Sports shooters: single or expanded AF points?

[pwp]

I've shot sports for years, and always used single point AF, moving the points around the frame as needed, or simple keeping the AF point on the action. Very occasionally I'll use Zone AF.

Just for the hell of it I used expanded AF points with 1DX and 7DII at an athletics track and field meet yesterday. While I've got plenty of material to deliver to the client, I felt my keeper rate was well down on my usual hit-rate.

What are other sports shooters preferences?

-pw

 

[awair]

I mostly use single/spot with 1DX (& briefly with 7D2), however at longer distances it can be difficult to maintain a target accurately, and possibly for the camera to "do it's magic".

I've occasionally tried expanded (both 4 & 8 surround points) and not found it helpful for the marginal cases, if anything it's been less accurate. And there's always the occasion (in swimming) where you nail the focus perfectly - on the splash, 6 inches in front of the swimmer.

The optimum solution would appear to be to get a longer lens!

There is one case where I switch away from single/spot - and I dedicate a (1DX) button to achieve this instantly: for swimming starts (either off the blocks, or backstroke), I switch the AF case and select Automatic point selection, as I can rarely predict where the movement is going or if another swimmer might get in the way.

Other than that, I think the choice of lens makes a huge difference in focus acquisition (my 70-200 seems marginally faster than the 400?), but filling the frame is definitely the easiest fix for all my focus failures.

Very happy with my choice of single/spot for athletics (except maybe high-jump), rugby, basketball, badminton and water polo, with swimming being the most challenging.

Not an expert, but hope this helps. Also keen to improve by finding a better way.

 

[Don Haines]

If the motion is predictable, I go single point..... if it is a bit more erratic I enable the helper points.....

 

[pwp]

I mostly use single/spot with 1DX (& briefly with 7D2), however at longer distances it can be difficult to maintain a target accurately, and possibly for the camera to "do it's magic".

I've occasionally tried expanded (both 4 & 8 surround points) and not found it helpful for the marginal cases, if anything it's been less accurate. And there's always the occasion (in swimming) where you nail the focus perfectly - on the splash, 6 inches in front of the swimmer.

Yes I'll be back to single AF point at my next sports job.

Swimming. Yes I've had the issues with perfectly focussed splashes just in front of the swimmer too. That's going to be related more to which AF Case you dial in.

-pw

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I'd be interested to hear people's experiences here. I've personally ALWAYS used expansion-point AF (4 pts) to track ice skaters around a rink - hit rate has been mixed at best, with a 7D, 7DII and now 5DIV (which I find a little more consistent). Does switching to single point tracking really increase the hit rate noticeably? (Occasionally I've used Zone AF with pair and synchro skaters)

 

[unfocused]

Interesting responses. I've struggled with this for the past several years and don't have any advice.

I can tell you that my decision varies by sport.

Volleyball -- shooting through the net to get the faces of the players -- almost always use single point, which does seem to help keep the focus on the player rather than the net. But, often have a problem with the autofocus picking the back of the players on the near side of the net, rather than the face of the players on the far said.

Outdoor sports -- baseball, soccer, track etc., I often used the expanded points and pray that in the day there is enough depth of field to get the subject reasonably in focus.

Basketball -- either single point or expanded, just depending on what seems to be working the best at the time.

Swimming -- same challenge as others, especially because the swimming pool I shoot is poorly lit so often shooting wide open f2.8 with a 70-200. Use single point mostly.

I think I have a better keeper rate with the 1DX II than the 7DII, but honestly I'm not totally convinced of that. The main reason I went to the 1DX II was the better high ISO performance inside. Outdoors, I actually find the wider spread and extra reach of the 7DII makes the difference between the two cameras about a tossup.

While using a longer lens can help some, in my experience it's not always the perfect solution. With a longer lens, you can get a sharper image when it's in focus, but following the action is a lot more difficult and when it's out of focus, it tends to be really out of focus and not usable.

I'm in a somewhat unusual position because I shoot sports for a small college. That means that in most games, I only care about getting one team in focus. For example, in soccer, if the area of sharpest focus happens to be on an opposing team player, the image is useless to me, whereas someone shooting for a newspaper or other media, may not care as much which side's team has the sharpest focus, as they may be more interested in the overall action.

Finally, a bit of a rant. Sites like DPReview take a lot of grief because they are consistently critical of Canon's autofocus system. Some people on this site say they just don't know how to use the Canon autofocus. Maybe, but then I guess I don't know either, because I have some of the same problems and clearly, the number of professional photographers using single points would indicate that a lot of people find Canon's autofocus less than perfect.

Someone needs to design an autofocus system that allows cameras to lock onto a subject using single point autofocus and then have that point follow the subject around the viewfinder.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

I'd be interested to hear people's experiences here. I've personally ALWAYS used expansion-point AF (4 pts) to track ice skaters around a rink - hit rate has been mixed at best, with a 7D, 7DII and now 5DIV (which I find a little more consistent). Does switching to single point tracking really increase the hit rate noticeably? (Occasionally I've used Zone AF with pair and synchro skaters)

For fast action sports like rugby and soccer I always use zone AF. I have found with that single point and the expanded AF modes the focus point often locks onto the advertising or spectators on the far side of the field and my keeper rate goes down. With zone AF if there are any players within the zone then they will be in focus.
Incidentally I just use the basic zone AF - I find that the large zone AF is too large and will often focus on something in the foreground.

 

[unfocused]

I'd be interested to hear people's experiences here. I've personally ALWAYS used expansion-point AF (4 pts) to track ice skaters around a rink - hit rate has been mixed at best, with a 7D, 7DII and now 5DIV (which I find a little more consistent). Does switching to single point tracking really increase the hit rate noticeably? (Occasionally I've used Zone AF with pair and synchro skaters)

For fast action sports like rugby and soccer I always use zone AF. I have found with that single point and the expanded AF modes the focus point often locks onto the advertising or spectators on the far side of the field and my keeper rate goes down. With zone AF if there are any players within the zone then they will be in focus.
Incidentally I just use the basic zone AF - I find that the large zone AF is too large and will often focus on something in the foreground.

Yes, I have had that problem. Baseball the same way, it can focus on the outfield fence when a player moves. Unfortunately though, the zone AF will pick up any player, and if the opposing team has a player nearer the camera, it will focus on that person and not on the team you need in focus.

 

[helpful]

I use four point expansion mostly. I try to develop a feel for what works best in each unique situation. Occasionally I'll use 9 point or just about every other mode. My advice is never do only one thing. Experiment and that's how you gain experience.

 

[Dylan777]

It's a waste just to use single AF on 1dx shooting sports

 

[pwp]

It's a waste just to use single AF on 1dx shooting sports

Why?

-pw

 

[awair]

It's a waste just to use single AF on 1dx shooting sports

Why?

-pw

I think Dylan is saying that the 1DX has been optimised for sports/intricate action with:
Multiple focus points
Alternative focussing zones
AF cases
...and other magic

and we end up using it like a 100D!

I both agree and disagree with the sentiment: whatever works for you, to get the shot.

Maybe the camera can't cope
Maybe the user doesn't understand
Maybe the 'wrong' lens is used
Maybe the manual doesn't explain it clearly enough...

It doesn't really matter, we just work around it.

Incidentally, I used the 100D for my first Baseball game last month (mostly with a 300/4L) - yes, I missed my 1DX, but the only feature I really noticed lacking (apart from fps) was the ability to move the focus point for better composition. I would have loved more focus points, quick switching of settings and quicker processing on the card, but they didn't matter as much as the basics of composing and capturing the shot.

In reality, we all want something slightly different from our camera. The end choice just happens to be the closest match to your needs.

If we were all asked individually to remove one feature from an existing camera, we'd probably end up with a thousand different models: if asked to add only one to the 5D4, there might be 10,000!

 

[Viggo]

It's a waste just to use single AF on 1dx shooting sports

Why?

-pw

Perhaps no waste in general. But the AF Cases are often based on expansion or multiple points so using one point with Case 6 will ignore the Case in use.

 

[lion rock]

I fully agree with unfocused that a better and fast autofocus system be developed.
The DR or pixel density matters little if the shot is out of focus in an action shot.
-r

<snip>
Maybe, but then I guess I don't know either, because I have some of the same problems and clearly, the number of professional photographers using single points would indicate that a lot of people find Canon's autofocus less than perfect.

Someone needs to design an autofocus system that allows cameras to lock onto a subject using single point autofocus and then have that point follow the subject around the viewfinder.

 

[Doug Brock]

I tend to experiment with different AF settings at various types of sports and I do get a lot of missed focus (and of course the home team is usually in white, so little contrast for the AF system to work with, lol). BTW, I use 5DIII, 5DIV, and had a 7DII for a while. I tend to use four expanded AF points, just because the single point can be so hard to hold on one person and my keeper rate seems better with the four extra points. With softball, I've lately been using the manual select: zone AF since I have fewer players in the frame. With track, tennis, wrestling, and golf, the AF points don't seem to really matter too much, as those are pretty easy AF situation. I do wish I could aim my camera at any sport and the camera get me perfect AF every time, but I really don't see how the camera can know for sure where I want the AF to be at any particular instant with complex, busy, rapidly-changing targets. With football or basketball or soccer, the number of bodies (and flailing arms) moving between my camera and the person I need to focus on (and of course who I need to focus on changes rapidly and unexpectedly as the ball is transferred) is crazy and I don't see how the camera could do much better than it already is. (I also believe that my expectations for "in focus" have grown more demanding over the years as I've gotten more pixels in the camera and more screen space on my computer monitor (currently a 27" 5k monitor)). Oh well, at least I don't get bored!

 

[RunAndGun]

Maybe it's time for Canon to revisit Eye Control Focus from the EOS-3. With the advancements in technology since then, maybe it could actually work like we wanted it to in our heads. I can envision a system/case where you "set" the point with your eye and then the camera locks it on and tracks the subject across the frame.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

I tend to experiment with different AF settings at various types of sports and I do get a lot of missed focus (and of course the home team is usually in white, so little contrast for the AF system to work with, lol). BTW, I use 5DIII, 5DIV, and had a 7DII for a while. I tend to use four expanded AF points, just because the single point can be so hard to hold on one person and my keeper rate seems better with the four extra points. With softball, I've lately been using the manual select: zone AF since I have fewer players in the frame. With track, tennis, wrestling, and golf, the AF points don't seem to really matter too much, as those are pretty easy AF situation. I do wish I could aim my camera at any sport and the camera get me perfect AF every time, but I really don't see how the camera can know for sure where I want the AF to be at any particular instant with complex, busy, rapidly-changing targets. With football or basketball or soccer, the number of bodies (and flailing arms) moving between my camera and the person I need to focus on (and of course who I need to focus on changes rapidly and unexpectedly as the ball is transferred) is crazy and I don't see how the camera could do much better than it already is. (I also believe that my expectations for "in focus" have grown more demanding over the years as I've gotten more pixels in the camera and more screen space on my computer monitor (currently a 27" 5k monitor)). Oh well, at least I don't get bored!

This is a good point. It is always worth trying different settings so you can choose the best option for each situation with confidence.
With this in mind I tried shooting one match using AF point expansion and the following week I used zone AF, just so I could see for myself how they differed. Zone AF worked far better because it tends to focus on whatever is closest to the camera within the zone. So as long as I was able to keep the zone positioned over the area where the action was taking place then it always focused on the players or the ball.
AF point expansion was fairly good, but later on in the match when the players were covered in mud and the light was starting to deteriorate it started focusing on the background quite a lot. I assume that this is because the AF point could not find sufficient contrast on the muddy players and if one of the helper AF points found some good contrast in the background it latched onto that instead.
Incidentally - for sports where the action happens in one place, and you want very precise focus (eg cricket - where I tend to focus on the stumps or the bat) then single point AF is a better option.
On a different topic, have you used both the 5D mk3 and the 5D mk 4 for sports? Going up from 6fps to 7fps doesn't seem much on paper but in practice I find that my 5D mk4 is a lot more responsive and I capture the decisive moment more often than I was able to do with my 5D mk3. Maybe it is because it focuses faster or maybe 7fps is a significant improvement after all. I would be interested in hearing whether you have noticed the same thing.

 

[Doug Brock]

Yes, I've seen improved sports AF with the 5DIV, but then I'd consistently read that the 5DIV had significantly better AF than the 5DIII, so I was pleased but not really surprised. I don't take advantage of frame rates very often (I generally shoot one frame at a time, trying to time my shot with the action), but when I have held the shutter, the 5DIV did FEEL faster than the 1 fps improvement would have indicated. I recently bought Lexar 128GB 160 MB/S cards and they are pleasingly fast, too, in either body. With the 5DIV and these cards, even RAW files feel delightfully fast! In regards to differences with the 5DIII, at the same time that I moved to the 5DIV as my primary body, I also got a 100-400II and am using that as my primary lens and that makes specific differences harder to pinpoint. I miss the f/2.8 range of my 70-200 less than I thought I would, but the extra reach of the 100-400II is helping AF AND exposure. With the 70-200, I struggled more with very dark backgrounds in evening soccer and football when the players were on the far side of the field and I usually had to go to manually riding the ISO as players moved through dark and bright parts of the field. With the 100-400, I've noticed that the players are larger in the image and that has made the dark backgrounds a non-issue with exposure. Overall, I'm loving the 5DIV in particular, but also as a partner with the 100-400II.

 

[ifp]

Someone needs to design an autofocus system that allows cameras to lock onto a subject using single point autofocus and then have that point follow the subject around the viewfinder.

This does exist. In AI Servo mode, if you use the all point setting, then you can select a single point to start tracking and it will track across all points from there. See page 34: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/product/cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii/EOS_5D_Mark_III_AF_setting_guidebook.pdf

 

[Dylan777]

It's a waste just to use single AF on 1dx shooting sports

Why?

-pw

Unless you want to add more weight...what is your purpose of 1dx again???