teddoman wrote:
1-3 yo was the hardest to photograph and video for me. Just walking all over the place in unpredictable ways. As the kids get older, they settle down into one sedentary activity at a time. Much easier to swoop in for a portrait shot then.
My Sigma 45 just arrived.
Yeah, it was so easy to shoot my baby while she was crawling and walking slow and wobbly but she is 15 months now and she is RUNNING all over the place and now I'm really seeing some weaknesses in the AF in my lenses.
bobby350z wrote:
OK, I only have Sigma 105mm f1.4 FE on my A7rIV and so far seems to work like a charm in AF-C mode. But I am not shooting running backs in a football game like back in the days.
I am looking at Sigma 28mm f1.4 DG Art for Sony, not sure how well the AF on that would be.
AF is pretty good on the Sigma 28 ART with my a7R III, but I'm sure native Sony 1.4 glass like the 24 GM is faster and more accurate, particularly at longer distances and in low light.
grahamgibson wrote:
Hah, totally agree. Once kids start moving at all it is hard to be distant enough for candid shots with an 85.
Can confirm. I was happy as a clam with my 85mm until my baby started running (which happened way faster than I anticipated). The lens is basically unusable at this point exactly because I can't establish/maintain enough distance from her when she is perpetually charging at me at full speed.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Respectfully disagree. My kid is 5 and eats a lot of sugar. AF-S is fine in decent light with the 45. Indoors at night, it does struggle a bit, so I just use MF mode for those situations.
Just get it. 45's awesome.
Well, to be honest it's the worst choice from available options for kids(AF-C), unless you always take photos from far away . If you can live with AF-S then I guess it's ok.
I think this lens has unique qualities, which have been demonstrated here, but fast & reliable AF is not one of them...
Jan 02, 2021 at 08:04 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
j4nu wrote:
Well, to be honest it's the worst choice from available options for kids(AF-C), unless you always take photos from far away . If you can live with AF-S then I guess it's ok.
I think this lens has unique qualities, which have been demonstrated here, but fast & reliable AF is not one of them...
Well, to be honest, I think your response doesn't take into consideration that people take photos of kids in a lot of different ways. AF-C is certainly a reasonable option that some might prefer, but that does not make it universally the best option. Just the best option for some who like to shoot that way. IMO, AF-S is also a reasonable option for some people if it suits their style of shooting. Personally, I find MF as the best option for my style of shooting so I am definitely an odd duck, but I find AF-C for me to be the worst choice of the available options for kids.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well, to be honest, I think your response doesn't take into consideration that people take photos of kids in a lot of different ways. AF-C is certainly a reasonable option that some might prefer, but that does not make it universally the best option. Just the best option for some who like to shoot that way. IMO, AF-S is also a reasonable option for some people if it suits their style of shooting. Personally, I find MF as the best option for my style of shooting so I am definitely an odd duck, but I find AF-C for me to be the worst choice of the available options for kids....Show more →
Why do you find AF-C the worst choice. I love AF-C with eye focus as it leave my attention on getting the expressions rather than worry about focus.
Jan 02, 2021 at 12:01 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
chez wrote:
Why do you find AF-C the worst choice. I love AF-C with eye focus as it leave my attention on getting the expressions rather than worry about focus.
It has to do with how I shoot. When I do portraits of kids, I have in my mind a composition that I am looking for based on the kids activity. I am predicting a scenario that will create the composition I want. With this approach I can pre-focus with MF, or focus as the kid comes into the composition I am creating with AF-S. With AF-C I find I lose attention to my preferred composition. I am in fact saying, should I take the shot now because it is close to what I want? How about now that is pretty close? I end up with a lot of fairly good shots, but fewer of the shots I really wanted when I use AF-C. Again this is just my style, but with my preferred style I know when to shoot because that is what I have set up in my head. With AF-C I am always wondering whether the shot is currently good enough and with my shooting that leads to a lot of fairly good, but very few excellent shots.
chez wrote:
Why do you find AF-C the worst choice. I love AF-C with eye focus as it leave my attention on getting the expressions rather than worry about focus.
I'm not an AF-C shooter, nor a people shooter (used to be, via MF film) ...
BUT, it would seem that AF-C with eye focus would be a good combination for "mild motion" in folks. Despite the amount of belly-achin' I hear from folks about the sky is falling from lack of AF-C performance, I'd think that if one is in an "intimate" setting (i.e. really watching for expressions, more than hyper movement environment), that even basic AF-C performance should stand a good chance of keeping up with that when mated with a responsive lens.
Sometimes I wonder if people are expecting too much from a given tool. I mean, there are lenses that are designed for speed (different gearing, different motors, multiple motors, different glass mass, etc.), and others that aren't. So, it just seems silly to me when folks complain about a Volkswagen not accelerating like a Ferrari.
Point being, I wouldn't throw out AF-C as under-performing, when using it with less responsive AF glass. Imo, that's an unrealistic expectation (i.e. weak link).
For static or slow moving subjects including kids, then either the old AF-S focus and recompose, or MF techniques works fine for me.
A more dynamic environment like kids actively playing and moving around quickly usually calls for AF-C in order to get the best results.
I also account for other things in the environment like backgrounds, need to isolate one in a number of subjects, and lighting issues, to select an effective focus area, tracking options, metering mode, aperture, shutter speed, and FPS.
The Sony system gives us lots of options in all of these parameters. We are also able to program our buttons and interface to suit our preferences, and provide a high level of agility in responding to changing environments. All of this with the goal of giving us a higher hit rate of critically sharp images, properly exposed, and composed the way we envision.
I want my equipment, including lenses, to maximize the performance of the Sony system. Yes, there are specialty lenses that I am willing to give up something like focus speed in favor of other capabilities. But, for an all purpose lens I see no reason to accept substandard AF-C focus speed when there are choices that don't have this kind of compromise.
If I have a specific use case in mind such as photographing the lives and activities of my children, I would not choose a lens with low AF-C performance. That would not help me maximize my system as a tool to accomplish my goals.
1bwana1 wrote:
But, for an all purpose lens I see no reason to accept substandard AF-C focus speed when there are choices that don't have this kind of compromise.
If I have a specific use case in mind such as photographing the lives and activities of my children, I would not choose a lens with low AF-C performance. That would not help me maximize my system as a tool to accomplish my goals.
This ^
If one's goal is rendering style, then get a lens that has that rendering style.
If one's goal is the "need for speed", then get a lens that is built for speed.
When it comes to photographing family memories ... rendering style will be pretty low (imo) on the priority list when evoking those memories of years ago from the pics. For creating "art" works, rendering can be much more important to folks, but when chasing fleeting moments ... ummm, a lens that is responsive is likely the (prioritized) tool of choice.
Finding a fast one, that renders the way you like ... you've just won the lottery.
Jan 02, 2021 at 12:40 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
1bwana1 wrote:
For me it depends on the situation.
For static or slow moving subjects including kids, then either the old AF-S focus and recompose, or MF techniques works fine for me.
A more dynamic environment like kids actively playing and moving around quickly usually calls for AF-C in order to get the best results.
I also account for other things in the environment like backgrounds, need to isolate one in a number of subjects, and lighting issues, to select an effective focus area, tracking options, metering mode, aperture, shutter speed, and FPS.
The Sony system gives us lots of options in all of these parameters. We are also able to program our buttons and interface to suit our preferences, and provide a high level of agility in responding to changing environments. All of this with the goal of giving us a higher hit rate of critically sharp images, properly exposed, and composed the way we envision.
I want my equipment, including lenses, to maximize the performance of the Sony system. Yes, there are specialty lenses that I am willing to give up something like focus speed in favor of other capabilities. But, for an all purpose lens I see no reason to accept substandard AF-C focus speed when there are choices that don't have this kind of compromise.
If I have a specific use case in mind such as photographing the lives and activities of my children, I would not choose a lens with low AF-C performance. That would not help me maximize my system as a tool to accomplish my goals....Show more →
We are talking here about the Sigma 45 f/2.8 and that lens, for me, is about the rendering it produces and it is definitely not an all purpose lens. I would never get the lens as an all purpose lens, but I am happy I got the lens for its distinctive rendering, and I am willing to put up with compromises to get that, and I have not seen another lens that will give me that rendering without the compromises in AF-C performance. Some have speculated it is exactly what creates the rendering, under corrected SA, that cause the difficulties with AF-C. I don't know if that is true, but I do know that you can't just pick another lens with the same rendering and without AF-C issues.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well, to be honest, I think your response doesn't take into consideration that people take photos of kids in a lot of different ways. AF-C is certainly a reasonable option that some might prefer, but that does not make it universally the best option. Just the best option for some who like to shoot that way. IMO, AF-S is also a reasonable option for some people if it suits their style of shooting. Personally, I find MF as the best option for my style of shooting so I am definitely an odd duck, but I find AF-C for me to be the worst choice of the available options for kids....Show more →
Yes, you're right - I took it for granted that this kind of photography means minimal posing and no guarantee that your subject will remain still for that second at least needed for AF-S to kick in... To me, the most efficient way is eyeAF-C, where I can simply hold focus button and fire the shutter away when the time is right.
Of course, that's because of my uncooperative kids, but a 6 month old will inadvertently twitch a bit rather than pose ...
That's not to say I don't see a place for MF in this kind of shots (one of my favorite shots was taken on CV65), but as an exception rather than the rule (i.e. not for daily snaps) ... The thing is, MF can be less frustrating than either AF-C (unreliable) or AF-S (too slow) on the Sigma (that's my experience only of course)...
Steve Spencer wrote:
We are talking here about the Sigma 45 f/2.8 and that lens, for me, is about the rendering it produces and it is definitely not an all purpose lens. I would never get the lens as an all purpose lens, but I am happy I got the lens for its distinctive rendering, and I am willing to put up with compromises to get that, and I have not seen another lens that will give me that rendering without the compromises in AF-C performance. Some have speculated it is exactly what creates the rendering, under corrected SA, that cause the difficulties with AF-C. I don't know if that is true, but I do know that you can't just pick another lens with the same rendering and without AF-C issues....Show more →
+1
Right tool for the job.
Just like you don't choose a wide paint brush for fine detail. If you like the broad brush strokes, you pick the broad brush. If you want / need the fine detail, you pick a different brush. How wide, how narrow, how long, how short, how soft, how stiff ... well, you get the gist.
It seems that the very attribute that provides the rendering seems to be counter-productive to the technical need for the body to yield better functioning AF-C performance.
I've long thought of lenses as "brushes" as it pertains to drawing style(s). The painter knows the difference in his / her brushes. Should we (drawing with light) think differently regarding our brushes (lenses). The brush one chooses for "slap & go" painting, is different from the one you use for specific artisan applications.
Looking for a fountain pen technical precision in a brush with a soft finish seems a bit folly.
Folks seem to think that every lens should be able to do all things well, at the same time for all applications. If that were true, there would only be one lens, one brush and one nib.
Steve Spencer wrote:
We are talking here about the Sigma 45 f/2.8 and that lens, for me, is about the rendering it produces and it is definitely not an all purpose lens. I would never get the lens as an all purpose lens, but I am happy I got the lens for its distinctive rendering, and I am willing to put up with compromises to get that, and I have not seen another lens that will give me that rendering without the compromises in AF-C performance. Some have speculated it is exactly what creates the rendering, under corrected SA, that cause the difficulties with AF-C. I don't know if that is true, but I do know that you can't just pick another lens with the same rendering and without AF-C issues....Show more →
We are in agreement. I have the same reasoning when I bring out my CV 40mm f/1.2. I willingly give up AF entirely for rendering that I love. Of course, there are MF techniques that work pretty well even for active subjects like children. Great images of this type were made for many decades prior to the advent of AF of any kind.
Jan 02, 2021 at 04:00 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
j4nu wrote:
Yes, you're right - I took it for granted that this kind of photography means minimal posing and no guarantee that your subject will remain still for that second at least needed for AF-S to kick in... To me, the most efficient way is eyeAF-C, where I can simply hold focus button and fire the shutter away when the time is right.
Of course, that's because of my uncooperative kids, but a 6 month old will inadvertently twitch a bit rather than pose ...
That's not to say I don't see a place for MF in this kind of shots (one of my favorite shots was taken on CV65), but as an exception rather than the rule (i.e. not for daily snaps) ... The thing is, MF can be less frustrating than either AF-C (unreliable) or AF-S (too slow) on the Sigma (that's my experience only of course)......Show more →
Just to be clear, when I am talking about my shots I am not talking about posing. My son does not sit still really at all. I have exactly zero posed shots that I have taken of him. He is in constant motion. That doesn't mean, however, that I like AF-C any better. As I said, what I actually do is predict where he is going to go and design my composition around that prediction, which is not the same thing as posing at all. Let me give some examples:
In the first one below my son was six. He was throwing stones in the water at the beach and every third stone he would look back at me proud of how far he threw it. He was bopping around and his hands were in constant movement (note they are cropped out of this shot and that was done for a reason). Now I line up the sun so that it would aid the composition and I prefocused to where he would turn around. When he did I just snapped the shot with the composition I wanted. Because I was prefocused and had the composition set up exactly the way I wanted to I could simply concentrate on getting the smile he was flashing in his pride for throwing stones.
In the second one below my son was climbing trees in a park. I knew he would be coming up to a place with a fork in the tree. I prefocussed on where I knew he would emerge as he climbed and set up the composition using the break in the trees with a background I liked. Then as he emerged I just had to focus on getting a good expression and timing the shot properly.
The third one below is from a younger age (he was three almost four). In this pictures he was playing with an older cousin and having lots of fun popping bubbles. It was easy to prefocus and no where he was going to go because I knew he was going to go to a particularly big bubble and pop it. All I had to do was focus on the bubble and wait for him to move over to it. I tried to set up a composition I liked and then just had to time the expression of joy as he popped the bubble.
Ok, one last one. This one he was four and we were at a Christmas market. He had been given the red nose as we walked around and was having a lot of fun playing with it. When this picture was taken he had just figured out how to put it on and was very happy he could do it. This shot I actually used AF-S and focused just as he dropped his hand from putting on the red nose. I had set up the composition I wanted and just had to concentrate on focussing as he dropped his hand and then capturing his happy expression. He was moving but not back and forth, so AF-S worked fine.
All this is just to show that different people can shoot in very different ways. I doubt you shoot the way I do, but for me MF works well and I can use AF-S well too, and the way I shoot I would much rather not have AF-C as I prefer to have both the composition and the focus set ahead of time, so I can focus on other things when I time my shooting. I am not saying this way of shooting is the way to go for anyone other than me, but I do question the assumption that AF-C is the default best way to shoot kids photos for everyone. If it suits you style great, but I bristle when people express what works for them will automatically be best for everyone.
An intriguing aspect of the near future for enthusiasts is the ease and availability of assembling a kit of small inexpensive special purpose lenses, each selected to produce what is needed in the photographer's artistic development trajectory.
For others, constant talk of autofocus speed and accuracy, ease of carry and connectivity takes precedence. A vertical 'artistic quality' bifurcation is occurring in the mainstream. The manufacturers will serve the interests of both groups in the near future, instead of only one.
Fine art photography will rise again as an art form counterpoised against the base level phone/vlogger cam output, and it will dovetail into what is left after the phones have decimated the mainstream and driven casual camera-based photography downwards to levels still very acceptable to most.
A smaller but more responsive industry sector for the aficionados will grow. People will shoot fewer frames but enjoy the shot-making and output much more. No one should fear a smaller photographic industry for these reasons. It's a natural outgrowth of the small camera revolution, and it takes time in a very complex environment.
Jan 02, 2021 at 04:09 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Those are wonderful. I also bristle when people say "you can't" when using MF lenses, etc, because - obviously - you can. It just requires a different technique. I think you and I shoot in similar ways. I use AF-S with a half-press (or MF) to pre-focus, and then wait for the moment to shoot. It works for me and I won't tell anyone else that they *should* shoot my way, but I've been pretty successfully shooting kids with MF lenses and the Sigma 45C for a while now, so I get frustrated with people constantly saying that it doesn't work.
Yeeesh!!
Happy New Year, all!!
Steve Spencer wrote:
Just to be clear, when I am talking about my shots I am not talking about posing. My son does not sit still really at all. I have exactly zero posed shots that I have taken of him. He is in constant motion. That doesn't mean, however, that I like AF-C any better. As I said, what I actually do is predict where he is going to go and design my composition around that prediction, which is not the same thing as posing at all. Let me give some examples:
In the first one below my son was six. He was throwing stones in the water at the beach and every third stone he would look back at me proud of how far he threw it. He was bopping around and his hands were in constant movement (note they are cropped out of this shot and that was done for a reason). Now I line up the sun so that it would aid the composition and I prefocused to where he would turn around. When he did I just snapped the shot with the composition I wanted. Because I was prefocused and had the composition set up exactly the way I wanted to I could simply concentrate on getting the smile he was flashing in his pride for throwing stones.
In the second one below my son was climbing trees in a park. I knew he would be coming up to a place with a fork in the tree. I prefocussed on where I knew he would emerge as he climbed and set up the composition using the break in the trees with a background I liked. Then as he emerged I just had to focus on getting a good expression and timing the shot properly.
The third one below is from a younger age (he was three almost four). In this pictures he was playing with an older cousin and having lots of fun popping bubbles. It was easy to prefocus and no where he was going to go because I knew he was going to go to a particularly big bubble and pop it. All I had to do was focus on the bubble and wait for him to move over to it. I tried to set up a composition I liked and then just had to time the expression of joy as he popped the bubble.
Ok, one last one. This one he was four and we were at a Christmas market. He had been given the red nose as we walked around and was having a lot of fun playing with it. When this picture was taken he had just figured out how to put it on and was very happy he could do it. This shot I actually used AF-S and focused just as he dropped his hand from putting on the red nose. I had set up the composition I wanted and just had to concentrate on focussing as he dropped his hand and then capturing his happy expression. He was moving but not back and forth, so AF-S worked fine.
All this is just to show that different people can shoot in very different ways. I doubt you shoot the way I do, but for me MF works well and I can use AF-S well too, and the way I shoot I would much rather not have AF-C as I prefer to have both the composition and the focus set ahead of time, so I can focus on other things when I time my shooting. I am not saying this way of shooting is the way to go for anyone other than me, but I do question the assumption that AF-C is the default best way to shoot kids photos for everyone. If it suits you style great, but I bristle when people express what works for them will automatically be best for everyone....Show more →
imagesfromobjects wrote:
I use AF-S with a half-press (or MF) to pre-focus, and then wait for the moment to shoot.
That's how I tend to roll (AF-S or MF).
Subject moves a lot, then another 1/2 press to keep in the ballpark. Imo, as long as you're close, the amount of adjustment the camera has to make at capture is within its realm of capabilities.
I tried using AF-C on hummingbirds, and found I was most effective with AF-S and 1/2 press method. Of course, a diff body / lens combo might yield something different too.
Unfortunately, the URL format doesn't play well with google's page translate app. Anyone got a little more experience in this area? Few nice images showcasing rendering—though obviously more edited than would be ideal for assessing lens performance. Here are the bokeh shots
Steve Spencer wrote:
Just to be clear, when I am talking about my shots I am not talking about posing. My son does not sit still really at all. I have exactly zero posed shots that I have taken of him. He is in constant motion. That doesn't mean, however, that I like AF-C any better. As I said, what I actually do is predict where he is going to go and design my composition around that prediction, which is not the same thing as posing at all. Let me give some examples:
In the first one below my son was six. He was throwing stones in the water at the beach and every third stone he would look back at me proud of how far he threw it. He was bopping around and his hands were in constant movement (note they are cropped out of this shot and that was done for a reason). Now I line up the sun so that it would aid the composition and I prefocused to where he would turn around. When he did I just snapped the shot with the composition I wanted. Because I was prefocused and had the composition set up exactly the way I wanted to I could simply concentrate on getting the smile he was flashing in his pride for throwing stones.
In the second one below my son was climbing trees in a park. I knew he would be coming up to a place with a fork in the tree. I prefocussed on where I knew he would emerge as he climbed and set up the composition using the break in the trees with a background I liked. Then as he emerged I just had to focus on getting a good expression and timing the shot properly.
The third one below is from a younger age (he was three almost four). In this pictures he was playing with an older cousin and having lots of fun popping bubbles. It was easy to prefocus and no where he was going to go because I knew he was going to go to a particularly big bubble and pop it. All I had to do was focus on the bubble and wait for him to move over to it. I tried to set up a composition I liked and then just had to time the expression of joy as he popped the bubble.
Ok, one last one. This one he was four and we were at a Christmas market. He had been given the red nose as we walked around and was having a lot of fun playing with it. When this picture was taken he had just figured out how to put it on and was very happy he could do it. This shot I actually used AF-S and focused just as he dropped his hand from putting on the red nose. I had set up the composition I wanted and just had to concentrate on focussing as he dropped his hand and then capturing his happy expression. He was moving but not back and forth, so AF-S worked fine.
All this is just to show that different people can shoot in very different ways. I doubt you shoot the way I do, but for me MF works well and I can use AF-S well too, and the way I shoot I would much rather not have AF-C as I prefer to have both the composition and the focus set ahead of time, so I can focus on other things when I time my shooting. I am not saying this way of shooting is the way to go for anyone other than me, but I do question the assumption that AF-C is the default best way to shoot kids photos for everyone. If it suits you style great, but I bristle when people express what works for them will automatically be best for everyone....Show more →
Yes, so I think it's fair to say it ultimately boils down to what one uderstands by this kind of photos.
For me, it's spontaneous, following-action candid shots, which means less time for preparation and careful framing and rather "going with the flow" where snappy AF makes or breaks the photo. That's why I enjoy what Sony offers with its eyeAF-C .
Your photos are great but they all also show a smile and eyes on the camera in every one of them, a luxury I rarely get to experience . All those points also reinforce my intial statement of Sigma 45 not being that great for kids, as they show you are kind of forced into using the camera in a different way (for me of course, because that's not how I usually shoot).
I think there is no right or wrong here, just different. AF-S/prefocus/MF/focus trap approach yields spectacular photos if you can actually get one in focus, while AF-C allows you to take more shots and reflect the chaos kids bring into everything they do . I don't want to derail this thread anymore with my rambings, so I'll close with 2 recent examples (barely any colors as it was super overcast, like most of the last month) from AF-C Sigma45 and 1 MF from CV65:
. If you can live with AF-S then I guess it's ok.
