- Messages
- 510
- Edit My Images
- No
Incidentally it seems to occur with outside group shots still
1/8000 is waaaaay too fast for wedding photography / group shots! I'd say (while not a full answer to this particular issue, but would certainly help) you might be able to drop the ISO a bit, or tighten the aperture to sharpen the corners?!What could be that deficiency though? Just checking out one of the shots it was 1/8000s 36mm f4.5 AF-S with a single focus point aimed at the chest of the bride (hitting half skin half dress) and the point of focus looks to be about 2ft behind.
Is it a zoom? If it's not parfocal, then you'd expect focal drift to differ with focal length.No I haven't as it doesn't seem to be a constant issue and therefore I don't want to cause more harm than good.
Yes, I am leaning towards the same (queue the older hands tutting)- Saturdays results are much better but still one or two instances of it missing but then on the next composition it being bang on. 99% sure it is me, however narrowing down how and why I couldnt say.
You also need to tighten up on your settings technique - they should be optimum for the shot, not just okay from an exposure point of view
I don't think there is generally any such thing as "too fast." *Especially* with group shots.1/8000 is waaaaay too fast for wedding photography / group shots!
I would vary the settings depending on the conditions, but a speed of 1/8000, I've only used for ballistic photography, for freezing the action as much as possible (here we're talking bullets / missiles hitting objects and fragmenting).I don't think there is generally any such thing as "too fast." *Especially* with group shots.
*I* might not have used the same settings... actually I know I wouldn't have because the camera would have chosen different ones. But, I can't really say there is anything "wrong" with the settings used. With a wide FL (36mm) and 10-20ft distance there is still a ton of DOF at f/4.5. On a D8xx ISO 100/200/400 all look about the same (100/200 test the same technically, so I seldom ever choose 100). And even ISO 800 will seldom show any significant detriment even with very critical evaluation.
Assuming f/4.5 was chosen for sharpness/DOF w/ a fast lens (36/4.5 on a 24-70/2.8 should be excellent), *my* settings would have been something like f/4.5, 1/5000, 200 (aperture selected by me, ISO/SS set by the camera). But IQ wise the image would look identical to the settings he used; f/4.5, 1/8000, 320.
So, what settings do you think would have been notably better? Because I don't see the issue... nor with the original image at 24/5.6, 1/4000, 320. And I certainly don't see them contributing to a focus problem. If there is an issue, it's with the hard/bright midday sun IMO.
(let's ignore ETTL/ETTR/recovery considerations...)
My only "recommendation" would be to refine the camera settings and the way you use them slightly.Thanks SK66. Yes I have merely increased aperture to 4+ to allow more DOF.
Yes and the sun etc. In the original example is shocking- not a shot I was happy with but it was really only included to show the technical issue, it was bang on mid day but circumstances (church g-yard layout, congregation, horse and cart and time etc.) meant it was pretty much there or nowhere.
Well, it certainly wasn't a "requirement."I would vary the settings depending on the conditions, but a speed of 1/8000, I've only used for ballistic photography, for freezing the action as much as possible (here we're talking bullets / missiles hitting objects and fragmenting).
That's why I think it's a little too fast for a group shot.
Well, it certainly wasn't a "requirement."
Richard, I was replying that 1/8000 wasn't a requirement...Disagree.
Richard, I was replying that 1/8000 wasn't a requirement...
We're taking about 36mm at f/4.5 here used from around 15 ft (guess)...that's around 20ft DOF. And much greater for the 24/5.6 image originally posted (probably at/beyond HFD). I get the difference between DOF and actual focus, but we are talking about a group shot, not a portrait....
I will say that with that much DOF (shorter FL's) there is no real benefit to using wider apertures most of the time; it's not like you're going to blur the BG into soft focus (unless it is *very* close). And yes, there would have been plenty of SS remaining even at f/11 (although the D8xx is diffraction limited at f/11, I agree it's not a primary concern for this type of shot). And I agree with using a longer FL stopped down farther for BG perspective/sharpness *if possible.*
But IMHO, given the shot as taken (distance/FL), I highly doubt anyone would see any significant difference between a (properly focused) image taken as it was (24/5.6, 320, 1/40000) as opposed to 24/11, 100, 1/800, *other than the BG being more in focus.
I have the 24-70/2.8 and D810... maybe I will take a couple test shots if/when the sun comes out.
Indeed, hense why I questioned the 1/8000 specifically. No matter how well a camera performs, if you ask so much from it in one area (1/8000 is a pretty extreme speed that I would only use in very specific areas) physics dictate another area will suffer. In this case, quite unnecessarilyThese detailed technicalities are not really the point though. For me, the thing is that when you use the extreme ends of any exposure settings, whether it's very high or very long shutter speed, lowest f/number or highest etc, there is usually a particular reason. It's done consciously and deliberately, not by accident, even in haste.
I can't think that any seasoned photographer would look at those settings and think, yes, they're perfect, that's just what I would use. Same goes for AF-C that is simply inappropriate in this situation and prone to the kind of errors that it seems like the OP has fallen into. It suggests a general lack of good understanding.
I mentioned it...Has anyone checked what he has custom menus a1 and a2 set to? Even with AF-S you can still set release priority over focus priority. This WOULD explain intermittent focus accuracy. @Pegasus_Thrust have you checked this?
I mentioned it...
But it is important to note that the AF-C setting will apply with BBF enabled *only* if the focus point selection is set to single point (this is true of most newer Nikons). My D810 doesn't even apply the "release+focus" setting in AF-C with anything other than the single AF point setting.
Hmm, it seemed to me that you were arguing "for" the technicalities. IMHO, if the aperture was the right one for the image desired, then the technical differences between ISO/SS options don't matter *in this case.* From my perspective aperture determines what an image *IS.* As long as SS is high enough, and ISO is low enough, they don't much matter 95% of the time (other than slow SS images).These detailed technicalities are not really the point though.
I'm fairly well "seasoned;" and if I had chosen a fixed ISO of 320 on the D8xx due to the prevailing conditions, then I wouldn't worry about it again unless it became a problem (too low) or there was a slow time to change it to something more ideal for new prevailing conditions. IMO, manually selecting a fixed ISO for individual images in a changing environment is not practical. On my cameras it's a two handed operation with me looking at an LCD screen (there is "easy ISO," but I screw that up more than it helps).I can't think that any seasoned photographer would look at those settings and think, yes, they're perfect, that's just what I would use. Same goes for AF-C that is simply inappropriate in this situation
Nope, and it's the same with the D800 and most (all?) newer Nikons. The way BBF works with newer Nikons is, once AF has been achieved with BBF it then acts as an AF/MF switch. You push it to activate AF or you leave it in "MF" and the camera doesn't care if the image is in focus or not. (This behavior is overridden if AF is also enabled on the shutter at the same time, but why would you do that?). And I mis-spoke... this behavior is the same for AF-C and AF-S.Is that in the manual? Can't see it anywhere (Assuming it's the same with the D800).
Hmm, it seemed to me that you were arguing "for" the technicalities. IMHO, if the aperture was the right one for the image desired, then the technical differences between ISO/SS options don't matter *in this case.* From my perspective aperture determines what an image *IS.* As long as SS is high enough, and ISO is low enough, they don't much matter 95% of the time (other than slow SS images).
I'm fairly well "seasoned;" and if I had chosen a fixed ISO of 320 on the D8xx due to the prevailing conditions, then I wouldn't worry about it again unless it became a problem (too low) or there was a slow time to change it to something more ideal for new prevailing conditions. IMO, manually selecting a fixed ISO for individual images in a changing environment is not practical. On my cameras it's a two handed operation with me looking at an LCD screen (there is "easy ISO," but I screw that up more than it helps).
FWIW *I* wouldn't set a fixed ISO and those aren't the settings I would have used, that's not how I work... ISO is the last setting I lock down, and only in a constant/controlled light situation. But that's kind of irrelevant (maybe it's not, but I'm hesitant to say that my way of working is "better").
And AF-C with BBF (which is what was used) is perfectly suitable for this situation... if used correctly.
Nope, and it's the same with the D800 and most (all?) newer Nikons. The way BBF works with newer Nikons is, once AF has been achieved with BBF it then acts as an AF/MF switch. You push it to activate AF or you leave it in "MF" and the camera doesn't care if the image is in focus or not. (This behavior is overridden if AF is also enabled on the shutter at the same time, but why would you do that?). And I mis-spoke... this behavior is the same for AF-C and AF-S.
Agreed, but I don't think DOF was the problem nor would more have helped really.If you're shooting at 1/8000sec, then that would strongly suggest rapid subject movement, and there isn't any here. At f/4.5, that suggests there isn't a requirement for more than minimal D0F, when in fact that is the main priority here, and indeed where the OP has tripped up and failed to get all of the group sharp.
It does seem like an odd choice... if I were setting an ISO it would be a full stop setting (unless pushing max tolerance). Not sure that it matters though.And why ISO320? Not that it's very important here, but these things shouldn't happen by accident.
Ok, you've lost me here.Why AF-C. Again, not needed here and prone to inconsistencies that the OP has fallen foul of.
Ah, so full manual w/ MF then?Sometimes you have to take calculated risks with camera settings, mostly in fact, but with this situation the conditions are benign. So minimise the risks, and go belt-and-braces on the priorities.