help with dog running pic

iwols

iwols

Messages
872
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all been out taking a couple of pics with my d90 and a 70-300 lens ap mode and cotinuous focusing ,but these are the pics


DSC_0214 by iwols, on Flickr

DSC_0215 by iwols, on Flickr
the lens seems to be not focusing properly,seems to be hunting all the time even when i point it at something stationary and then move it to something else any ideas guys thanks


ps this is one i took some time ago which was much better although it was probably in auto mode



DSC_0018 by iwols, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
In the first two the dog is off centre and it looks very much like the focus is on the background, which is where the centre focus point is aimed. The third one has the dog far more centred and the AF has picked it up. Even so, it looks like the focus is on the chest rather than the face. Shooting running dogs is not easy - especially fast ones. Unless your camera has fancy AF you really need to work at keeping the focus point exactly on the dog's face.

Also your shutter speed in the first two is very slow for this sort of thing. I aim for at least 1/1000 if possible. Yours are at 1/160. Your third one is at 1/500, which is an improvement, but not guaranteed to net you a sharp picture.

Finally, the weather, and hence the light, has not been good recently and this makes it that much harder to get a clean, sharp picture than when you have brighter conditions.

There are some tips in this recent thread - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=460348
 
Last edited:
thanks tdodd its just that the last pic was taken some months ago with the same lens i think,and its the fact that the lens cant seem to focus quick enough now even on a stationary object,just wondering what has changed,also in ap mode on a d90 can i change the shutter speed manually in ap mode cheers
 
Last edited:
Some good advice there.

PS - I had to look twice when I saw your shots. Reminded me of one of mine....

7847369526_a2d2fc4335.jpg
 
uncanny , if the first pics would have been in focus would be even better as he now has a bright red collar on those...just worried i suppose that the focus on either the lens or camera is faulty..as regards the speed of it.. thanks
 
The things that appear to have changed are the light levels and the accuracy with which you are aiming the camera at the dog. Also you have a mostly black dog and there is not much of the subject for the camera to find areas of high contrast upon which to focus. Having a bright ball in the mouth helps a lot, as does a well lit tongue and teeth as an alternative, but the AF point needs to be aiming there, not at the background.

I don't know which lens you have, other than focal length and aperture, but all lenses need good contrast and adequate lighting for fast and accurate focusing and of course some lenses are better than others at focus speed. Even then it will take a moment for the camera and lens to catch up with a running dog and you can't just point and shoot and expect perfect focus instantly. You need to track the dog for a moment - say 1 second or so - in order for the camera to get up to speed with the dog. Then you can release the shutter, ideally in a short burst so that even if one or two are a bit soft you might get a sharp one in there.

As for shutter speed in Ap mode, most obvious solution is to increase the ISO. You're at 200 ISO for the soft pics and 800 ISO for the sharper one. But when shooting fast action surely the shutter speed is the most important consideration, so why not pick Sp mode (if that's correct Nikon speak) so that you are in charge of that rather than the camera? You'll still need a high ISO in this lighting in any case and a fast aperture too. Better a bit of noise in your photos than too much blur, so crank that ISO up if you need to or wait for better light.

So with that in mind, if you set shutter speed to 1/1000 and the aperture is wide open at f/5.6 there is only one variable remaining - ISO. You could let the camera pick it automatically and see how that turns out or simply set it manually. Your choice. I would point out that your snow shots look to be underexposed by about 1 stop as well, so you would need to deal with that too.

20130120_115322_.JPG


So to get to 1/1000 at f/5.6 and to pick up that missing stop of light you'd be looking at using something more like 2500-3200 ISO. That's pretty high. You could try a shutter speed of 1/500 and half the ISO, but your risk of blur increases. Personally I'd cut my losses and wait for a brighter day.
 
I too have problems with this. I really want to get a sharp photo of my Husky in full flight but even with a camera famed for its autofocus ability (the 7D), a fairly high iso, fast shutter speed and around F5.6 to 8 very few are in sharp focus. It is so hard to focus on a dogs eyes when it is moving at pace.

I have also tried this with birds in flight with the same problems.

One technique recommended to me is to go to manual focus and focus on a point in the path of the moving bird/dog. As they get to this point take high speed bursts for a second or two (the 7D does 8fps). This will give a choice and hopefully at least one or two will be sharp. Have not tried it yet but will give it a go.

I am not a great lover of the scattergun approach but hey that is one of the beauties of digital cameras.
 
Val, see this thread and check posts from Tim Dodd. He has a 7D (amongst others) and I know rates the AF highly. http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=460348

I suspect it's your technique and running dogs are not easy to track (assuming your lens can keep up). 7D has a lot of AF options designed to address difficult shooting situations, you just need to spend some time understanding the most appropriate settingss and then get some practise. What you're trying to do is very demanding of both the camera and photographer, but as you will see, great results can be had with a little effort (y)
 
Last edited:
Today, blessed with the best (brightest) light I've seen for a few weeks, I was going to take a few photos of my dog whilst out on our walk. The plan was to use my 5D3 and Sigma 120-300, but aware of this thread and Val's new post I chose the 7D and 100-400 instead. Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot explain, I found towards the end of the walk that my AF microadjustment was set to +20, which is wrong for this combo and led to almost everything shot being back focused. Having discovered and corrected the problem I fired off a few more shots so that I would have something to bring back for this thread.

I also tried a little experiment with shutter speeds, choosing 1/500 instead of my preferred minimum of 1/1000. This saved me a stop on the ISO value, but I'm not sure that it was a good trade off.

Anyway, here's a sample without edits....

7D, 360mm, 1/500, f/6.3, 200 ISO, AI Servo with AF point expansion enabled.
20130126_131058_7444_LR.jpg


100% crop before and after minor edits....
20130126_185145_.JPG




As for pre focusing and then timing the shot for the dog's arrival, that works too, but it is a technique I reserve for occasions when I can't track the dog's approach. Here's one such example....

20110508_142222_4999_LR.jpg


It might look better after a couple of tweaks....

20110508_142222_4999_LR.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have got to say, this did make me laugh but in a good way. :LOL:
You're very brave posting those on here but sometimes a little embarrassment is worth it if the end result is the info that puts you on the right track. (y)
It's not easy capturing fast-moving animals, especially in low light and even less so if they're coming towards you.
As Tim and Richard say, the AF system needs to be able to see something clearly to be able to focus properly, a black dog in low light has very little that the focus point can pick up on so it will hunt to try and find something.

Some people baulk at the idea but using burst mode gives you that extra chance of nailing the focus.
Oh, and if focus tracking, don't track for too long, take a few shots, release and reaquire focus. (y)
 
Hoppy UK

You are probably right about my technique!! But this afternoon I did try zone focussing using a fast shutter 1/1000, F8 and 1600 iso. I prefocussed on a spot and then released the shutter using his-peed burst as the dog approached it and went through the chosen zone. I was the best I have achieved to date but still not good enough to show.

Part of today's problems might have been down to the 15-85 I used on the 7D. My 24-105 is being repaired having got the dreaded Err01 message last week. Despite the advanced AF on the 7D I still have reservations about the ability of the camera to keep pace with the speed of the dog's movement.

When I get the 24-105 back I will have another try using the various different techniques discussed. I guess we all need to find one that suits us - as the saying goes one size does not fit all.
 
The problem you have with a short lens and a fast dog is that to come close to filling the frame the dog is going to be pretty close to the camera and there is going to be increased pressure on the AF system (both camera and lens, and even the photographer) to perform. For sure these shorter focal lengths can be used, but my preference is something more in the 300-400mm range.

Of course, the speed of the dog matters too. At a modest (for a dog) 20mph the dog is covering 9m/s. If you're shooting with the subject within 10m distance, as you probably ought to be with a short focal length, you've got very little time before the dog is upon you, if it's running straight at you. To put it another way, from the camera's perspective, 100% of the distance will be covered within 1 second. That requires very rapid response from the gear and the photographer. With a longer focal length - say 400mm - and the dog at 40m distance, it would take 4 seconds for the dog to reach you and in the first second it would cover only 25% of the total distance. That's a more relaxed pace for the gear to handle.

I have shot my dog with my 7D and an 85mm lens, but filling the frame is not so easy. Here's a full frame unedited example....

7D, 85/1.8 at 1/2000, f/2.8, 400 ISO.
20101022_124353_3162_LR.jpg


and following edit/cropping....
20101022_124353_3162_LR.jpg


Of course this is the 85/1.8 prime, so fast and accurate focusing, plus plenty of light, probably (almost certainly) putting it ahead of an f/5.6 zoom for the task. I wouldn't be so quick to blame the camera when the lens used might be the weaker link in the chain. The camera makes the focus calculations, but it's the lens motor that has to move the glass.
 
valb said:
Hoppy UK

You are probably right about my technique!! But this afternoon I did try zone focussing using a fast shutter 1/1000, F8 and 1600 iso. I prefocussed on a spot and then released the shutter using his-peed burst as the dog approached it and went through the chosen zone. I was the best I have achieved to date but still not good enough to show.

Part of today's problems might have been down to the 15-85 I used on the 7D. My 24-105 is being repaired having got the dreaded Err01 message last week. Despite the advanced AF on the 7D I still have reservations about the ability of the camera to keep pace with the speed of the dog's movement.

When I get the 24-105 back I will have another try using the various different techniques discussed. I guess we all need to find one that suits us - as the saying goes one size does not fit all.
Click to expand...

As Tim says above, you will find a longer lens much easier for this. The dog will be at the right size in the viewfinder for longer and the closing speed with be relatively slower - better for you and easier for the camera; keeping the AF point pinned will be easier because you will have to move the camera less to follow movement shifts; you will also get less background in the shot, which will probably look better.

Personally, in your position I would keep the 15-85 for general stuff and swap the 24-105 for something longer. 70-200 would be a useful step in the right direction, of which Canon has several to choose from of course, all excellent. Tim favours longer still, so maybe the 70-300L or 100-400L.
 
I wouldn't get totally hung up on the focal length aspect, and certainly not spend over £1,000 on the solution if I wasn't inclined. Longer lengths might make things easier, but if you are content to accept a potentially lower keeper rate you can certainly use pretty much any lens. Also, from an artistic viewpoint you will have the option of a different perspective if you shoot short and tight rather than long and tight. There isn't really a right and wrong. It's more about what you want from the photograph.

Here's one with my 7D and 17-55. It was remiss of me not to get down lower, but I was really just experimenting with the shorter lens rather than expecting keepers so I didn't go overboard on effort. More specifically I probably wanted to avoid a wet/muddy bum. :)

7D, 17-55/2.8 @ 55mm, 1/2500, f/2.8, 200 ISO...
20101020_115306_2672_LR.jpg


What you will notice, despite the woeful composition, is that there is a lot of light, making things much easier for focusing and maintaining high IQ. In this example the ball against the mouth gives a very strong region of contrast for the AF too.

This was with my 50/1.4 and 1D3 @1/4000, f/1.6, 100 ISO, cropped a bit in post, probably making it closer to 50mm on APS-C in terms of FOV...
20090923_130800_2906_LR.jpg



I do agree that 15-85 and 24-105 seems like a hell of a lot of overlap and if it was my money I would surely spend it in a different way.
 
Last edited:
My partner and I have a camera each. Between us we have a 600D (soon to be replaced by the 6D) and a 7D.

The 15-85 tends to sit as the walk around lens on the 600D and the 24-105 on the 7D. This is so we both can enjoy having a good walk around lens when out together. Both will be increasingly necessary when the 6D arrives as it will not accept the 15-85.

We share the 70-200 and the 100-400 lenses. There is also a 10-22 which only fits the cropped lens.

I say this only to clarify why we have and need two similar length lenses.

We have both used the 70-200 and 100-400 lenses to try to catch birds in flight at Raptor experience days. Whilst accepting there is a lot of truth in the advantages of using longer lenses they do tend to make the camera a lot heavier and keeping them relatively still whilst shooting hand held is much more difficult.

We have got some very good photos but it always seems a bit hit and miss and I still am of the opinion that even with the best glass (and they don't come much better than L series lenses) the AF struggles to keep up with fast moving animals especially if there is limited contrast between the subject and the background.

This is the reason why I tend to prefer the zone focussing technique.

tdodd said:
I wouldn't get totally hung up on the focal length aspect, and certainly not spend over £1,000 on the solution if I wasn't inclined. Longer lengths might make things easier, but if you are content to accept a potentially lower keeper rate you can certainly use pretty much any lens. Also, from an artistic viewpoint you will have the option of a different perspective if you shoot short and tight rather than long and tight. There isn't really a right and wrong. It's more about what you want from the photograph.

Here's one with my 7D and 17-55. It was remiss of me not to get down lower, but I was really just experimenting with the shorter lens rather than expecting keepers so I didn't go overboard on effort. More specifically I probably wanted to avoid a wet/muddy bum. :)

7D, 17-55/2.8 @ 55mm, 1/2500, f/2.8, 200 ISO...
20101020_115306_2672_LR.jpg


What you will notice, despite the woeful composition, is that there is a lot of light, making things much easier for focusing and maintaining high IQ. In this example the ball against the mouth gives a very strong region of contrast for the AF too.

This was with my 50/1.4 and 1D3 @1/4000, f/1.6, 100 ISO, cropped a bit in post, probably making it closer to 50mm on APS-C in terms of FOV...
20090923_130800_2906_LR.jpg



I do agree that 15-85 and 24-105 seems like a hell of a lot of overlap and if it was my money I would surely spend it in a different way.
Click to expand...
 
valb said:
My partner and I have a camera each. Between us we have a 600D (soon to be replaced by the 6D) and a 7D.

The 15-85 tends to sit as the walk around lens on the 600D and the 24-105 on the 7D. This is so we both can enjoy having a good walk around lens when out together. Both will be increasingly necessary when the 6D arrives as it will not accept the 15-85.

We share the 70-200 and the 100-400 lenses. There is also a 10-22 which only fits the cropped lens.

I say this only to clarify why we have and need two similar length lenses.

We have both used the 70-200 and 100-400 lenses to try to catch birds in flight at Raptor experience days. Whilst accepting there is a lot of truth in the advantages of using longer lenses they do tend to make the camera a lot heavier and keeping them relatively still whilst shooting hand held is much more difficult.

We have got some very good photos but it always seems a bit hit and miss and I still am of the opinion that even with the best glass (and they don't come much better than L series lenses) the AF struggles to keep up with fast moving animals especially if there is limited contrast between the subject and the background.

This is the reason why I tend to prefer the zone focussing technique.
Click to expand...
Fast motion plus low light plus low contrast = tricky. Using a slow (f/5.6 aperture) zoom lens won't help. This is why I prefer to choose lighting conditions which increase the chances of success. It's also why the 100-400 is the only lens I now own which is slower than f/2.8.

Then there is the matter of IQ. Focusing is one thing, but blur, shake, DOF, lens sharpness and noise all need to be considered. You need to balance shutter speed, aperture and ISO to achieve optimum results and this is all easier if you have more light to play with and a fast, sharp lens to let that light in. And that's before choosing the most suitable AF parameters and working on tracking and shutter release technique. Practice surely does help.

In your original post you implied, or at least I inferred, that your only options were the shorter zooms, but IMHO if you have a 70-200, whether f/4 or f/2.8 I think that would be the better choice. It doesn't matter if it's "heavy". There's little point in having it if you don't intend to use it. Walkaround lenses are great for walking around, but if you specifically seek the best pictures you can of your running husky then why not select the best tool at your disposal for the job and the lighting conditions to maximise chances of success?

Anyway, as I didn't realise that longer lenses were an option I took out my 7D and 50/1.4 today. I wasn't happy with the focal length at all, but here are a few examples after cropping. All are at 1/5000, f/2, 200 ISO, including the BIF. :D

20130127_130950_7552_LR.jpg


20130127_131600_7566_LR.jpg


20130127_131828_7570_LR.jpg


20130127_132755_7590_LR.jpg


20130127_133036_7613_LR.jpg




And to wrap up, a blast from the past. This is with my 7D and 100-400 at 400mm, 1/1600, f/5.6, 1600 ISO, cropped to 36% of the original frame....

20100919_125351_2051_LR.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sorry, one more thing - apart from all the technical reasons mentioned earlier, the thing about shooting in bright light is that I prefer the look of the photos. They look cheerful and fun, with shiny coat and sparkly eyes, instead of gloomy and drab.

20130127_210722_.JPG
 
tdodd said:
Sorry, one more thing - apart from all the technical reasons mentioned earlier, the thing about shooting in bright light is that I prefer the look of the photos. They look cheerful and fun, with shiny coat and sparkly eyes, instead of gloomy and drab.
Click to expand...

I'm the same, I can't get a good photo in dim conditions (especially seen as I have a black lab)

here's a one from today, I decided to try and use my flash so I could (try) properly expose my dog as well as the snow and background


IMG_0064.jpg by ChristianJ-R, on Flickr
 
also shutter speed, This one is at 1/1000 of a second and is still not freezing everything (as well as being about a meter and a half away with a flash with high speed sync enabled)


IMG_0038.jpg by ChristianJ-R, on Flickr
 
I thought I'd take the 70-200 for a spin today on my 7D. Light was not so bright, with the sun only visible through white cloud. Unfortunately I'm having great difficulty getting my dog to run towards me at full tilt as my usual ball throwing assistant is off skiing, so it's more of a trotting return. Still, the birds are trying.

Everything here is at 200mm and f/4. Shutter speeds and ISO do vary. AF was set to AI Servo with a single active AF point. No edits on these other than cropping.

20130128_115314_7626_LR.jpg


20130128_115646_7641_LR.jpg


20130128_121531_7710_LR.jpg


20130128_122031_7723_LR.jpg


For this shot the AF point was on the bird on the right, which was actually centre frame before cropping. The bird on the left is soft as a result, but the AF did its job.
20130128_123143_7750_LR.jpg



I know that shooting running dogs heading for the camera is difficult and I think that the bottom line is that perseverance pays. Realistically I would not expect a high percentage of keepers due to issues with missed focus, excessive blur or simply a rotten pose/expression at the moment the shutter fired. I would also not expect miracles from the camera. It needs light; it needs contrast; it needs the AF point(s) to be aimed at the right spot. A fast moving low contrast dog in poor light with a mis-aimed AF point is unlikely to work too well. Slow shutter speeds and/or high ISO won't help much either, especially if you plan on making big crops later. If you already have suitable gear, and the 7D should be just fine, then it comes down to picking suitable conditions and then practice, practice, practice. Have realistic expectations and don't give up.

GOOD LUCK! :)
 
tdodd said:
then it comes down to picking suitable conditions and then practice, practice, practice. Have realistic expectations and don't give up.

GOOD LUCK! :)
Click to expand...

practicing is hard with this British weather :/
 
Yes, but unlike shooting a scheduled event, if you are shooting your own dog you surely get to choose when to try and when not to bother. :thinking:
 
tdodd said:
Yes, but unlike shooting a scheduled event, if you are shooting your own dog you surely get to choose when to try and when not to bother. :thinking:
Click to expand...

I mean when getting good light at the moment
 
Yes, I understand that. But a dog lives for many years (hopefully), and unless you simply must have the photos NOW what's the problem with waiting till next week or next month or whenever the light is good? Is it necessary to pick the crappiest weather in the crappiest months of the year and then grumble that the photos look a bit ...... crappy?

Light is very much a major part of photography. It's the only thing the camera records. A portrait photographer would care very much about the light, whether in or out of a studio. A landscape photographer would be just as concerned. Is there a reason that for photographing your own pet you should care any less?

And by the way, "good light" doesn't necessarily mean dazzling bright sunshine with harsh shadows. Good light is whatever sort of light suits your purpose for the picture you have in mind. It might be raking light at dawn or sunset, it could be soft light from a thin veil of cloud. Some of the worst light is midday summer sunshine. It's horrible for photography, usually, which is why a bit of winter sunshine lower on the horizon can have greater appeal.

I'm just really trying to remind people that there is more to this malarky than the camera and its settings, and when people blame the camera for poor performance they might just be looking in the wrong place for solutions.
 
Last edited:
tdodd said:
Yes, I understand that. But a dog lives for many years (hopefully), and unless you simply must have the photos NOW what's the problem with waiting till next week or next month or whenever the light is good? Is it necessary to pick the crappiest weather in the crappiest months of the year and then grumble that the photos look a bit ...... crappy?

Light is very much a major part of photography. It's the only thing the camera records. A portrait photographer would care very much about the light, whether in or out of a studio. A landscape photographer would be just as concerned. Is there a reason that for photographing your own pet you should care any less?

And by the way, "good light" doesn't necessarily mean dazzling bright sunshine with harsh shadows. Good light is whatever sort of light suits your purpose for the picture you have in mind. It might be raking light at dawn or sunset, it could be soft light from a thin veil of cloud. Some of the worst light is midday summer sunshine. It's horrible for photography, usually, which is why a bit of winter sunshine lower on the horizon can have greater appeal.
Click to expand...

i understand, I was just adding a bit of humor... :bonk: should have added a smiley
 
Grotty conditions today so time to put the 100-400 to the test on the 7D. Ordinarily I would not pick such lighting conditions to shoot in and I would not use an f/5.6 zoom for the task, but I just wanted to see what I could achieve.

It was a bit of a struggle to hit my magic 1/1000 so these are all at 400mm, 1/640, f/6.3, 3200 ISO, IS off. AI Servo and AF point expansion for all. No edits other than cropping. I do appreciate that these are hardly high speed running, but I'm doing what I can to test myself and the gear.

20130129_123144_7850_LR.jpg


20130129_125701_7925_LR.jpg


20130129_130131_7944_LR.jpg


20130129_130302_7952_LR.jpg


20130129_130644_7967_LR.jpg


20130129_130831_7990_LR.jpg
 
:eek:

If I had a portfolio, which I do not, I don't think I'd feature too many of these. I'm just pushing the boundaries of my own experience, finding out what I can accomplish in less than ideal circumstances. Some people say the 7D is a focusing failure. Some people say the results are unusable beyond 800 ISO. I wonder how true those things really are, so I test/experiment/learn. It's worth the effort to find these answers for myself.

I don't even know whether these examples would satisfy most people - I know some are a bit short of the mark - but if they do then hopefully it will provide encouragement for people to try for themselves and persevere until the results come for them. It's not like I have any great magical gift or talent and the results come from practice and an acceptance that 100% success is not a given. Legend has it that Arnold Palmer said "The more I practice the luckier I get.". I suspect there is more than a little truth in that statement. ;)
 
Sorry. I know it looks like I'm spamming the thread, but I'm finding it interesting to put these claims of poor AF performance to the test, so another day - another lens to try, new lighting conditions - new test. I fully accept that there are focus misses with my own gear, some of which can be explained by my poor placement of the AF point, but occasionally the focus seems off for no good reason. Maybe it is the contrast issue with my dark and rather featureless dog, although I'm sure the tennis ball helps. However, most of the rejects are just due to rotten pose rather than bad focus, so whatever Val's problem I'm wondering whether the fault is with the gear itself or the expectations for keeper rate. I would urge her to review her choice of lens though. In her shoes I'd definitely be putting that 70-200 to work rather than the shorter or slower lenses, and in good light maybe even the 100-400.

Anyway, that's it for me. I have enough pictures of my dog. :D
 
tdodd said:
Sorry. I know it looks like I'm spamming the thread, but I'm finding it interesting to put these claims of poor AF performance to the test, so another day - another lens to try, new lighting conditions - new test. I fully accept that there are focus misses with my own gear, some of which can be explained by my poor placement of the AF point, but occasionally the focus seems off for no good reason. Maybe it is the contrast issue with my dark and rather featureless dog, although I'm sure the tennis ball helps. However, most of the rejects are just due to rotten pose rather than bad focus, so whatever Val's problem I'm wondering whether the fault is with the gear itself or the expectations for keeper rate. I would urge her to review her choice of lens though. In her shoes I'd definitely be putting that 70-200 to work rather than the shorter or slower lenses, and in good light maybe even the 100-400.

Anyway, that's it for me. I have enough pictures of my dog. :D
Click to expand...

Don't apologise Tim! This is a great thread, as are a few others on running dogs you've contributed greatly to. Personally, I think that if you have time one day, I'd like to suggest you knock up a short article for the tutorials section.

This topic comes up quite a lot and it's not easy either for the camera/lens or for the photographer. Subject, light, equipment, AF settings and technique all come in to it, and unless every element in the chain is working optimally, it's often disappointing. But with the right knowledge and a bit of practise the results are brilliant - as you have shown (y)
 
quick question, what al-servo sensitivity do you use for running dogs on your 7d? ive just been using low thinking if i accidentally cant keep the point on the dog it wont jump to the background, is this right?
 
enjoyed reading through this thread and some really good info from Tim and Hoppy (as ever). Landscapes are my theme of choice, however, for the last year or so i can count on the fingers of one hand how many times i've been out shooting them, so i have been resigned (and very enjoyably so) to shooting my dog and learning as i go.

i used a 5D MK1 and a 70-200L f/4... so all in all, good kit but nothing special or particularly fast. But what i have learnt is to follow a routine which goes a little like this: (dependant on how harsh the light is, but assuming a pretty average/dull day)

a. Servo mode
b. 200mm focal length
c. ISO minimum 800 (take a test shot and make sure i can achieve minimum 1/640 and adjust accordingly)
d. f/4
e. throw stick as far as i can into open space
f. get down low quick to as near to the dog's head height as possible
g. centre point focus on dog's head and shoot, shoot, shoot

i can probably only fire off maybe 3 shots each time as i like to wait until the dog is in full flow, coupled with my camera not being very quick.


IMG_9097.jpg by leftcurl, on Flickr

She is remarkably quick so provides a real challenge, but i suppose because she is consistantly fast i kind of get to know the timings.. i think she enjoys it just as much as i do.(y)

p.s. Tim... it was Gary Player :D
 
For all the 7D shots taken this week I have had sensitivity on the mid point - 0 - setting. I make extensive use of back button focusing and with years of use have become fairly nimble at disengaging AF when the point isn't where I want it. It's the same approach for BIF too.
 
tdodd said:
For all the 7D shots taken this week I have had sensitivity on the mid point - 0 - setting. I make extensive use of back button focusing and with years of use have become fairly nimble at disengaging AF when the point isn't where I want it. It's the same approach for BIF too.
Click to expand...

ah i see, I have been using the back button and having the shutter button as exposure lock when half pressed, I dont have that much time atm after school to mess around as the sun goes down quite fast by 4pm so Ill have a good 'play' at the weekend if the weather is ok
 
Great shot Leigh (y)

Some say (and I'm not one of them) that you're not supposed to be able to do that with a Canon 5D. Proof that you can!
 
The centre point AF is pretty decent on the 5D and 5D2, and there is the option of six invisible AF assist points surrounding it to help out. This does limit compositional options somewhat when shooting action, but with a full frame sensor a little creative cropping can soon address that small concern.

I thought I'd break my 30D out from hibernation today, to see what I could manage without a fancy AF system. I used my Canon 100mm macro lens for a change of scene on the lens front. These are all with centre point only, shot raw, and no edits other than cropping. All are at 800 ISO with shutter at 1/1000 or 1/1250 and aperture between f/2.8 and f/3.5.

20130201_115625_0048_LR.jpg


20130201_115751_0059_LR.jpg


20130201_121005_0081_LR.jpg


20130201_121021_0084_LR.jpg


20130201_121410_0097_LR.jpg


20130201_122009_0112_LR.jpg


Maybe some minor tweaks wouldn't hurt, but I wanted to show the results out of camera without editing to mask any shortcomings. Of course, the dog is not running at full tilt, or even close to it, and the ball again is a tremendous boost to having some contrast for the AF to latch onto. I did notice the AF go wayward pretty quickly if the AF point moved away from that area of the dog. Unfortunately I can't engineer more demanding scenarios until my ball thrower returns from skiing.

I put these photos and a few others from today into a slideshow here - https://picasaweb.google.com/106744...gCI3i0-O1-ND3Xg#slideshow/5839977610161963522. There are a couple of iffy shots in there, but a bit of sharpening would probably help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top