D600 Question: focus points too limited? A: Yes

I shot a wedding and struggled with the fact that my tall bride (6'2") could NOT have the focus point (shooting single point AFC - focus point her far eye) on her eye and have the frame (vertical & worse horizontal) from head to toe including her dress with short train arrayed behind her (outdoor wedding in confined Japanese Garden space). Used 24-85mm VR due to plenty of light outdoors.

This got WORSE (of course) indoors using 50mm 1.4G (low light - KUDOS to D600 here - shot at ISO 3200 and occasionally higher up to ISO 6400 as DJ lowered lights for dancing). It was very hard (for me - YMMV) to "foot zoom", pan with shallow DOF (shot lots at f2 or f2.2), and focus and recompose, so I lost some nice shots to lack of optimum focus (have not yet been to LR4 - maybe I can save some).

What did I learn? YES - I do wish the outer focus point could be moved "higher" in the frame with the joy stick (both vertically and horizontally - AKA landscape or portrait), especially in tight places and with 50mm prime. This likely would be true as well for lower placement of focus point shooting animals low in a frame in landscape shooting, or BIF low to water. I'd want to move the focus point lower.

Also: I think that the 50mm 1.4G is a sharper lens than the DX 35mm 1.8 I shot in FX mode wide open. This could be DOF, as I had the same focus point issue and when recomposing at such shallow DOF sharpness suffers. On a BRIGHT NOTE: in camera vignette control on HIGH works on JPEGS with this lens stopped to f1.8 to f2 (shot RAW + JPEG fine - have not done post yet).

I think for *most* people it's a total non issue, so the answer is not "yes" for everyone. For me personally, I came from DX where I almost had 100% AF coverage, and I haven't encountered a single situation where I couldn't easily get the shot with the D600 (in fact my keeper rate has sky rocketed). This is the first time I have heard of someone say they couldn't get a picture due to the focus layout. If you look at it VS the D800 layout, the difference is very minor, maybe 5-10% of the frame at most (Outer lines are the D800 layout). Both cameras have 11 focus points from left to right, and both systems fit completely within the DX frame. FX cameras cannot have focus points too far to the edges by design. I guess a very tall bride would be one of those situations where it might be a little more difficult but I think a wider lens would do the trick if it was a big issue.

YES! Would love to have the 28mm 1.4, but, alas, I do not. It would have worked well I think. Probably the 28mm 1.8 G would as well. Saving up.

The purpose of my post was to answer a question I see frequently on this (& other) site.

I tried to make clear exactly what the problem was in this particular situation. The tall bride was part of the problem and the tight space the other.

Couldn't use the 35mm 1.8 DX in FX mode to success in the outdoor shots due to the vignette issue unless I shot wide open (or close to it) and that was not helpful with so much light. It did work in the low light indoor dance floor situation, because the darkish corners are not easily noted there and because at least for JPEG, the in camera vignette control on high worked. Will see in LR4 about the RAW.

Bottom line: love this camera body! But, do wish the focus point were able to be engineered "wider" in the frame. They are not, and so I will not worry about it. Now I know where this might limit me.

OOPS! Should have re-pointed out that I was already (outside) shooting at 24mm and still could not get the shot without focus and recompose.

I did get many fine shots but would rather I did not have to do so. We can wish.........

Interesting. Your 51 point / 39 point overlay shows more of a loss than I had seen in an old thread. Are you reasonably sure?

Glad I got D800E as I already felt constrained by my D700 as compared to my earlier D300.

--
Best Regards,
SteveK
'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002

Same here, this is definitely a significant advantage for the D800 for those who avoid "focus and recompose". I was shoked when I saw the difference in layout.

But of course YMMV.

--
Thierry

Focus on her eye, recompose your shot, or use live view and be guaranteed the shot will be stupid sharp.

note: stupid sharp is the new technical term for being more then tack sharp.

--
http://www.AdamMoozPhotography.ca

This is the reason that I haven't gone for the D600. Those focus points are so close to the centre and to each other that you may as well just have one and use it to focus / recompose.

Using fast lenses, focus / recompose is not something I can use, so for those fans of Dragons' Den, "I'm out".

It's just the one DPreview posted, I assume it to be to scale.  I see it as the opposite, almost no practical difference whatsoever (which matches my experience).  A difference of opinion, I guess.

And on which the coverage on the D800 is quite better.

Not mine as the D800 outer points are sometimes just right at the edge of where I want the focus to be. It happens quite a bit. And on a few occasions the layout even on the D800 did not have enough coverage.

No, a difference in the way the cameras are used.

--
Thierry

For me , NO.  I am a street shooter that only uses the central FP to lock exposure and focus..t then I recompose and release.  If I were a sports or wildlife shooter then maybe.

And induce misfocusing error which with a fast lens wide opened will be enough to be detrimental to the picture

If the bride does not move and you have time to do the focusing this way.

Quite limiting for a wedding photog.

--
Thierry

The difference appears to be quite small (to me). Maybe 1cm further extension on the points at most. I've not yet been in a situation where this was not an easy work around, but I do understand some extreme situations may require a little extra coverage.

I've yet to have an issue. Lens choice will be a factor as well.

How is it you know that I've never photographed the same things as you? If I have, it's a difference of opinion because usage would be similar, and I've never had an issue.

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that it doesn't affect your shooting, but if it affects one person and not the other, and they shoot the same things, it's more opinion/preference than it is usage.

The OP's point remains valid, and it applies to more than just sports and wildlife: wedding photographer, backing up as the bride and groom come down the isle toward him, wants camera in vertical orientation with top focus point on bride's face to take several shots as they move (and not very fast) -- can't do it. Using the central or even peripheral points to focus with AF-ON, lock release, pan to recompose, shoot, etc. over several shots gets old real quick... now here comes the wedding party!

I'm a wedding shooter, and though a D600 is on its way, my D700 bodies will still get main duty for that type of shooting, which is neither sporty nor particularly wild.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://imagesbyeduardo.com/blog1/banner4.png
Home page: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Story-telling: http://imagesbyeduardo.com/main/wedding-photography-los-angeles-story-telling/

A: No

I use single point focussing all of the time, moving to the item I want to focus on, grabbing the focus, then compose the shot and click. Far quicker than moving the focus point about.

The only time I would move the focus point is when the subject is static.

If you are trying to dynamically track a subject with AF-C focusing and the desired focus target is not in the middle of the desired framing, then you can't get the shots you want with the center focus point.  This happens to me with moving people all the time.  If you stick with the central focus point, then the only option is to shoot loose and crop later to the desired framing which is less than ideal.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

A tad small.  I agree that it will not make much  of a difference in many situations.  But I for one would prefer to have the areas around the 4 golden rule focal points covered

Jack

Could you explain a bit more why this happens?  Does the subject move before reframing?  I thought once you focused and had AF-lock with shutter button halfway pressed, you'd still focus.

And on that subject, how do you even get tack sharp focus on someone's eye?  Even with single point I can't seem to get that focus very often on shallow DOF.

If you point the centre focus point at an eye and then recompose and point it elsewhere, the distance changes. This is most relevant when shooting fairly close-up.

Imagine pointing the centre of the lens straight at the someone's middle. The distance to their middle is less than it is to their eyes.

It is possible to get pin-sharp focus on someone's eyes, even with a wide open f/1.4 lens where the depth of field is tiny. The trick is to use AF-C to compensate for the constantly varying distance from subject to camera due to inevitable camera and subject movement. To do this you have to keep the focus point absolutely on the target.

I found a better picture that has the actual focus points, not just the boarders (the boarders exaggerate the area in both instances). I can't imagine too many people are missing shots strictly  due to the minute difference in focus point coverage. Top and bottom are nearly identical. Left/right is a very small difference, but yes the D800 is slightly wider. It can't be much wider than that anyways, limited by the design of current FF DSLRs.

D600 VS D800 Overlay