RE: [Leica] Canon really has AF figured out...BLASHPEMY? Or it i s?

[Jim Laurel <jplaurel@microsoft.com>]

I'm not saying that AF is a panacea.  In fact, for some really fast moving
objects it is practically useless.  Try shooting full-frame pictures of a
child on a swing, where the idea is to have the child fill the frame at the
top of the swing's arc.  Prefocusing is the only way you'll get that shot.
No AF system is fast enough.

There is a critical difference between whitewater rafting and your snowboard
racing and basketball examples.  In both case, you can be stationary, and in
the case of basket action shots or a snowboarder clearing a gate, you know
where the action is going to happen.

But the whitewater rafting scenario goes like this: You are often in the
lead boat, and have just cleared a rapid.  You pop open that Pelican case,
and there is still alot of water splashing about.  The other boats are
already in the rapid.  You try to get some footing by jamming your foot into
a corner of the boat.  You are moving downriver.  The other boats are too,
but at a faster rate, since they are in the fast water.  You are moving up
down and sideways.  It's all you can do to just get the right composition.
Plus, the action happens continuously.  Unless there's some specific
obstacle that's going to create drama of some sort like a big rock, there's
nothing to prefocus on.

Sometimes, you get lucky and that oarsman can let you off onto the riverbank
before the other boats enter the rapid.  In this case, everything is easier,
since you are on terra firms, but again, there is often no point of
reference to focus on.  The action happens continuously as the boat goes
through and having the camera maintain focus is very helpful.

- --Jim Laurel

Enjoyed your basketball shots, BTW!

- -----Original Message-----
From: Robert G. Stevens [mailto:robsteve@hfx.andara.com]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 3:21 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] Canon really has AF figured out...BLASHPEMY? Or it
is?


Jim:

How about Grand Slalom Snowboad racing.  I set up at a gate, focused at
just in fron of the gate and when the snowboader hit the gate I fired the
shutter.  All at 400mm and F2.8.  I must have ten consecutive sharp shots
fron that spot.  The same could be done for river racing as long as you
were ashore and not moving as well.  

I did a Basket ball shot with a Noctilux at F1.4 zone focusing and it is
sharp.  As I explained to the guys with the F5's beside me while I was
sitting on the floor shooting the game "Neither I nor the basket are moving
so if I focus near the basket, they will be in focus when press the
shutter".  A Ilfochrome print of this shot has been selected for a CAPA
display at Canada Camera College in Calgary next month.

I used an EOS 1n for soccer pictures last night.  I was using a 300 2.8 and
it focused really well if you put the sensors on the subject and followed
them.  It did however not focus very well if for example you followed a
ball that was in the air and tried to get the shot as the players butted it
with their head.  The cameras just don't focus quick enough for that.  My
hit to miss ratio on that film was only marginally better than the game I
shot a few days earlier with the Leica.

Links to the snowboard and Basketball shots are below.  The noctilux shot
is also on the noctilux page.  Some of the Basketball was also shot with a
90mm Summicron and R6.

http://home.istar.ca/~robsteve/photography/ciau.htm

http://home.istar.ca/~robsteve/photography/ciau.htm



Regards,

Robert

At 11:40 AM 6/7/99 -0700, you wrote:
>I use zone focusing (or "snapshot settings" or "hyperfocal settings) all
the
>time.  But it's only useful when you can have a relatively wide angle lens
>(at least 35mm, better with 28mm), and can stop down to at least f8 or f11.
>As the technique requires wide angle lenses, you need to be able to get
>close to the subject.
>
>It is not a very worthwhile technique for something like white water
>rafting, where you are often shooting in the 150-300mm range to get high
>impact compositions.  When you are shooting with ISO 100 film in a shadowy
>canyon at 1/1000 sec with a 300mm lens at f2.8 or f4.0, your focusing had
>better be absolutely dead-on.  Under these conditions, the smallest
focusing
>error will squander any optical advantage the best lenses from Leica may
>provide.
>
>--Jim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Rabiner [mailto:mrabiner@concentric.net]
>Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 10:51 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Canon really has AF figured out...BLASHPEMY? Or it
>is?
>
>
>Jim Laurel wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, it seemed to spawn a pretty thoughful discussion.  I didn't get
>> any flames, which is a testament to the reasoned thinking around here.  A
>> few folks thought I was comparing the EOS1n to the M6.
>> 
>> Clearly, the R8 is just not as suitable for the kind of subects I was
>> working with on that trip.  But when you have the time to be very
>> deliberate, I have no doubt that you could acheive better results with
it.
>> On my upcoming Spain trip, I don't anticipate any fast action and will
>have
>> time to be deliberate.  The Canons are staying home this time.
>> 
>> --Jim
>> 
>Not so Clearly, you are forgetting Jim Bricks point about Zone Focusing.
>Using AF Camera's has a way of making one forget about setting up your
>camera to grab a sizeable or definite hunk of space in front of you and
>point and shooting away. I shot people on carnival rides this weekend
>and they were moving so fast past me that even looking through the
>viewfinder was not an option. We were just pointing our preset cameras
>at the people whizzing by on their little chairs, etc.
>White water rafting just does not sound like a lower light situation
>requiring AF.
>Black water rafting however under the light of the silvery moon requires
>the latest in predictive AF!
>Mark Rabiner
>
>