Want vs Need in a camera body...

I surmise yours are much like the other models....

Lightly press the shutter release button and you'll see a box illuminate as the focus point in the viewfinder. Keeping the shutter release pressed half-way, use your thumb on the back to go up/down/left/right to move that focus point around in the frame. That's how you can change it's location in the viewfinder.

Now, in SINGLE focus mode, wherever that focus square is, that's THE focus point. So you can focus on say, an eye and while keeping the shutter button pressed (but not firing) simply re-compose/re-frame the shot how you want it to look and when you like it, press the shutter release the rest of the way.

Doing this in CONTINUOUS focus mode is the same, but as long as you keep the shutter release half pressed, wherever that initial focus point was the camera will continue to track it. Movement and all as long as you keep it half pressed or are firing the shutter.

A little twist to this is inside the menus regarding the number of focus points the camera will dynamically track. It's somewhere in the Autofocus menu under Dynamic9 or Dynamic 21. In essence, what this is doing is taking the focus point YOU specify as noted above, then grabbing all movement/motion within 9 or 21 points surrounding your selection. This ensures the camera doesn't lose it's focus point and tracks with the moving subject. It's AWESOME for fast moving motorcycles and maybe moving kids??????

Hmmm...

When using the AE-L/AF-L button for focusing, it will be hard to get the focus system activated and then use the rocker on the back to move the focus point unless it stays active for a few seconds while I move my thumb from the focus button to the rocker button.

Also TM, you mentioned moving the focus square around and missing shots..... Just think for a second before you shoot just "how" you want that shot to look. For example, if you are shooting Daniel on the motorcycle, dead centered subjects are boring. Use the rule of thirds for stuff like this and give Daniel "room" to move through the frame/image.

In other words, moving that focus cursor around is stupid easy and fast. But set your shots up just a bit for example......

1) You know he will be moving right to left across your field of view
a) you'll want HIM in the RIGHT THIRD of the frame
b) that allows him to move into 'space' in the image to the left
c) put the focus box to the RIGHT of center or two spots RIGHT of center
d) have your focus mode to AF-C (continuous)
e) when you see him, frame HIM behind the focus box and acquire focus
f) press the shutter and bam, he'll be tracked by the AF-C and remain in focus
g) have your camera on CL or CH (continuous Low or continuous High) and blast away at multiple frames per second making sure to keep the shutter release pressed and do your best keeping the focus box on him
h) ALWAYS remember what settings you have made so you can 'un-do' them for later shots without frustration as to "what the heck is going on"

You'll stay pretty "safe" with AF-C and CH/CL. Where you'll forget is AF-C and try to recompose a shot thinking AF-S and it WILL be out of focus. So just get in your head AF-C = Action and AF-S = Still

.

I've never used the AE-L / AF-L buttons on the back for my shots. I find the straight forward simple settings of AF-C for continuous focus along with a dynamic nine point range in area and with proper placement of the focus box knowing how I want my shots framed works very well for me shooting moving stuff.

Maybe I need to come over to Huntsville some weekend when you will have the kids out riding trails and shoot them and we can make it a learning day for us? I may not be doing it 'right', but it works and it's pretty simple in my book.

.

Scott, I don't know a think about DSLR's but I have always thought the hard part was the subject matter and that a true photographer was less dependent on the hardware than his ability to compose and understand/manipulate light to convey the message. Ansel Adams with a polaroid would still be Ansel Adams.

And I can add that from your posts in the past you are getting better and better at that ability to compose and tell your story.

SL350 said:

Scott, I don't know a think about DSLR's but I have always thought the hard part was the subject matter and that a true photographer was less dependent on the hardware than his ability to compose and understand/manipulate light to convey the message. Ansel Adams with a polaroid would still be Ansel Adams.

And I can add that from your posts in the past you are getting better and better at that ability to compose and tell your story.

Click to expand...

Which Scott?

TOTALLY agree with you on that. ANY professional with a simple P&S could run circles around me at the moment, but I'm getting better at it. Yes, one must "see" the vision first then use the tools/technology at their disposal to create that vision. I use the word "create" intentionally. There's a TON of stuff available to create images. And knowing the capabilities of that technology only makes the creative/creation process that much more interesting.

I'm having fun passing along what I have learned about this to others. In TM's case, basic moving subject acquisition seems to be a learning opportunity and I've certainly been there. I cut my teeth at TWS shooting the CMRA races learning about these AF-C/AF-S modes and dynamic tracking. They are all critical pieces of the puzzle to ensure proper focus.

Man this stuff is fun.....


.

Tourmeister said:

Please explain further. You mean you can actually make the focus track the kids eye so that it stays sharp while you shoot? While shooting, are you holding the back button down the whole time so that it constantly refocuses?

When I shoot with my D7000, I see ONE focus box in the center of my screen. I place that on my target and manually track by panning the camera. I know there is a way to use the rocker button on the back to move the focus point around and there is a way to make it track automagically. I just haven't played with it enough to know how to do it in a hurry. By the time I figure out how to get the focus point where I want it, I've missed the shot.

Click to expand...

I'm not a big focus and re-composer, for the simple fact that it doesn't really work on my of my subjects. Landscapes on the other hand, all day every day.

I've been using back-button focusing for several years now. The main purpose of it is to separate the focusing function from the shutter button. Like your D7000, my D600 doesn't have a dedicated AF-ON button for it. But, you can assign AF-ON in your Controls menu. In my D600 it is f4 in the menu. Once you do this, there is no more pressing the shutter halfway down. You push the shutter now and it takes a picture. All of your focus is controlled by the AE-L/AF-L button with your back thumb. I find it more efficient this way, others may not. Just remember to tell people or change it before you give your camera to someone to take a picture or your guaranteed an out of focus shot. If your shooting often, I'd definitely suggest leaving it like this for a little while. If you get used to it, great. If you hate it, change it back.

So say I'm trying to get a picture of my 1 year old standing or walking around. My setting of choice would be to have it on AF-C, single point. I don't mess around with the dynamic D9 and D21 unless I'm shooting a very quick moving subject. I have my composition in mind, and I move my focus box to where I anticipate I want the focus to be, mostly using rule of thirds. (Another shortcoming of the D600 is that my focus points are clustered in the center part of the frame. From what I remember, even the D7000 had them more spread out towards the edges of the frame that what I'm dealing with now.) Next I put the focus point on daughter's eye, the closest eye to me. I push the AE-L/AF-L button with my thumb, and once I'm happy with everything, push the shutter and fire. Even if my one year old is standing, the odds of her not moving a hair forward or backwards isn't good. If I'm in AF-S, and shooting at f/1.8, the odds of nailing focus on her eye are not good, unless she amazingly becomes a statue for a second... not gonna happen. AF-C gives me greater odds of nailing the focus on her eye. As I fire, my thumb is constantly pressing the AE-L/AF-L button and I'm keeping my focus point on her eye. This way if she leans forward or back any, in theory the camera is keeping the focus right where it should be.

I hope that makes sense.

What I'm experiencing now, using the exact technique above, focus jumps down to her hand. Most of the time I don't notice this until I get them on the computer. I would expect this type of behavior from my camera if I was in the D9 or D21 modes, but it should not be happening on single point. And this is where my current frustration lies.

So you use the thumb pad to move the focus point to a particular part of the view before you even start shooting, place it on her eye, and then manually work at keeping that point on her eye while you shoot? This kind of sounds like what Scott was trying to describe above for me to get shots of the kids on the bikes.

What I have been doing is just keeping the focus point in the center of the screen, placing it on my subject, and shooting while holding the back button for AF-C. I worry about the rule of thirds later by cropping the images. I often crop them because that lets me get a wider shot originally to capture as much of the scene as I can, then crop it to emphasize what I like in the scene. That does mean more post processing work though. If I try to zoom in for a narrower view, I find I have a harder time getting the final image composed the way I want because I'm just not fast enough to get it all done before the action is over

Seeing my recent pics and talking about this with you guys is really making me want to do a LOT more experimenting with the focus stuff so I can get it down. There's just so little time in a day to do all the stuff I have to do and still have any left over for the stuff I want to do...

Tourmeister said:

So you use the thumb pad to move the focus point to a particular part of the view before you even start shooting, place it on her eye, and then manually work at keeping that point on her eye while you shoot? This kind of sounds like what Scott was trying to describe above for me to get shots of the kids on the bikes.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I do. I have a general composition in mind, and go with that.

What I have been doing is just keeping the focus point in the center of the screen, placing it on my subject, and shooting while holding the back button for AF-C. I worry about the rule of thirds later by cropping the images. I often crop them because that lets me get a wider shot originally to capture as much of the scene as I can, then crop it to emphasize what I like in the scene. That does mean more post processing work though. If I try to zoom in for a narrower view, I find I have a harder time getting the final image composed the way I want because I'm just not fast enough to get it all done before the action is over

Click to expand...

Depending on how wide you're shooting around your subject and how much you will be cropping, you could experience quite a significate loss in quality and detail. I'm certainly not above cropping, and do it to most of my images to get them tweaked exactly how I want. But, I try to get it as right as I can in the camera, so it's just a small crop.

Seeing my recent pics and talking about this with you guys is really making me want to do a LOT more experimenting with the focus stuff so I can get it down. There's just so little time in a day to do all the stuff I have to do and still have any left over for the stuff I want to do...

Click to expand...

I know the feeling!

If I were not so invested in Nikon glass I'd consider switching teams.... First Duke, now me. And shooting a four day Triathlon camp no less.

I know this feeling and it sucks.

Posted this for you over on NikonCafe and FredMiranda.

M38A1 said:

This whole photography thing is a very slippery slope. You are only limited by your creativity, vision and wallet. That's my conclusion. There is a fine line between want vs need.

Click to expand...

I have seen so many amazing pictures from various smart phone - for me, it is sufficient for my needs. There is a chap on TWTEX called Skip Hunt. He has an portfolio page of only cell phone images and it is simply breathtaking. It's not the camera or the megapixels or the phone that make a great photographer, it's the skills behind it. I think photographers put too much stock into having expensive cameras and lenses, as they contribute less than 1% to the awesomeness of the photo in most cases.

Just my observation, especially from some of the images posted on ADV from various globe-trotting ventures on a motorcycle. Flickr had an impressive collection too.

With post picture editing software, you can further enhance the image to ones liking.



RB

M38A1 said:

If I were not so invested in Nikon glass I'd consider switching teams.... First Duke, now me. And shooting a four day Triathlon camp no less.

Click to expand...

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

So I pulled the battery, memory card and removed the lens to let it sit for about four hours. Put it all back together but ERR still showed yet it fired off a properly exposed shot. Hasn't missed a beat in 1300 since. Still, it's going back. Can't trust it. And my letter to Nikon will be shortly.

That was the new D4S????? Yeah, I'd be sending them a letter, too. And expecting a response posthaste.

M38A1 said:

So I pulled the battery, memory card and removed the lens to let it sit for about four hours. Put it all back together but ERR still showed yet it fired off a properly exposed shot. Hasn't missed a beat in 1300 since. Still, it's going back. Can't trust it. And my letter to Nikon will be shortly.

Click to expand...

You will be able to return it for a full refund. You don't even have to get another one, now that you have had a taste if you don't want. You will not be out any monies. Sucks that it happened for sure but at least you can return or exchange it if you wish too.

tshelfer said:

That was the new D4S????? Yeah, I'd be sending them a letter, too. And expecting a response posthaste.

Click to expand...

What do you expect Nikon's response to be?

So, I'm reading all these posts and remembering the darkroom my friend Ed and I built in his Mom's hall closet while she was out of town for a week. She didn't even know for about 3 months. We broke through the slab, tied into the bathroom lines, and fed new power from the breaker box. We set up a controlled temp bath for the 16-step Ektachrome process with tanks for processing 8 rolls at a time or a 100-foot roll vertically. We shot Extachrome for years because the Air Force didn't have a way to order just 6 rolls of ANYTHING, and the chemicals came with each gross of 36-exp. rolls. (We occasionally got contracts to shoot slide augmentation for tech manuals.) Along with the Bessler tri-head enlarger. I lost track of my frames through the Pentax MX after 40,000.
When I was in my 30's my first wife would shoot available light while I shot studio-lighting poses at weddings. Had fun!
Just before the digitals got useful, I rebuilt my MX. Never shot another roll through it.
To the comments on AF usage and what's needed in a camera-
With the MX nestled in my left hand, I had shutter speeds on the right thumb, aperature on the left thumb and middle finger, focus on the left index, shutter on the right index, and I moved like a motor. Five frames per sec drive was okay for anything but standing in mid-lane at a SCCA race.

Can you turn off the AF or just grab an ancient manual lens?
As for film speeds, I learned to push or under develop(cool) the films.
(I know, it's ancient technology)
Now, I just P&S my Iphone 5.

Like Duke, I was in the 30 day return window. So it goes back and will cross paths with the new one. Does that mean I own TWO of them now?

Yep, I own two D4s's at the moment.

I took Dukes advice and pulled the battery, card and lens out/off and let it sit for about four hours. Put it all back together and shot the rest of the weekend - probably 1700 additional shots and it ran like a sewing machine and gave me excellent results like the Nikon flagship body should. But I still called B&H on Monday morning and told them I wanted to return it for a full refund which they obliged by sending me a UPS pre-paid label.

Then I bit the bullet and ordered another one. No way I can get two in a row that don't work, right? I mean, it's bad enough I KNOW someone else with one that failed with the same results (hmmmm..... GS final drive failures are coming to mind now). Anyway, it arrived today. Tomorrow I'll use the box the new one came in to send the old one back and I'll charge the battery, insert a card, drop a lens on it and see what happens......

I have to say, the D4s IS an amazing pc of gear in how it performs.

Fred - as for your earlier comments on the gear having little bearing on the end image, I challenge you to a significant body of examples of say Olympic venue, world class level athletics/motorsports motion shooters using cellphones. Show me where the cellphones have focus lock times so fast that 300+mph cars or 180mph motorcycles can be frozen in 1/8000th of second frame after frame after frame while allowing bracketing to happen. Please show me how to sync multiple external speedlights and be able to adjust the power output independently of one another and get them to fire at the same time. Please tell me how my iPhone 5 can front or rear curtain sync to get the right blurred lines for the image I have in my head. Please show me where the pixel quality will provide spectacular results in print sizes measured in FEET instead of inches. Please show me where the file quality is deep enough that post processing software can use every single data pixel available to bring out the darkest of shadows or tone down the brightest of brights. Please show me where cellphones have a clarity advantage in focal lengths from 10mm to 1800mm. Please explain to me why Sports Illustrated, National Geographic, all the major news services aren't using cellphones for their daily jobs. Please tell me why you think the cellphone is an ideal solution for anything other than a static image such as a building, landscape etc? It's not ALL the photographer as you lead one to believe with your comment.


.

M38A1 said:

Fred - as for your earlier comments on the gear having little bearing on the end image, I challenge you to a significant body of examples of say Olympic venue, world class level athletics/motorsports motion shooters using cellphones. Please tell me why you think the cellphone is an ideal solution for anything other than a static image such as a building, landscape etc? It's not ALL the photographer as you lead one to believe with your comment.

Click to expand...

Hi Scott,

You're comment reminds me of a story I heard once...when leaving a dinner party one night a guest said to the cook, "That was one of the best meals I've ever eaten; you must have really nice pots and pans."



You're partly right, with current camera technology for weekend camera enthusiasts and professional photographers needing specialized photographic needs - a dedicated high-end DLSR is a good choice. This is especially true for those needing interchangeable lens, resolution quality demands, a larger native image size and other important aspects making their use essential for some.

For a long time, cell phone pictures were fuzzy and did not have a great deal of adjustments. With today's high-end Samsung and Apple smart phones, the gap between being able to take quality pictures and HD video has lessened dramatically. With smart phone technology you have the ability to quickly share, manipulate the picture on the fly and much great interchangeability with social media too. Yes, even some smart phone models are waterproof. On a related note, even the much beloved GPS is being eclipsed by the smart phone for navigation purposes. Simply put, the technology has gobbled up traditional standalone device including cameras, MP3 players, navigation and even the standalone PC. The smart phone will continue to progress into an ever amazing application. Perhaps one day, we will see standalone camera in your local museum. Change is hard for some, including traditional avid photographers of which we have many excellent ones in Austin. I took some pics recently at a track meet. When folks looked at the images, they could not believe they were generated from a mere cell phone. With the little training I have in taking pictures, the five year old Samsung smart phone performed very well. I can only imaging how much better the performance is today.

"Staff photographers are an increasingly scarce commodity, thanks to aggressive cost-cutting by newspapers and magazines, and amateur photographers are exploiting technological advances to produce stunning images, often using no more than their mobile phones," says Magda Rakita, a 37-year-old student at London's University of the Arts and a professional photographer.

I agree with her assessment.

Say Cheese!



RB

New D4s has arrived and the battery charged.... Maybe I ought to go find a coke product and shoot it today for the next assignment which closes in about 36 hours.....

Let's hope this one does better than the last one.....


.

mr-roboto said:

Hi Scott,

You're comment reminds me of a story I heard once...when leaving a dinner party one night a guest said to the cook, "That was one of the best meals I've ever eaten; you must have really nice pots and pans."



You're partly right, with current camera technology for weekend camera enthusiasts and professional photographers needing specialized photographic needs - a dedicated high-end DLSR is a good choice. This is especially true for those needing interchangeable lens, resolution quality demands, a larger native image size and other important aspects making their use essential for some.

For a long time, cell phone pictures were fuzzy and did not have a great deal of adjustments. With today's high-end Samsung and Apple smart phones, the gap between being able to take quality pictures and HD video has lessened dramatically. With smart phone technology you have the ability to quickly share, manipulate the picture on the fly and much great interchangeability with social media too. Yes, even some smart phone models are waterproof. On a related note, even the much beloved GPS is being eclipsed by the smart phone for navigation purposes. Simply put, the technology has gobbled up traditional standalone device including cameras, MP3 players, navigation and even the standalone PC. The smart phone will continue to progress into an ever amazing application. Perhaps one day, we will see standalone camera in your local museum. Change is hard for some, including traditional avid photographers of which we have many excellent ones in Austin. I took some pics recently at a track meet. When folks looked at the images, they could not believe they were generated from a mere cell phone. With the little training I have in taking pictures, the five year old Samsung smart phone performed very well. I can only imaging how much better the performance is today.

"Staff photographers are an increasingly scarce commodity, thanks to aggressive cost-cutting by newspapers and magazines, and amateur photographers are exploiting technological advances to produce stunning images, often using no more than their mobile phones," says Magda Rakita, a 37-year-old student at London's University of the Arts and a professional photographer.

I agree with her assessment.

Say Cheese!



RB

Click to expand...

It's all about the right tool for the job.
Using a CBR1000RR for a MX race and you may finish, but the boys on the CFR450R will beat you.
But, taking that same CRF450R to Laguna Seca, and the CBR is gonna leave you in the dust.

Cell phones are extremely capable cameras now. In many regards, we don't need P&S cameras any more because of the advancements in phones.
But, as Scott pointed out, you cannot beat the D4S (or similar) for just about anything except portability.
Auto focus, image size, low-light capabilities, interchangeable lenses, shutter speed, the list goes on, are simply better than a phone.
This isn't to say that you can't get good pictures with a lesser device.
Take any photographer, give them a phone and a D4S and have them shoot the same scene/event.
If it's a static event, the difference won't be huge.
Now make that event something with a lot of motion, and you'll see the gap between them widen.

Pick the tool that works best for you, and go with it!

Well, the new one seemed to perform well yesterday on a 1000 shot run shooting a charity golf event...

If anyone cares to see, this was about 10hrs of shooting/eating/driving and six hours of post processing to cull/crop/edit

I'm so-so on the results. Having never shot golf before, I pinged Duke who gave me some excellent pointers. I think they are all a bit soft in the end and I haven't determined if it's a focus issue with the lens/body combo, with the addition of a 2.0x TC to the 70-200 or a wrong focus mode like Single Point vs Continuous for most of the shots. (i had a lot on my mind at the time.... lol)

And Nathan, you're right. Right tool for the job. NO WAY a cellphone would have been able to do what I did and HOW I did it yesterday. Being 'downrange' 30yds from driving balls is NOT a fun place

ETA:
The flash shots were with the D700.... They are pretty obvious when you look at them.

http://www.scottstrancephotography.com/Content/Client-Work/2015-Colins-Hope-Golf/


.

Nice mix of shots, Scott.

Tracker said:

Nice mix of shots, Scott.

Click to expand...

Thanks Gary.... Shooting golf is a lot harder than you would think. Had I not had a 'driver' and dedicated photographers golf-cart I don't think I could have pulled it off on that respect. And being downrange about 25-30 yards from a t-box and a few degrees to the side is un-nerving.