|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-07-2014, 04:59 PM
|
| |
Focus back and forth. The rate of change of focus will give you an idea where where the focus should be, even if you can't see much of a difference.
Another thing I do is focusing on an open aperture, using focus confirmation, then stopping down by half a stop for some leeway (with non-A lenses).
I think MF is easier for portraits, because you can choose the focus point. If you have focus keying it will be very helpful in some cases. Otherwise, one of those viewfinder magnifiers might be helpful.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-26-2013, 01:02 AM
|
| |
It's funny that you mention shooting with both eyes open, I do that a lot. It started when I was doing some documentary shots years ago and I wanted to be aware of who is about to enter my frame. I used it during the game too, although just occasionally. I agree with the other opinions, keeping both eyes open can be very useful.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-25-2013, 11:00 PM
|
| |
That's very interesting. I guess I am not terribly surprised - the technological advancements were made for those pros shooting sports and they wouldn't be spending their money if it wasn't for better keeper rate. I do think that using cont. autofocus effectively has a learning curve, because in the past I found shooting sports with it very difficult. It could have been general lack of experience though.
I shot olympus dslrs most of the time and they didn't really have a continuous autofocus. I haven't used it a single time until I bought pentax k30, which I found to be quite capable. I am happy to see it can be fun and reasonbly easy to use manual focus though, because that can save quite a bit of lens money ;).
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-25-2013, 10:54 PM
|
| |
Must have been an interesting experience. I would imagine it being pretty tough, especially with constant winding.
Do you still do some sport shoots? Did you find it a lot easier with autofocus?
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-25-2013, 10:48 PM
|
| |
I can't answer all your questions, but I can tell you what I figured out during the last shoot. Maybe those will be helpful hints.
First of all, at these distances, you don't adjust focus too much. Difference between 12m and infinity on my lens was just a few degrees. Thus, you don't have to change the grip and it helps a lot.
As for prefocusing, I would set the focus somewhere around the middle of the field and put the camera down. I would then observe the game and note when someone was approaching roughly in the area of my focus. I would then just try to get shots and sometimes adjust the focus on the fly. But it wasn't always necessary.
I would use F4.5 most of the time. Mostly because this is the max for 200mm for this lens and because F3.5 at shorter focal length has really bad purple fringing. Perhaps a greater depth of focus made it easier than in an expensive F2.8 lens.
When there was a group of people, zone focusing, even inaccurately, would give me *someone* in focus and some of those shots were still ok.
Finally, the sharpness is not excellent, but it is good enough for small prints or for web use. Most pictures were a bit out of focus, but some of them are close enough, ie within circle of confusion for the intended use, which is pretty big for the web. I took some 250 shots, I would say perhaps 15% of them were good for web use, 10% for 4x6 print and maybe 5% (tops) for 8x10 print at reasonable quality. That included a few shots took at high FPS shooting that were meant to be out of focus though.
I generally didn't do continuous shooting, because it makes it harder to track the action. I did if there was something cool happening, like if there was an obvious and prolonged battle for the ball, or if I wanted to get a sharper image (to avoid the shake after pressing the shutter).
I had to do it handheld and while sat down, but I think leaning on the fence, standing would have been a better idea. I know most people use monopod. I did a few shoots for a college paper and we used a 400mm F2.8 so the tripod was necessary. I found it much harder to track the action, but I also was much less experienced in photography at the time. Perhaps someone with greater amount of experience could weigh in on the use of support...
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-25-2013, 04:24 AM
|
| |
Thanks. This is exactly what I thought before buying this lens - how in the bloody hell did people do it in the past. But it really is not that bad, especially with catch-in focus. I think I have fallen a victim to camera manufacturer's marketing, trying to convince consumers we do need a faster tracking autofocus for an amateur use ;).
I wanted to share this, because this was very unexpected and it might be for others too. I shot a Nikon D1H with a 400mm F2.8 before and I had a harder time getting things *I want* in focus.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
11-25-2013, 04:02 AM
|
| |
Hi,
I decided to save money on a telephoto in lieu of a wide angle lens. I had an occasion of seeing a college soccer game last night and figured I would figure out if it is even possible to manual focus an event like that.
The conditions were pretty poor: F4, ISO 6400, Shutter anywhere from 1/100 to 1/250 at 300mm equiv, it was all artificial lighting.
The lens was a push-pull zoom (very convenient, actually, as you can focus and zoom at the same time!) Tokina RMC F3.5-4.5, 80-200mm. I paid $25 for it. The camera was K-30 in catch-in focus mode.
The bottom line is that I found it easier than with an auto-focus. I spent a lot of time worrying about autofocus tracking capabilities, but, I got pretty much the same number of usable shots and I was limited by shutter speed rather than focusing speed. This is not what I expected.
|
