Question to 85L users

Is it just me, or is it easier to nail the focus on close up portraits (head and shoulders), than it is when shooting full body portraits?

When I shoot close ups, I always get the subjects eyes in perfect focus. However, when I shoot full body, my photos are often a little bit fuzzy, and the subjects face + eyes are not as sharp as in the close up shots.

Shouldn't it be the other way around?? (I mean, shouldn't it be easier to nail AF on full body shots?)

I always try to shoot at f/1.2 btw. Maybe thats a "bad aperture" for full body shots?

It is not you. It is easier to nail the focus on closer distances.

Do you recompose the shot? I always do that and sometimes it missed the focus because I turned the DOF a little.

Bonbridge wrote in post #16415608
It is not you. It is easier to nail the focus on closer distances.

Do you recompose the shot? I always do that and sometimes it missed the focus because I turned the DOF a little.

I have a 5D3 and I always use the outer x-type points, so the recomposing is very minimal.

But I guess the short delay between AF and shutter actuation might still cause some problems. That must be it..

Full body shot = face and eyes are smaller in relation to the whole frame = the perception of not as sharp compared to close up portrait as there are less pixels on target.

It has nothing to do with any specific lens.

kin2son wrote in post #16415650
Full body shot = face and eyes are smaller in relation to the whole frame = the perception of not as sharp compared to close up portrait.

It applies to all lens.

Ah, that actually makes sense. I did not think of that at all.

It feels like this mystery is beginning to be unravelled.

kin2son wrote in post #16415650
Full body shot = face and eyes are smaller in relation to the whole frame = the perception of not as sharp compared to close up portrait as there are less pixels on target.

This.

And regarding apertures for full body shots, I wouldn't use f/1.2 unless i really have to.

You'll never get the whole body in focus with f/1.2.

kin2son wrote in post #16415650
Full body shot = face and eyes are smaller in relation to the whole frame = the perception of not as sharp compared to close up portrait as there are less pixels on target.

It has nothing to do with any specific lens.

Resolution is what we're dealing with here. By the time you zoom in on a face in a full length shot, you're well past 100% zoom.

A full length shot with an 80 megapixel back will retain more resolution (and sharpness) when zoomed in to the face.

Osiriz wrote in post #16415731
This.

And regarding apertures for full body shots, I wouldn't use f/1.2 unless i really have to.

You'll never get the whole body in focus with f/1.2.

Maybe I'm not getting your statement correctly, but a loosely composed full body shot is when I am most likely to use f/1.2 because the DOF is enough to cover the entire subject.

If I'm shooting a tighter shot of just a face or upper torso + face then I will always be stopped down because at f/1.2 and such close framing the bulk of the subject will be outside the DOF.

Jeffrey, I can't really agree. When shooting full body at f/1.2, with active focus point placed on subjects face, her legs and feet always end up 'slightly' out of focus.

At least i.m.o, so perhaps we have different tolerances.

kin2son wrote in post #16415650
Full body shot = face and eyes are smaller in relation to the whole frame = the perception of not as sharp compared to close up portrait as there are less pixels on target.

It has nothing to do with any specific lens.

^^^ I'm not an 85/1.2 owner but I find this frustration sometimes from my 50/1.4 - I get some shots where I think it's absolute crap & there isn't a sharp, focus point anywhere & I think this could well be the reason.....!

Osiriz wrote in post #16416095
Jeffrey, I can't really agree. When shooting full body at f/1.2, with active focus point placed on subjects face, her legs and feet always end up 'slightly' out of focus.

At least i.m.o, so perhaps we have different tolerances.

this is about the eyes in focus per TS. Legs and feet oof isnt a big deal as eyes oof.

and to answer the TS, yes, it should be the other way around.

Osiriz wrote in post #16416095
Jeffrey, I can't really agree. When shooting full body at f/1.2, with active focus point placed on subjects face, her legs and feet always end up 'slightly' out of focus.

At least i.m.o, so perhaps we have different tolerances.

No, I think I get it now. At first is seemed like you were saying you would use f/1.2 for a tight portrait but not for a loose one.

So instead I gather that you basically just find f/1.2 to large an aperture for portraits because the DOF is too thin for you, even when the subject is loosely framed.

That's fine.....it probably also depends a lot on the output size. I find if I am horizontal and shooting full frame then the subject is within the DOF for my needs at f/1.2

Then again......these are both technically full body pictures and both are at f/1.2. The first one has the subject fully within the DOF, the second does not.....because the difference in framing is significant. I'm most likely to use f/1.2 for a shot like the first one.

^ Yup, that's what I meant. Tightly framed full body portraits. That's where I often get issues with some body parts being OOF.

I agree that the framing in your 1st photo is loose enough for f/1.2

Thanks for the answers everyone. Very informative!

Other factors:
- focus recompose issue - larger distance from centre of frame to eye for a full body portrait, compared to a headshot
-Canon's AF system works better for a clear target. An eye is much clearer than a small face in the frame. For a small face, the AF system sometimes confused between whether to focus on a nose or an ear or the edge of the head etc.