focus point

Whatever focus method works for you, go with it.

That being said, let's look at the technical data regarding this shot.


According to the metadata attached to your file; you had the following shooting parameters set on the first image:

Camera: Nikon D800

Lens: f/4.5- f/5.6 80-400mm (I don't know if this is the D or G version of this lens). I own the D version of this lens.

Shot at a focal length of 400mm at ISO 3200 at 1/500th second at f/5.6

Distance to subject 35.5m / 116.ft ft

Nominal DoF - 2.8m / 9.2 ft

At that distance for a decent sized image, your depth of field would be 2.8m / 9.2 ft

That's a pretty decent depth of field to get a sharp eyeball. If you are getting the eye being less than sharp, I would suggest that motion blur is going to be the issue more than a sharp focus. At 1/500th sec you are pretty well at the limit for hand holding and a sharp image.





Let me pull up a wildlife image of mine where I used the focus and recompose method. I was a bit closer and used a slightly shorter focal length, but had a correspondingly much narrower DoF. Instead of a couple of slow moving tigers, I had four wolves that were moving around fairly quickly. They eyes are very sharp. If I had tried your focus method, I'm pretty sure I would have missed the shot as the animals were moving around a lot.



Camera: Nikon D810

Lens: Sigma f/5 - f/6.3 150mm - 500mm

Distance to subject: 12.6m / 41.3 ft

Nominal DoF: 0.5m / 1.6 ft

Shooting data: ISO 3200 with 1/1000th sec shutter speed, f/6.1 aperture and 350mm focal length.

[george013]

Whatever focus method works for you, go with it.

That being said, let's look at the technical data regarding this shot.


According to the metadata attached to your file; you had the following shooting parameters set on the first image:

Camera: Nikon D800

Lens: f/4.5- f/5.6 80-400mm (I don't know if this is the D or G version of this lens). I own the D version of this lens.

Shot at a focal length of 400mm at ISO 3200 at 1/500th second at f/5.6

Distance to subject 35.5m / 116.ft ft

Nominal DoF - 2.8m / 9.2 ft

At that distance for a decent sized image, your depth of field would be 2.8m / 9.2 ft

That's a pretty decent depth of field to get a sharp eyeball. If you are getting the eye being less than sharp, I would suggest that motion blur is going to be the issue more than a sharp focus. At 1/500th sec you are pretty well at the limit for hand holding and a sharp image.





Let me pull up a wildlife image of mine where I used the focus and recompose method. I was a bit closer and used a slightly shorter focal length, but had a correspondingly much narrower DoF. Instead of a couple of slow moving tigers, I had four wolves that were moving around fairly quickly. They eyes are very sharp. If I had tried your focus method, I'm pretty sure I would have missed the shot as the animals were moving around a lot.



Camera: Nikon D810

Lens: Sigma f/5 - f/6.3 150mm - 500mm

Distance to subject: 12.6m / 41.3 ft

Nominal DoF: 0.5m / 1.6 ft

Shooting data: ISO 3200 with 1/1000th sec shutter speed, f/6.1 aperture and 350mm focal length.

Was your focus point completely to the right that you had to recompose??
Out of focus due to recomposing is the result of the angle of rotation. In your example that's nearly zero. But what about in case of Bruce? With 85mm and f/2.

George

[Manfred M]

Was your focus point completely to the right that you had to recompose??
Out of focus due to recomposing is the result of the angle of rotation. In your example that's nearly zero. But what about in case of Bruce? With 85mm and f/2.

George

I focused on the mother wolf's eye and then recomposed to what is seen in the final image. I use this technique virtually 100% of the time. The only time I don't do this is when I have a subject that is moving toward or away from me fairly quickly. There I will tend to switch to AF-C using 3D matrix focus.

If your do the math, even in Bruce's shot the sensor to camera distance is going to be close between the focus and recompose point. This is such a common photographic practice that someone is going to have to be very close to the subject for the distance between the focus point (right in the centre of the image) and the recomposition for it to make any noticeable difference.

[george013]

I focused on the mother wolf's eye and then recomposed to what is seen in the final image. I use this technique virtually 100% of the time. The only time I don't do this is when I have a subject that is moving toward or away from me fairly quickly. There I will tend to switch to AF-C using 3D matrix focus.

If your do the math, even in Bruce's shot the sensor to camera distance is going to be close between the focus and recompose point. This is such a common photographic practice that someone is going to have to be very close to the subject for the distance between the focus point (right in the centre of the image) and the recomposition for it to make any noticeable difference.

The question isn't about "common photographic practice" or how you or me or others are dealing with af. The question is why ts gets unsharp pictures due to wrong focusing. If you want to correct that you must find his possible faults first. And from what he wrote I'm pretty sure recomposing is one of them, together with the use of af-s sec.

George

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I had a terrible time getting any good shots when I first got my D7000. Was about to return the camera I was so frustrated with it. Then I found an article that explained 'how' the focus system actually worked. Ever since it's been smooth sailing.
In your shot of the conductor, I'll bet the focus point was either on his face or his dark shirt. Either of those and I'd expect a fuzzy shot. If it were on his collar/neck it would have come out sharp. The system needs contrast to work properly.
Once I understood that focus wasn't a problem.

[Manfred M]

The question isn't about "common photographic practice" or how you or me or others are dealing with af. The question is why ts gets unsharp pictures due to wrong focusing. If you want to correct that you must find his possible faults first. And from what he wrote I'm pretty sure recomposing is one of them, together with the use of af-s sec.

George

In my experience, choosing the wrong autofocus practices is the most common reason for getting an out of focus image. The problem with me writing that is that it covers a lot of things. The important thing that people forget is that there is only a single focus plane and anything outside of that (plus of course DoF considerations will be out of focus).

1. If a camera cannot "see" the area where the focus plane should fall, then autofocus will fail. That means that it has to be bright enough otherwise autofocus can fail. This is something that is common when doing night photography.

2. Moving subject. This can be tricking, especially when the subject is moving towards or away from the photographer. In theory, continuous mode autofocus helps here, but again this only works if the camera correctly identifies the right part of the scene to focus on.

3. Failure of camera autofocus algorithm in the scene - this happens quite commonly when there is a lot of material in the scene and the camera's algorithms are unable to determine precisely what the subject is and it simply picks the wrong place to focus on. This is particularly problematic in busy scenes with longer focal lengths.

As for focus and recompose being an issue, I'm sorry, I would have to disagree there. It is a technique that has been in use since before autofocus existed. So long as there is not too much motion along the focal axis and there is sufficient light, this method is quite solid.

[Manfred M]

I had a terrible time getting any good shots when I first got my D7000. Was about to return the camera I was so frustrated with it. Then I found an article that explained 'how' the focus system actually worked. Ever since it's been smooth sailing.
In your shot of the conductor, I'll bet the focus point was either on his face or his dark shirt. Either of those and I'd expect a fuzzy shot. If it were on his collar/neck it would have come out sharp. The system needs contrast to work properly.
Once I understood that focus wasn't a problem.

Kind of yes, but not really...

With phase detect autofocus, what works best are vertical lines (i.e. contrasty areas) when leoked at with the camera in horizontal / landscape orientation. Put the camera in vertical / portrait orientation, look for horizontal lines. Phase detect can have a hard time focusing on plain coloured (low texture) building siding if it is in horizontal orientation and the camera is in landscape orientation.

If you have ever shot with a rangefinder camera (something like the Leica M series); this is how phase detect works.

Contrast detect, using in LiveView mode or on mirrorless cameras requires areas of contrast, regardless of orientation.

[george013]

......
As for focus and recompose being an issue, I'm sorry, I would have to disagree there. It is a technique that has been in use since before autofocus existed. So long as there is not too much motion along the focal axis and there is sufficient light, this method is quite solid.

And the angle of rotation/recomposing, and the used aperture. Four variables already. And they all are valid for Bruce, maybe except light.

George

[Stagecoach]

And the angle of rotation/recomposing, and the used aperture. Four variables already. And they all are valid for Bruce, maybe except light.

George

Can you give us 'facts and figures' regarding rotation/recomposing on this George using one of Bruce's shots as an example?

[george013]

Can you give us 'facts and figures' regarding rotation/recomposing on this George using one of Bruce's shots as an example?

He didn't show them. It where his words.

George

[xpatUSA]

With phase detect autofocus, what works best are vertical lines (i.e. contrasty areas) when leoked at with the camera in horizontal / landscape orientation. Put the camera in vertical / portrait orientation, look for horizontal lines. Phase detect can have a hard time focusing on plain coloured (low texture) building siding if it is in horizontal orientation and the camera is in landscape orientation.

I'm not well up on AF because I hardly ever use it.

But Bruce currently uses a Nikon D7000 which has 9 cross-type AF points out of 39 total. Does that affect the advice given above or am I missing something?

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/2

On that same page there are quite a few AF options, quite confusing as has already been noted.

[Stagecoach]

He didn't show them. It where his words.

George

I see, sensor size, focal length, aperture used and the framing within the image shown. Is there more information needed I'm missing?