[stevebrot]

Imagine if I had to shoot 300-400 kids with this camera. I would have to use the old Focus-and-Recompose 300-400 times !

The last time I sat for a photo in that sort of situation, the photographer was fully tethered and using live-view CDAF with a touch screen. Missed focus is detected immediately and re-shot. I grinned a little when reading the above because the traditional school portrait shooter from way back would have been using a Mamiya press or Koni-Omega with 70mm bulk back and pre-focus. Retakes two weeks after the packets go out.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Funny thing is the shot appears to be misfocussed - isn't focus just in front of the cyclist?

I believe focus is on the guard rail and was probably manually pre-focussed to that point and was probably not taken with the D500


Steve

[clackers]

BTW: widespread af-points are 100% possible.
link > https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Nikon-D500-Viewfinder-Coverage.jpg

The Nikon D500 is not a FF camera, Camyum.

It is cropped (APS-C).

When you put that same AF module in a full frame camera - let's say the Nikon D5 - this is what you get:



And the '153 AF points' is a bit of an illusion, since you can only pick 55 of them, and if you have a lens slower than f4, suddenly availability of cross points drops to this, because the ones on the outside are not as good:



If you go mirrorless, they either lack the PDAF module altogether, or are forced to use up existing pixels on the sensor, which are compromises.

[hjoseph7]

The Canon 6D Mark II focusing points, check out the large gap between the edge and the nearest focusing points. This can be a PITA when it comes to Sports.

---------- Post added 08-21-17 at 07:18 AM ----------

The last time I sat for a photo in that sort of situation, the photographer was fully tethered and using live-view CDAF with a touch screen. Missed focus is detected immediately and re-shot. I grinned a little when reading the above because the traditional school portrait shooter from way back would have been using a Mamiya press or Koni-Omega with 70mm bulk back and pre-focus. Retakes two weeks after the packets go out.


Steve

Actually when I first started we used Pentax k1000 and then the Pentax LX with Kodak Gold ASA100 135mm film. We used 2 or 3 Norman flash heads with power pack and and a few umbrellas and backdrops, but that's about it. Later on we switched to digital and began using the Canon 30D and then 40D. We shot indoors and outdoors so rugged equipment that would last was more important than sophistication.

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by hjoseph7; 08-21-2017 at 03:45 PM.

[Dan Rentea]

Gub a few years ago I use to shoot Middle school and Highs School youth portraits. It was more like assembly line photography and didn't lead to much creativity. Usually the kids were about the same height with some variations. With the camera held vertically on a tripod, I would place the outer edge of the focusing point on my subjects eyes and fire away. Of course some kids were much taller or shorter than the other kids so I had to make accommodations to keep that lone focusing point on the subjects eyes, because when it comes to portraiture once the eyes are out of focus the whole portrait is shot. Lucky for me my K-5 IIs also has this outer focusing point that I can select and when the camera is held vertically I can place over a subjects eyes. However not all cameras have this outer focusing point. Look at the new canon 6D Mark II. I would never buy a camera like that because of the focusing points. Although Canon boasts that the camera has 41 or whatever focusing points they are all bunched up in the middle leaving a huge gap between the edge of the frame and the nearest focusing point. Imagine if I had to shoot 300-400 kids with this camera. I would have to use the old Focus-and-Recompose 300-400 times !

I shoot portraits and not with 6D Mark II, but with the older model which is 6D. It doesn't have 45 af points, it has 11. I'm not using the center and recompose af technique for portraits and I use lenses like 135mm f2L, at f2 or f2.8. The DOF is so little at f2 and 135mm and because of the DOF, shooting handheld using the focus and recompose technique would give me lots of images out of focus. What you're describing is quite easy to achieve, especially if you have a tripod with you and a 35mm or a 50mm lens. Having outer focusing point helps more at tracking. For static subjects you can deal with the most basic af system.

Below are some portraits using the basic af from 6D and lenses from 35mm to 200mm. None of them were taken using the center af point and recompose. You have to download the image to see it at a bigger resolution.



---------- Post added 08-21-17 at 01:34 PM ----------

The Canon 6D Mark II focusing points, check out the large gap between the edge and the nearest focusing points. This can be a PITA when it comes to Sports.

Are these fast enough subjects for you? Because I have tons of images like those taken again with the old 6D and its basic 11 af points. Cameras released in the last 4-5 years can handle just fine some action. It's just that people have to start learning their gear, that's all. There are plenty of situations where a state of the art af combined with at least 8fps and a good buffer are needed, but for occasional action like you see below you don't need cameras that costs 4000-5000$, you need to learn your gear and learn some technique. You have to download the image to see it at a bigger resolution. But you got the ideea.

[timw4mail]

Well, haven't these camera makers ever heard of the rule of thirds? I mean the center focus point with manual lenses is inconvenient enough, but you'd think we could get focus points to the far thirds of the whole frame.

That said, I tend to do a lot more manual focus.

[hjoseph7]

If you can focus the camera without using focusing points that's a new one to me and something I wouldn't mind learning. Like I said after we switched to digital we used the Canon 30D then the 40D. Both these cameras used the diamond shaped 9 focusing points as in your 6D. The outer focusing point if you turn the camera in a vertical position just reaches the point where you can say the rule of third starts. Unlike you style of photography we were not given that much leeway when it came to the headroom above the subject not only due to printing restrictions but also because the portraits would then be placed into a specialized jacket. Just try to visualize it for a second. I love your pictures by the way but we are talking about different tecniques which in my opinion would still require the use of focusing points.

---

Last edited by hjoseph7; 08-21-2017 at 01:32 PM.

[Dan Rentea]

If you can focus the camera without using focusing points that's a new one to me and something

Sorry, but I do not understand the above sentence. What do you mean by "...without using focusing points"? I use all the focusing points from my camera, but not all at once. I always select the focusing point which is closer to the eyes of my subject. A simple trick (if you have enough space) is to go back half a meter and then crop a little the image. Or you can use live view, as others sugested.

Unlike you style of photography we were not given that much leeway when it came to the headroom above the subject not only due to printing restrictions but also because the portraits would then be placed into a specialized jacket. Just try to visualize it for a second.

Post an image so that we can understand better how your shooting condition looked like.

[hjoseph7]

Here is a sample picture(not taken by me). Requirement - Five to 6 inches headroom max.(3/4 length and head-and-shoulder) I guess you can move back a little which is what I used to do for shorter or taller kids but the focusing points still have to reach the eye area. The printers usually wanted cookie-cutter(non-cropped) poses so that they didn't have to stop the machine.

[Dan Rentea]

Here is a sample picture(not taken by me). Requirement - Five to 6 inches headroom max.(3/4 length and head-and-shoulder) I guess you can move back a little which is what I used to do for shorter or taller kids but the focusing points still have to reach the eye area. The printers usually wanted cookie-cutter(non-cropped) poses so that they didn't have to stop the machine.

I also shoot corporate portraits and for the kind of images you showed me, my last concern are the focus points of my camera. My main concern is to set the lights as good as I can in order to not have to work in Photoshop to whiten the background. Once I solved the lightning for the background I set the lights for the subjects. I photograph a tall person and after I take a few shots tethered to a tablet/laptop to see if everything it's ok, I put a mark on the floor so that I can place each and every person that I have to shoot next at the same place. My camera is on a tripod and I use a zoom lens because it gives me the option of taking also tight portraits without moving the tripod. Once you placed the focus point on the eye of the first person, all the other persons will have the focus point on the eye. All you have to do is to adjust from the tripod the angle of the camera if the height differences are big. I hope it makes sense what I'm saying.

[hjoseph7]

Dan excuse me but I'm not here to learn how to take portraits. I did this for 10 years before I got tired and moved
to weddings. The problem is not technique it's the placement of the focusing points inside certain cameras. Please read my original post.

[Dan Rentea]

Dan excuse me but I'm not here to learn how to take portraits. I did this for 10 years before I got tired and moved
to weddings. The problem is not technique it's the placement of the focusing points inside certain cameras. Please read my original post.

I understood that and I responded to your original post in my previous posts (with images to back up my comments). My last post was not about learning you how to take portraits. I asked you to give me an example of an image that you think it needs a better placement of the af points in order to not use the center af point and recompose technique. You gave me the example and I showed you 2 similar images, with a lady that has 1,70 m height and the gentelman that has 1,87 m height. There is a 17 cm difference in height between them which was not a problem. Both persons are on the same level in the final images and I explained why it doesn't matter for this kind of subjects how spreaded are the af points, that's all. There is only one DSLR camera that have af points spreaded like the ones from mirrorless cameras (D500). That doesn't mean that we can't shoot properly with just a few af points. There were 3 solutions presented for your initial problem (move half a meter back, use a zoom lens, use live view). Or, if you don't have a background to blur it out, use an aperture between f8 and f11 and due to the big DOF, it doesn't matter that much if you focus on the mouth, nose or chin. These solutions were applied long before D810, 5D Mark IV, etc. came out. A problem is not really a problem if there is at least one solution.

[CarlJF]

A simple trick (if you have enough space) is to go back half a meter and then crop a little the image.

Never thought of it, but it's a great simple trick! Thanks for sharing!

And great pictures BTW!

[hjoseph7]

Dan please Google "Bunched up Focusing points" there are several links there concerning the spread of focusing points. If you have the time take a quick look at what others have to say...

[stevebrot]

Dan please Google "Bunched up Focusing points" there are several links there concerning the spread of focusing points. If you have the time take a quick look at what others have to say...

Given that this thread started with the tone of a rant, I guess it is obvious that a rant it will remain. (Use of ALL CAPS and words like "screaming" are usually good indicators of a rant.)

Summary of rant...you don't like the AF point distribution. It makes it difficult to do your job.

Summary of responses...You either not very flexible and/or don't know what you are doing and/or just want to complain. Here, listen to our suggestions/silence/criticisms/ridicule/laughter...

Conclusion...For years, all of us old enough coped with manual focus, but that was then, this is now. Since there are no focus features that work for you on your current camera or even within the current Pentax brand, a change of camera should be in order. This is true regardless of whether Pentax responds to your complaint.

BTW...Ricoh/Pentax does not monitor Pentax Forums and neither do the decision makers at Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, Leica, Mamiya/Phase One, or Hasselblad. Speaking of Hasselblad, $45,000 USD will get you a single AF point at center of field.

Edit: A small suggestion, though you are probably already aware of the feature and found it did not meet your needs. The K-5II supports face detection AF in live view. Add f/8 and you are golden.,


Steve