60D vs. 6D AF for Ping-Pong (seriously!)

GaryD wrote in post #16744465
After reading the manual again (thanks, Bakewell), that may have been a better way to go.

No, nope, nil, nada.

It's not your fault. What you could have tried is when using the outer point, aim at somewhere with high contrast to increase the chances of the point finding a lock. Learn the limitation of non crosstype point and depending on whether we are talking about a vertical or horizontal sensitive point, focus on the right place to increase your chances.

It comes down to the quality of the point period.

kin2son wrote in post #16744497
No, nope, nil, nada.

It's not your fault. What you could have tried is when using the outer point, aim at somewhere with high contrast to increase the chances of the point finding a lock. Learn the limitation of non crosstype point and depending on whether we are talking about a vertical or horizontal sensitive point, focus on the right place to increase your chances.

It comes down to the quality of the point period.

??? There you go again! Feel free to learn! (P.93 in the 6D manual).

Bakewell wrote in post #16744583
??? There you go again! Feel free to learn! (P.93 in the 6D manual).

Dude if you bother watching the video I linked the 5D3 has the same useless feature too which btw does it way better than the 6D, so I don't need you to tell me what it is nor read any manuals.

Sadly the only person who doesn't understand nor realise the limitation is YOU.

Another 6D thread turning into a street fight, these are almost as fun as the 60D is just a super Rebel threads.

I thought this thread was about 60D vs 6D in one specific scenario...

@OP: Gary, I think you have some ground regarding the combination of the 6D with the Tamron 28-75.

I am always amazed when people recommend this lens, speaking in reverential tones. It is quite sharp in the middle, but very soft in the border. So couple the softness with the non-cross-type outer points... It's like asking a nearsighted person to define detail using dirty glasses...

Compare it with the old Canon EF 28-70:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

It might be ok on a crop, but it suffers on a FF.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16744683
I thought this thread was about 60D vs 6D in one specific scenario...

I brought it up

Some folks can work with the 6d, others can't. Save yourself the trouble and get a sports camera. No use rehashing these threads a million times.

I came from an era where the 30D was a sports camera..... And gen x expects a 70d/5d3/1d4 and that's fine.

kin2son wrote in post #16742714
Nothing to do with players being erratic even, I don't think that was OP's main issue.

The real problem is the other points just plain sucks period, and using center point only affects one's composition and creativity.

This. I'm on a 5D3 hunt but had to put it on hold while I invested in more glass.

60D outer points are much much better than 6D's.

GaryD wrote in post #16744465
Just to clear things up, I was shooting in AI-SERVO, with the center point selected, most of the time. That worked fairly well. At one point I tried AI-Servo with a peripheral point selected. That didn't work for $#iT. At no time did I try AI-Servo with Auto-AF point selection. After reading the manual again (thanks, Bakewell), that may have been a better way to go.

After the fact, I have compared the focus speed of my Tamron 28-75 to my 100 f/2 and 15-85. The Tammy is not the fastest focusing lens in my stable. The Sigma 70-200 does focus faster, but at 135mm and f/2.8, there isn't much DOF to work with. Not deploying my equipment in the most efficient manner didn't help things, either.

I think the biggest issues I had with this shoot come down to operator error, and lack of thorough knowledge of my equipment and how it works.

This could be it too but one of the issues is the Tamron. That lens is known to hunt in less than ideal lighting.

GaryD wrote in post #16744162
Here are two shots from the practice session. From the side, with fixed focus, this worked OK. Shooting quarter-on caused me lots of problems. Maybe the Tamron 28-75 is not up to the task. This one is at f/5.6. Perhaps I needed more shutter speed, too.

I've never shot ping pong before, so I don't really know what you're going for here. To me these shots are honestly not that interesting - probably mainly due to the terrible gym and lighting. Maybe the framing could be better? Maybe you could be zoomed in more to eliminate things that don't matter, like the near side of the table in the bottom picture? Personally, I'd prefer a wider aperture to isolate the player and blur out the uninteresting background.

For specifics technically, sounds like you should find a shutter speed that freezes the player's movement but still allows for a little blur on the ball or the paddle. Lock your shutter speed and aperture and let the camera figure out ISO? I would do center point only, AI Servo with back button focus (but that is just my preference for controlling when the camera focuses and when it doesn't). Honestly it's not like these are sports cars zooming by at 100MPH or you're trying to track the ping pong ball itself - these players are in the same general spot.

Hope that helps...

Looking to pick up a 6D myself!

Moderator Admonishment

Can those who are turning this thread into a personal argument forum stop it.

If you don't agree with the other person having stated your position move on, don't continue arguing. You are just polluting the thread for others.

Do not start name calling and making personal remarks.

If you find someone that intolerable then place them on your ignore list.

If this continues the thread will be closed and the argumentative ones given a leave of absence to cool down.

jhoelter wrote in post #16745072
I've never shot ping pong before, so I don't really know what you're going for here. To me these shots are honestly not that interesting - probably mainly due to the terrible gym and lighting. Maybe the framing could be better? Maybe you could be zoomed in more to eliminate things that don't matter, like the near side of the table in the bottom picture? Personally, I'd prefer a wider aperture to isolate the player and blur out the uninteresting background.

For specifics technically, sounds like you should find a shutter speed that freezes the player's movement but still allows for a little blur on the ball or the paddle. Lock your shutter speed and aperture and let the camera figure out ISO? I would do center point only, AI Servo with back button focus (but that is just my preference for controlling when the camera focuses and when it doesn't). Honestly it's not like these are sports cars zooming by at 100MPH or you're trying to track the ping pong ball itself - these players are in the same general spot.

Hope that helps...

Looking to pick up a 6D myself!

OP here. I agree with you. Nothing here was very interesting. I think the best shots of such action would be taken in portrait orientation, wide aperture and zoomed in tightly on one player from his 'open' side.

I don't usually do this kind of stuff. I was just trying different stuff. I don't think the 6D, and certainly not the Tamron 28-75, was the best hardware for the job. The point of this thread was that my equipment did not behave as I expected it to. I asked if my equipment were up to the task. If the equipment were adequate, the problems I had stem from my limited knowledge and ability.

Some folks were kind enough to say the equipment was adequate, without directly calling me the problem. Thanks to all those folks. Some pointed out that my equipment, and some of my choices could have been better. Thanks to all of those folks. I learned something from both these types of responses.

To those of you who made simple differences of opinion personal:
It is OK to have an opinion. Seems everyone does. It is OK to not agree with another's opinion. Some of you have no problem with that. It is also OK for someone to disagree with your opinion. That is where a few of you need to check your ego. Let it go. You said your piece, your opponent said his. Arguing and name calling makes you both look petty, juvenile and irrelevant. On top of that, it contributes nothing to the thread. POTN would be a better place if you would just let it go.

Look at the exchange between OP (me) and Bakewell at the top of page two. He makes a claim. I disagree. He re-iterates his point. I investigate his information further (read the manual) and find out that I was mistaken, and the he (she?) was indeed correct in the first place. He was civil and insistent. I was open to acquiring new knowledge. Isn't that what we are here for? I think that disagreement went well. Some of the disagreements in this thread got overly personal. I don't see anyone benefiting from such exchanges.

Personally i feel the 6D is quite up to the task, i'm in agreement with others that it may be the glass. I've seen quite a few folks that use the 6D with the 85 1.8 and have quite stunning results.

I used the 6D with a 70-200 F/4 for a hockey game in less than ideal lighting and got some decent results, granted i was using center only and recomposing in post. I have used the outer points (manually selected) for static subjects but an still not confident enough to use them on fast moving objects, especially in low light.

An example...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lenzfreak/10621​876934/

The F stops here wrote in post #16745222
Personally i feel the 6D is quite up to the task, i'm in agreement with others that it may be the glass. I've seen quite a few folks that use the 6D with the 85 1.8 and have quite stunning results.

I used the 6D with a 70-200 F/4 for a hockey game in less than ideal lighting and got some decent results, granted i was using center only and recomposing in post. I have used the outer points (manually selected) for static subjects but an still not confident enough to use them on fast moving objects, especially in low light.

Thanks for posting, and for the nice hockey shot. I agree that I should have avoided using a manually selected peripheral focus point. A faster focusing lens would have helped, too. Next time, I'll deploy my 100 f/2.

A bit of comparison between hockey and ping-pong. Hockey is most certainly the faster moving of the two. Ping-pong, the way I was shooting it is harder to track. For my quarter-on shots I was at about 125mm, f/2.8 and about 12-15 feet. The players move very erratically in a box about 5 feet wider than the table, and about 8 feet deep. I am working with a very shallow DOF, here. Hockey, while moving faster, is a lot more linear, and the players are most often a lot more than 15 feet from your camera, which generates much deeper DOF, even at f/2.8.

A few years back, I shot some high-school hockey with a T1i and 135L. I certainly found the ping-pong harder to track. I am also a bit more familiar with hockey than with ping-pong, and knowing the subject material helps, too.

GaryD wrote in post #16745265
Thanks for posting, and for the nice hockey shot. I agree that I should have avoided using a manually selected peripheral focus point. A faster focusing lens would have helped, too. Next time, I'll deploy my 100 f/2.

A bit of comparison between hockey and ping-pong. Hockey is most certainly the faster moving of the two. Ping-pong, the way I was shooting it is harder to track. For my quarter-on shots I was at about 125mm, f/2.8 and about 12-15 feet. The players move very erratically in a box about 5 feet wider than the table, and about 8 feet deep. I am working with a very shallow DOF, here. Hockey, while moving faster, is a lot more linear, and the players are most often a lot more than 15 feet from your camera, which generates much deeper DOF, even at f/2.8.

A few years back, I shot some high-school hockey with a T1i and 135L. I certainly found the ping-pong harder to track. I am also a bit more familiar with hockey than with ping-pong, and knowing the subject material helps, too.

you also have to consider that the DOF of a crop sensor vs a FF sensor shooting from the same position will be 1 stop difference, so if you shoot F2.8 with the 60D, then consider F4 with the 6D, just to make apples to apples comparison. That extra stop makes the margin of AF just a bit more demanding.