[Larrymc]

No contrast edges on the goose body but you can clearly see that the reflection in the water has contrast edges. The goose was never in focus and the camera just executed a shutter actuation because you pressed the shutter release. What settings were you using? Look at your first frame action in AF.C make sure its set to Focus-priority not Release-priority likewise check your Action in AF.C Cont. setting make sure its in Focus-priority not Release-priority. Also check Hold AF Status and either set it to off or Low in this situation. Also like others have said get off of f/2.8 to f/5.6 or higher. Using f/2.8 in this situation will likely always result in this sort of result.

[sebberry]

I did have it set to release priority for AFC with the thinking that it can miss a couple of frames while it sorts out the focus.

Thanks everyone for the input. I still need to figure out how to figure out the focus modes for different scenes I've got other stationary bird shots where it seems the pebbles a foot closer than the bird are what are in focus. AF fine tuning the lens though has it capturing sharp images so I don't know what is going on there. I also think the 50-135 is just one of those lenses that is only sharp using the center/spot focus point. Any other points and it's OOF

[filmmaster]

Manual focus cannot be beat... the autofocus is fine for stationary stuff.. but for moving things keep to manual.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Manual focus cannot be beat... the autofocus is fine for stationary stuff.. but for moving things keep to manual.

Sure it is

[Joetitch]

The lazy person option is to only use the 85 soft focus lense and say it is artistic intent 😁

[K2 to K50]

This is getting frustrating.

Snapped a series of photos of this Goose coming in for a landing. The first couple of shots were somewhat in focus, but not great, and then it went downhill.

Two photos attached, the OOF photo of the landing, and a cell phone photo from the back of the camera showing the focus point it selected.

Any thoughts on why the camera just can't sort itself out?

AF-C, EXM, 50-135, 1/1000, 2.8, ISO1600

Certainly keep the Aperture at 5.6 or higher.
Regardless of light conditions, for birds in flight keep the shutter speed at at least 1/1600 (I have decided to keep it at 1/2000s but then I am shooting with the monster lens - 150-450mmm)
In spite of the K3 iii's excellent high ISO capabilities, I cap the ISO for most outdoor, and for all birds in flight, at 2500.
And when, inevitably, I get some underexposed shots, if they are worth it, I fix that in PP.

And always check that you haven't accidentally pushed the joy stick and unknowingly moved the focus point. I have done that before!!!

[BigMackCam]

I figured there should be enough DOF for at least the body of the bird to be in focus. If the wingtips were OOF, then I'd have been happy with that. Nothing was in focus, and as we can see in the camera preview, the focus was on the bird. It wasn't very far away, those aren't cropped shots.

The thing to bear in mind is, AF isn't perfect - it will miss occasionally, to varying degrees of severity, or it will lock on to a part of the image you didn't want. That, plus release priority, plus a relatively slow-focusing lens, may all have contributed here.

[c.a.m]

Any thoughts on why the camera just can't sort itself out?

I'll suggest several possible causes.

The environmental conditions were challenging, with overcast sky, low contrast and light fog. Furthermore, the Canada Goose presented a relatively low-contrast target against the water. A mature Canada Goose has a head-to-tail length of 80-100 cm and it has a large body, so it's possible that the AF points were looking entirely at low-contrast patches on the bird; the phase-detection AF might have been struggling. Using the SEL-3 Expanded Area (M) mode, the 'helper' AF points could have been looking at other similar patches on the bird or on the surrounding water.

Regarding depth of field, an aperture of f/2.8 could have been okay depending on the distance to the target. It looks like the bird landed near the shore, and we might estimate that you were fairly close. A distance of 5 meters, FL 100mm, and f/2.8 presents a DoF of only plus/minus 13 cm in front of or behind the focal plane -- not a lot of wiggle room. At a target distance of 10 meters, the DoF would have been +/- 50 cm.

I also have the DA* 50-135, converted to screwdrive. It's not the fastest lens in terms of AF, but it's not terrible. However, I could believe that it might have had trouble keeping up with the camera's AF commands. I think there's a small amount of 'slop' in the gear train, by design.

- Craig

[normhead]

The advantages of shooting in good light cannot be overstated.

[Larrymc]

Manual focus cannot be beat... the autofocus is fine for stationary stuff.. but for moving things keep to manual.

What????

[normhead]

Manual focus cannot be beat... the autofocus is fine for stationary stuff.. but for moving things keep to manual.

All AF








So, let's see some MF that beats them.

[Larrymc]

I did have it set to release priority for AFC with the thinking that it can miss a couple of frames while it sorts out the focus.

Thanks everyone for the input. I still need to figure out how to figure out the focus modes for different scenes I've got other stationary bird shots where it seems the pebbles a foot closer than the bird are what are in focus. AF fine tuning the lens though has it capturing sharp images so I don't know what is going on there. I also think the 50-135 is just one of those lenses that is only sharp using the center/spot focus point. Any other points and it's OOF

Additional thoughts, I have found that Back Button Auto Focus (BBAF) works best in these sorts of situations. You might also consider "Bumping the focus" by tracking the bird in the viewfinder with the Back Button depressed and after a small amount of time releasing the Back Button and pressing it again to reacquire focus, that technique works for me when I'm tracking an object for an extended period of time.

[luftfluss]

All AF








So, let's see some MF that beats them.

I really like that gray jay photo - it's terrific.


Those kinds of shots aren't too tough for manual focus...





















For the most part, these are tethered or predictable fliers where if you are prepared and attentive you have a decent chance of success with manual focus. It's when your subjects are fast-moving and unpredictable that autofocus is almost a necessity, IMO.

[normhead]

I really like that gray jay photo - it's terrific.


Those kinds of shots aren't too tough for manual focus...





















For the most part, these are tethered or predictable fliers where if you are prepared and attentive you have a decent chance of success with manual focus. It's when your subjects are fast-moving and unpredictable that autofocus is almost a necessity, IMO.

I have some images taken with my A-400 in MF. I'm not opposed to it. But in my experience, I'll have a lot more to choose from with AF. But, in support of your argument, I'd point out, what helped me get the images I posted, was familiarity with MF technique. IMHO everyone should learn it.

But, in terms of having a choice of images to post, I probably get 5-10 AF images where I might get one with MF.

Great job with the MF images by the way...
Also a great testament to the concept that learning to use your gear is more important than the gear you use.

I really like that gray jay photo - it's terrific.

Product of the "hide a piece of yellow cheese in the tree branches and prefocus just beyond the cheese and clone it out after" technique. AF works much better if you understand where to prefocus. And often I prefocus manually before letting the AF do it's thing.

If I've notice anything shooting beside shooters who rely completely on the camera's AF for target acquisition, it's that I've often fired off 4 -8 frames before their camera locks onto the target.

[sebberry]

I really like that gray jay photo - it's terrific.


Those kinds of shots aren't too tough for manual focus...

For the most part, these are tethered or predictable fliers where if you are prepared and attentive you have a decent chance of success with manual focus. It's when your subjects are fast-moving and unpredictable that autofocus is almost a necessity, IMO.

Your BIF pics are excellent! I've taken several hundred so far and I don't think I've had even a handful come out like that.

---------- Post added 01-24-22 at 08:37 AM ----------

I also have the DA* 50-135, converted to screwdrive. It's not the fastest lens in terms of AF, but it's not terrible. However, I could believe that it might have had trouble keeping up with the camera's AF commands. I think there's a small amount of 'slop' in the gear train, by design.

Thanks for your insight. My 50-135 is also converted to screwdrive and I have observed what I believe to be a little more play in the focus system than ideal. What's interesting though is I can dial in AF fine tuning for a repeatable sharp image at home, then I go out to take photos and it's got a mind of its own.

I'm wondering if it's worth having the SDM repaired for a 3rd time if there's less slop/more accuracy in that.