"Running" - Themed Thread Photo Challenge

ssracer wrote in post #8774686
I am far less capable when it comes to people...especially my two and a half year old. Here's one from this weekend where he was chasing some other kids in a circle...keeping up with the sporadic pattern was hard enough, then my lens has trouble keeping up with focus as he kept getting closer then further quite fast...

Now we're talking!!!!
Ok, so, first of all - what a gorgeous son you have Sean! So, are you using servo mode in these? I find it works with my 100-400L, but not so good with my other lenses. Instead, I use single shot, have the focus on the *button and pick a spot just in front of the subject to pre-focus on, and then "go for it" as they move through the in-focus zone. The accuracy needed then depends on the aperture I'm trying for. And that bit is what really challenges me!

yogestee wrote in post #8774710
Thanks Simon.. OK,,the gauntlet has been thrown down,,I'll take up the challenge..

Excellent! Looking forward to it.
Let's all improve together!

Thanks! I have tried both servo and single shot. I think I was actually in single shot here because I had been shooting still pics all day and didn't think to change it when they started runing. As much as I love my 50mm 1.8 II, focusing speed is not one of its better features...lol. I also use the * button for my AF.

ssracer wrote in post #8774774
Thanks! I have tried both servo and single shot. I think I was actually in single shot here because I had been shooting still pics all day and didn't think to change it when they started running. As much as I love my 50mm 1.8 II, focusing speed is not one of its better features...lol. I also use the * button for my AF.

What about the aperture? I can't access the EXIF on your shot, but I'm guessing it was around f/2? And I know what you mean about focus speed, and loving a 50mm lens - my 50mm is highly over-used, and I have a horrid feeling that the motor will die before I can afford to upgrade it....though I'm not sure the 50L is much quicker either...

Aperture was 2.8 on that shot and shutter speed was 1/250

ssracer wrote in post #8774863
Aperture was 2.8 on that shot and shutter speed was 1/250

Ouch! Very tricky to nail it on a moving 2 year-old! Next time, try the pre-focus method I mentioned, and if he's not bobbing his head up and down too much, try different aperture/exposure combos so we can see if there's a "magic ratio" for kids. And I'll do the same with my daughter, as soon as the current typhoon blows itself out.

skygod44 wrote in post #8775037
Ouch! Very tricky to nail it on a moving 2 year-old! Next time, try the pre-focus method I mentioned, and if he's not bobbing his head up and down too much, try different aperture/exposure combos so we can see if there's a "magic ratio" for kids. And I'll do the same with my daughter, as soon as the current typhoon blows itself out.

I would suggest that you're talking about a very different type of shot here, and that pre-focusing isn't going to help one bit in this scenario.

First, you're talking about a kid running toward you, I presume, and your focus point is somewhere just in front of him, and you have your magic finger poised on the shutter button, waiting for the kid to run through the focus window. So this is no longer a discussion of panning, showing motion, etc, as there is no way you'll get a panned shot here unless you wanted the background still and the kid blurry. Maybe I'm missing the possible artistic shot here, I just don't see anything useful out of that. So given that qualifier, there's no reason not to use a high enough shutter speed to just freeze the kid. Set it to 1/1000 and be done with any worry about motion. And then you only have focus to worry about. This problem is one of tracking the kid with the center focus point, and having a camera and lens that can keep up. I would hazard that this should be quite doable with reasonable pro-sumer equipment. I used to shoot dogs running straight at me with a 20D and 100-400 lens, and it worked perfectly fine. I'm sure the newer cameras are focusing faster than the 20D, and while the 100-400 is a good lens, it's not stellar fast.

On the other hand, if you're not talking about the kid running toward you, but instead he's running laterally such that you could conceive of panning, then rather than pre-focusing somewhere, you can certainly just track him with the center focus point, as usual, and try to get one of the "movement shots" this thread is about.

Dave

I was actually attempting to track him around his entire running circle, so panning was definitely in play. This just happened to be the only shot that came reasonably close enough to OK to keep. But I do understand your point.

tracknut wrote in post #8775164
I would suggest that you're talking about a very different type of shot here, and that pre-focusing isn't going to help one bit in this scenario..... Dave

Get what you're saying Dave, but I disagree that motion towards us means that freezing action is the only/best option.....

ssracer wrote in post #8775203
I was actually attempting to track him around his entire running circle, so panning was definitely in play. This just happened to be the only shot that came reasonably close enough to OK to keep. But I do understand your point.

.....what I'm suggesting, is that with kids (or most people/animals really) arms/legs tend to flap all over the place when they're running. And especially when they move towards us, the head should move less, relative to the arms/legs, as far as our position of view is concerned. So blurring arms/hands/legs could be much easier to achieve if the subject is moving towards us.
Thoughts?
Pics?

I guess my point would be that if the kid (or whatever) is coming toward you, and your interest is in keeping his head in focus, panning is not the solution. Zooming might be closer to the solution, but even still, the perspective is changing. So while the head may be steadier than the arms, it's still going to end up out of focus regardless of your mad skilz with the camera.

Dave

tracknut wrote in post #8777223
I guess my point would be that if the kid (or whatever) is coming toward you, and your interest is in keeping his head in focus, panning is not the solution. Zooming might be closer to the solution, but even still, the perspective is changing. So while the head may be steadier than the arms, it's still going to end up out of focus regardless of your mad skilz with the camera.
Dave

Very true.

Well, I'm stumped.
All I can think of doing is some dull maths using exposure times, distance from lens, and acceptable movement of limbs vs heads to retain some blur while keeping the head in focus enough.
And I never liked maths at school!

bride's idea... who am I to argue?

bric-a-brac wrote in post #8784244
bride's idea... who am I to argue?

That's clever. Posed, but clever!
So despite the lack of motion, the concept works.
Maybe you've got a new approach there, bric-a-brac!
(Well, not brand new, but worthy of experimentation!)
Thanks for adding....