Good panning shots - IS strictly necessary?

I've posted this same question on the 70-200mm f/4 L IS thread, but as I got no feedback, and really in need of some help, here it goes:

Going to car racing events with my 70-200mm f/4 non -IS - and beeing used to take some "good" panning shots with my old EOS450D + EF 55-250mm IS combo - really has become a disappointment.

I just can't get the same sharp shots I used to (panning shots, that is), despite the fact that I now use a 7D.

Higher shutter speed shots are awesome, but panning isn't that great.

Would you agree? I mean, is IS really important on panning shots!?

Here are a couple of examples:

The new combo (7D + 70-200 L non-IS)

Shot at 1/200

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/minijag/4037339​906/

BMW EXIF shows 70mm, while I predict the second image is at a longer focal length (no exif available on flickr or in image).
The red lola is also travelling directly left-to-right, so at a further distance away from you your downward angle is not as steep as in the BMW shot.

The BMW is also not travelling perfectly left-to-right and looks like the wheels are turned a little in preparation for a right hand turn.
The majority of unpleasant blur is on the front BMW grille and foglights, but the perspective on the Lola is more from behind and there's no detail on the rear end (in fact there really isn't any rear end to speak of) which would be subject to obvious blurring.

For all of that discussion, the reality is they're not exactly comparable shots. The BMW image is the more difficult to achieve because you'd need to be moving a little down while panning left-right.

IS is not strictly necessary for panning, but following the subject is essential and you've just missed it on the BMW. Good job getting so close though. I think that was a much harder shot, probably panning at a greater speed.

IS may make panning easier but it certainly isn't necessary. Panning technique has been around for a lot longer than IS so it just takes practice and perfecting a shooting style that works for you.

That being said... I see nothing wrong with your 55-250mm IS shot. No problem with the image quality of the image you posted.

Use what works for you to get the shot you want.

John

minijag wrote in post #12294511
I mean, is IS really important on panning shots!?

No. Image stabilization can make the task easier, but it's not needed.

The most important factor is the ability to smoothly track a target as it passes across the frame. Examples:

From a non-stabilized Tokina 80-400mm lens.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Here are a couple out of my old 20D with Sigma EX 50-150mm f/2.8.

EXIF is intact.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

When i was shooting ALMS last year, I found that the Image Stabilization was actually fighting me and would make things blurry. I turned it off and was much happier with the results. Coincidence, maybe.

Non-IS result:

Thank you all for your comments and inputs.

A special thanks to bdp23. You probably hit the right key, when you mentioned the difference in terms of movement of the cars in each shot. The Lola was actually shot further away from me (although focal length was 55mm - it is a heavy crop!) and it was in a straight line. The BMW was approaching a right hand turn, and I had a higher viewpoint.

Maybe my main issue is the same that worries me when panning right close to cars, I mean, one or two meters away, inside the curves. And that is the fact that, as the car runs through, it passes right close to you and, a fraction of a second later, it is further away from / or closer to (it depends on where you stand) your viewpoint.

So this takes me to my second question (I promise I’ll practice a lot more on those first panning shots I mentioned, before selling my 70-200mm…).

How do you get better panning shots, when standing right close to cars? How do you solve the problem of having the car going through the corner and get it all focused?

Here’s an example of a poor shot (haven’t got any good one to post…yetops to illustrate my doubts.

IS is not necessary. The trick here is to use a very slow shutter speed (1/200 or slower) and moving or tracking as the same speed as the subject. This gets hard when you want to frame the shot really tight. You get more background blur or better bokeh if you can use a longer focal length and don't stop down too much. Maybe at f4 or faster. I shoot cycling races. These guys go a lot slower than race cars.... BTW, this shot was shot with a 70-200L F4 no IS.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.oneimagingp​hotography.com …v#1254231165_zM​CNN2Z-A-LB

minijag wrote in post #12297892
How do you get better panning shots, when standing right close to cars? How do you solve the problem of having the car going through the corner and get it all focused?

The more 'from the front' you are, the less panning you'll need to do, so less motion blur in background.
With a supercomputer you could possibly have control of the zoom ring, but that's not a reality.

At some point, there isn't enough blur to convey drama, speed and movement so you end up with a static shot.

I think this is why the panning shots are side-on to the car travelling at high speeds, while in-corner shots are low and wide, trying to illustrate the car with one wheel up over a kerb, or the race-leader with a group of 3 cars on his tail.

Close means pics with no blur but you can get tyre tread on your face and engine roar thumping your chest.
Far means pics with no in-your-face drama, in exchange for the serenity of the world passing by at 300km/h like an eagle dive bombing a rabbit on the prairie.

To sum it up, closer means faster shutter. Faster shutter means no blur and panning is less critical. (I'm particularly talking about when the car's direction of travel is substantially towards or away from you like close up in the corner situations you describe)


1/125th http://www.flickr.com/​photos/goldeeno/470953​0297/
1/320th http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mrfourex/358454​4674/ (V8 supercar, Australia's premier motorsport class)

Here is another shot with the rider coming around from my left and making a turn and passing to my right. This shot was taken when the rider was just entering the turn and somewhat at the front of the shot. I was using 1/200 shutter speed and flash. Yet, the background wasn't as blur. You get more blur when the subject is passing you perpendicular to your lens.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.oneimagingp​hotography.com …h#1255159306_pQ​XS2mZ-A-LB

minijag wrote in post #12297892
How do you get better panning shots, when standing right close to cars?

Distance makes no difference. The technique is unchanged.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

DC Fan wrote in post #12298883
Distance makes no difference. The technique is unchanged.

Camera Maker: Canon
Focal Length: 35.0mm
Aperture: f/4.5
Exposure Time: 0.017 s (1/60)
ISO equiv: 250
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB

Focal Length: 31.0mm
Aperture: f/4.5
Exposure Time: 0.017 s (1/60)
ISO equiv: 400
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB

Focal Length: 67.0mm
Aperture: f/13.0
Exposure Time: 0.013 s (1/80)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB


Smooth tracking, slow shutter speed. Those are the important factors. Focal length doesn't matter. Distance doesn't matter. Follow the target smoothly and choose a shutter speed that will produce motion blur, yet leave the target recognizable. It's not a predictable technique, and it takes experience at tracking targets to develop and perfect.

The subject's distance to you and the focal length you use do matter. They determine your DOF and the bokeh. The longer the focal length the more compressed your background would become. This will enhance your bokeh. When you use a shorter focal length, you have greater DOF. Your background becomes more visible. Panning it would only produce some blur. Not as much as panning it with a longer lens...you get more blur.

Here is a shot with my Sigma 50 at 1/250sec. I doubt that using a slower shutter speed I could blur the background more, like my other shots up top.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.oneimagingp​hotography.com …e52#1197853707_​VfnVg-A-LB

Thank you all for your comments. They are much appreciated and surely an input to my understanding of panning and its procedures.

I guess I have to practice a lot more and get comfortable in every situation.

My first results, a couple of years ago, when I first tried the technique, were awesome - I mean, getting all those wonderful shots, like the Zytek pictured below, was a real surprise for a newbie - but now that I'm not always standing far away from cars, it gets tricky.

Maybe my 70-200mm is not to blame.

One thing I learned, though:

If you are further away from the car, regardless of speed, your panning movement tends to be smoother, your stance is easier to maintain and adjust, if necessary. In that situation you might get the chance to follow the car’s movement for a couple of seconds, and still shoot several shots (and then choose the ones you like).

When you're a couple of feet away from the roaring beast, you have, at least, to move your body a lot faster when it passes you, and that - if you don't take extra care – can cause some more vertical/uneven movement and blurred images. Am I right?

My first panning experiences were at Portimão, at a Le Mans Series event (the Zytek shot is one of several of that day). They were shot from the stands, following cars with my camera for a long period of time, as they passed through one of the longest straights.

When I started using the 70-200, I had obtained permission to get near the track, and tried to get really close to cars. Results weren’t that great then, and I now understand why!

"Practice makes perfect", and that’s probably the case here.

Thank you all!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/minijag/3913814​204/

minijag wrote in post #12297892
How do you solve the problem of having the car going through the corner and get it all focused?

Here’s an example of a poor shot (haven’t got any good one to post…yetops to illustrate my doubts.

You don't (and the Porsche isn't a poor shot)
If you want to show any sort of blurred background, it's impossible.
It's the laws of physics at work and essentially you've worked out the answer but don't understand the problem.

The problem is that you have different parts of the car/bike moving (rotating) at different rates through different planes in relation to your film plane (in digital terms, your sensor) during the exposure.

A far better explanation (with diagrams) of it is here https://photography-on-the.net …=487139&highlig​ht=how+can

Your shot of the Zytec is taken with the car moving through the same plane as the sensor.
No part of the car changes distance from the sensor, hence no rotational blur.

Here's a couple taken at 1/5 sec

Thank you very much for your answer.

And the link provided really helps to understand the problem!


Cheers.

Nuno