Reason for the blur?

To me it feels like a combination: missed focus and motion blur.

I'm totally guessing, but I think that there are several sequences with "some time" between frames. If this were careful culling after-the-fact then I would assume fewer pictures posted. If this were fast-burst capture, then I would assume more pictures posted...? So I'm guessing that it's click-pause-click-pause-click.

I'm further guessing that the OP is holding the shutter at half-position with focus tracking while framing each shot. And this has to be AI-servo for that to work. With the focus tracking and prediction (by the camera), it seems to me to be a little bit of missed focus. The camera is good, but not perfect is capturing a moving subject with perfect focus. I've done this many times myself and this looks similar.

Also, and totally separate, it looks to me like very distinct motion blur. I'm looking at post #7 from "nardes" and noticing the earring from runner #6. Even after the Topaz correction, you can still see motion blur very distinctly on her shoulders.

The only suggestion I have is to have short bursts for capture. Not just a spray-and-pray, but press-c-c-c-click. The 7DII will capture at 10fps with autofocus. When there is a chance for motion blur, and with the physical mechanics by the photographer and camera, often times I find that one of the three or four frames will be sharper than the others. And it's often not the first in that sequence.

Of course, Troy could have already done this and the point is moot...

Great suggestions. I appreciate the insight.

I generally am not a hammer down, spray N pray shooter. I had about 5 frames from this finish and the first couple were in focus and the last 2 or so were the ones where focus was lost.

.
There is simply no way that subject motion is any part of the reason for the blurriness.

1/1600th of a second is way more than enough shutter speed to completely freeze those runners in their tracks. . In fact, I have no doubt that 1/320th of a second would have frozen them into perfect sharpness, if the proper focus had been acquired.

I also think that 100 ISO was actually the right choice for this image.

Why? . Because it is a nasty, distracting background, so you wouldn't want to shoot it with any more depth of field than what was necessary to get the near runner in perfect focus and the far runner close to perfect focus. . And it looks like the aperture of 3.5 that the OP shot it at sould have provided sufficient depth of field to accomplish that. . So, there was absolutely no need for any more shutter speed, a smaller aperture would have made the background worse, and the exposure looks perfect ..... so why use a higher ISO setting?


.

In post #7 ... in the original ... examine her right shoulder, chin area ... pretty sharp. Now examine the nose and just below bottom lip area ... more blurred. Even more obvious, examine her earring ... a linear blur. Missed focus would produce a consistent softness. We are looking at motion blur.

texkam wrote in post #19024784
Even more obvious, examine her earring ... a linear blur.

That's two earrings, which happen to line up with the direction of motion.

Even if it's two, it is, as you state, motion blur.

Fine... shoot at 1/4000... because that is the problem. Shutter speed was too slow...... you know have a couple of options here.

texkam wrote in post #19025110
Even if it's two, it is, as you state, motion blur.

If you mean me, I didn't state it was motion blur. What I intended and may not have said clearly enough is that the two earrings possibly give a false impression of motion blur by looking like one earring sliding past the shutter during exposure, because they align with the subject's direction of movement.

.
Anyone who thinks it is motion blur clearly has little to no experience shooting moving mammals at a wide variety of shutter speeds. . It simply CANNOT be motion blur. . No chance in freaking hell. . Anyone who knows what they're talking about would see that in a heartbeat. . Sheesh. . Poor guy comes here for viable critique and trouble-shooting and he gets a bunch of bad, inaccurate info. . I feel for him.

.

You don’t use f10 in sports photography. You use the largest aperture possible so as to isolate the athlete from the background.
Usain Bolt runs at 27.8 mph. These two ladies are nowhere near running at that speed. A shutter speed of 1/1600 is more that enough to freeze the action.

After doing a bit of research, a good finishing-time for the 3200 metres race seems to be in the region of 9 minutes, that equates to an average speed of 13mph. At 13mph a shutter speed of 1/1600 of a second is more than enough to freeze any movement and eliminate any camera shake, or bad panning technique for that matter.

If the athlete was running at 13mph then in 1/1600 of a second the earring would move 3.6mm.

A good time for HS girls is more in the 11:15 area so not as fast as 9 minutes

Really? We're going to go there? We're going to question the level of experience of shooters on this forum? My first published shot was in 1974 for the Louisville Courier Journal (https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/The_Courier-Journal) It was of moving mammals (football). My Dad was a Pulitzer winning photographer. My sister shoots moving mammals in the form of University of Louisville sports and Thoroughbred racing for the Associated Press, so as a family we've had a pretty high level of photographic technical critiquing between us. I'm betting this forum has some shooters with even more impressive expertise as well. So how bout we kindly refrain from calling any of our good member's level of expertise into question.

.
I stand by what I said. . If anyone thinks that the OP's shot isn't sharp due to motion blur, then they have no idea what they are talking about. . 'Nuff said.

Running deer 1/500th of a second, I can zoom in to 100% view and see individual hairs:

Great shot Tom. Perhaps the OP may not have been as steady of hand as you. Camera shake is indeed motion, and is different than missed focus. No one still is able to address the evidence I presented.

Given my skill level, I probably just missed...!