We finally got a little bit of snow this winter, so I ran out for a few quick shots. R5 with RF 24-105mm f/4L, RF 70-200mm f/2.8L, Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and RF 50mm f/1.8:
Can't compete with the bird and wildlife coverage on here, but I enjoy seeing your work, everyone. I've had a couple of opportunities to shoot sports this season with my R5. Sharing a couple I've liked so far, shot with electronic shutter.
Very nice action, Drimer! Were you using face detect? In both photos, the focus seems to be on the basketball - and on #25 in the first photo as he is in the same plane of focus. That's the problem that Scott described here - to Canon, basketballs look like faces:
OSP2017 wrote:
Very nice action, Drimer! Were you using face detect? In both photos, the focus seems to be on the basketball - and on #25 in the first photo as he is in the same plane of focus. That's the problem that Scott described here - to Canon, basketballs look like faces:
The noise is also really excessive for ISO 3200. What noise reduction did you use?
---------------------------------------------
OSP2017 wrote:
ISO 8000 actually looks better than ISO 3200 above so it must be post processing. Never mind my comment - ISO 8000 looks great.
ISO 8000 is almost uncropped. Including the better frame of that scene, for focus on the UCLA player. I think eye tracking does better when eyes stay open, funny enough!
ISO 3200 is a 2400x3800 vertical crop from a horizontal image, raised by a full EV in post. Lightroom +20 noise reduction. My post-processing skills aren't the best, but that would be a lot for a 3200 full frame... cropped to a physical size not far from micro 4/3, at 6400 with the +1 EV boost, I think it makes more sense.
I use Eye-AF tracking, with the initial box selected by me. I used this setting for all of these. I think the biggest issue in the second frame is somewhat low acuity with the 1.4x TC on the 200mm at 280mm f/2.5, handheld. Was testing it out to see whether it made a difference over cropping in actual use.
I will look at that posting when I have time, but I do think that basketballs are easier to appear sharp than eyes (lower resolution appears sharp/contrasty for lines on the ball vs fine detail on a player's head). If the ball was the target, then the jerseys would likely be OOF. As it is, I think some of the eyes show motion blur near 1:1 (I think I should raise my shutter speeds on this pixel density when I can, in hindsight). I think the jerseys generally look pretty sharp. I sometimes handhold the 200mm (especially when I have the 400mm on the monopod) and that could hurt sharpness, too.
Attaching more samples, indicating roughly how much cropped. LR sharpening at 35. Dive photos were my first attempt, and my panning with falling divers could certainly improve.
nearly full frame
cropped and rotated to ~30MP
much better sharpness, almost full frame (image immediately before the frame I posted)
crop from horizontal to vertical, with 1/4 of image height removed
eyes definitely in focus, crop to vertical from horizontal
full frame
full frame
original cropped to 15MP, slight motion blur but accurate eye focus on a falling diver
drimer wrote:
ISO 8000 is almost uncropped. Including the better frame of that scene, for focus on the UCLA player. I think eye tracking does better when eyes stay open, funny enough!
ISO 3200 is a 2400x3800 vertical crop from a horizontal image, raised by a full EV in post. Lightroom +20 noise reduction. My post-processing skills aren't the best, but that would be a lot for a 3200 full frame... cropped to a physical size not far from micro 4/3, at 6400 with the +1 EV boost, I think it makes more sense.
I use Eye-AF tracking, with the initial box selected by me. I used this setting for all of these. I think the biggest issue in the second frame is somewhat low acuity with the 1.4x TC on the 200mm at 280mm f/2.5, handheld. Was testing it out to see whether it made a difference over cropping in actual use.
I will look at that posting when I have time, but I do think that basketballs are easier to appear sharp than eyes (lower resolution appears sharp/contrasty for lines on the ball vs fine detail on a player's head). If the ball was the target, then the jerseys would likely be OOF. As it is, I think some of the eyes show motion blur near 1:1 (I think I should raise my shutter speeds on this pixel density when I can, in hindsight). I think the jerseys generally look pretty sharp. I sometimes handhold the 200mm (especially when I have the 400mm on the monopod) and that could hurt sharpness, too.
Attaching more samples, indicating roughly how much cropped. LR sharpening at 35. Dive photos were my first attempt, and my panning with falling divers could certainly improve. ...Show more →
Thank you so much, Drimer, these all look great and the "8000 ISO" shot is indeed sharper. With basketball, the main challenge is shooting quick release jumpers when you need to swing the camera to the shooter. Was the #2 shot in your original post like that? Would the camera have enough time to acquire eye focus in this scenario? In your second post, players likely had the ball for some time and you could track them and focus properly. Same thing with football - if you need to quickly focus on a player and capture a catch, will the camera have enough time to use its wizardry and find the eyes under a helmet? I don't have any R5 experience but from the 1DX3 post I referenced, it doesn't look like I should be in any rush to upgrade my 1DX. For portraits and animal photography though, R5 looks like a definite winner.
OSP2017 wrote:
Thank you so much, Drimer, these all look great and the "8000 ISO" shot is indeed sharper. With basketball, the main challenge is shooting quick release jumpers when you need to swing the camera to the shooter. Was the #2 shot in your original post like that? Would the camera have enough time to acquire eye focus in this scenario? In your second post, players likely had the ball for some time and you could track them and focus properly. Same thing with football - if you need to quickly focus on a player and capture a catch, will the camera have enough time to use its wizardry and find the eyes under a helmet? I don't have any R5 experience but from the 1DX3 post I referenced, it doesn't look like I should be in any rush to upgrade my 1DX. For portraits and animal photography though, R5 looks like a definite winner.
I prefer the focusing to my 1Dx for most purposes. I think it’s fast/quick enough to drive most lenses as fast as they go. I have 20-30 year old V1 and older superteles. I imagine that with more recent glass it would be even better. Can’t fully say, since shooting in the stands means that I usually have enough time and distance to follow or predict the ball without too sharp of shifts to camera angle. AF lock is *almost* as fast as the 1Dx, but certainly MUCH stickier (no way the 1Dx would have gotten me as many keepers for dive). Shooting basketball again this weekend and will keep your question in mind.
Look closely at the rails behind the diver in my second post my final shot. Those skewed a bit, I think. But yeah, it impressed me how little distortion there was. Then again, the bird shots on here are almost all ES and even more demanding IMO. Besides that, some splotchy banding in a few basketball shots where artificial light bounces off the court. Ugly, but doesn’t get in the way of the subject and doesn’t happen too often. armd wrote:
All ES? No rolling shutter artifact?
