... which I think is because the A6000 ones are front-focused, possibly the result of sub-optimal AF related settings.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
anyone care about Action shots of A6000 vs DSLR
- Thread starter clearzoom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos 70d sony a6000
At the root of this was an error of mine. I misread your post. I thought you wrote "can't even touch it", but you wrote "can even touch it" Not much to explain. It is not something I've ever done, I think, but a bit embarrassing. I'll go hide in some cave.
clearzoom
Senior Member
correct. canon had AI-servo and AF point was center
A6k had AF-C and zone focus
both jpegs
... which is what I suspect is the culprit. I'm not 100% about this exact situation, but perhaps can both do some tests.... The A6000 AF points are all over the sensor. It appears it's difficult for it to miss anything. Features don't easily slip in between sensor points. It's a bit different from a traditional DSLR. I'm not talking about the 70D because I don't totally know how its AF is arranged.
In theory, zone will scan a very large 2 dimensional area for the closest feature it can find. That could include water or the water splashes in front of the subject. This I think can cause the focus to be set too close, and in front of the subject, making the subject slight out of focus. Which is what is seen in your shot, like the last shot for instance. I *think* there is a bit of voodoo inside where it tries to eliminate considering the ground as a feature to focus on. If it wasn't doing that, then I think zone focus become pretty useless, because you'd constantly be focusing on the ground in front of the subject. It seems to me, and haven't totally put my finger on it, it has an algorithm that isn't talked about (but seems perfectly logical to me), that tries to determine what the closest feature is excluding that ground. That would be the splashes in front of the subject. If the DOF is shallow enough, it becomes pretty apparent, and it evidently does.
Solution is to try to make the camera not consider anything in front of the subject. Move the zone area up. I believe you can only move it one notch up. That, or, select flexible spot focusing, and then set the sizes of that box to large. Then keep the subject in center, and burst away.
Also, lock-on-AF *OFF*, it'll just mess with things all over the place.
RonFrank
Senior Member
I reviewed the images an in every case with the Sony the image is back focused.
You can easily find the sharp point of focus, and that is always behind the main subject to camera left on some water/spray.
I have no idea of what settings were used or if things can be done better, but my thought is yes. The OP is not comfortable with the Sony setup and can get better results. I see better focus with other fast moving subjects mainly birds. However without standing next to the op while he shoots it is not possible to know.
As I have seen 10 shots of a bird flying fast right at the camera all with sharp eyes/facial features I think the OPs comfort level with the Sony is not solid. However the Sony is not that easy to master as I see soft results often. AF-C, Lock on AF set to shutter, and Center Zone Focus are settings I would try and that may help.
--
RonFrank
My Tutorial
http://ronfrankweb.weebly.com/index.html
Some of my Photos
http://ronfrankweb.weebly.com/photos.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76853294@N05/
You can easily find the sharp point of focus, and that is always behind the main subject to camera left on some water/spray.
I have no idea of what settings were used or if things can be done better, but my thought is yes. The OP is not comfortable with the Sony setup and can get better results. I see better focus with other fast moving subjects mainly birds. However without standing next to the op while he shoots it is not possible to know.
As I have seen 10 shots of a bird flying fast right at the camera all with sharp eyes/facial features I think the OPs comfort level with the Sony is not solid. However the Sony is not that easy to master as I see soft results often. AF-C, Lock on AF set to shutter, and Center Zone Focus are settings I would try and that may help.
--
RonFrank
My Tutorial
http://ronfrankweb.weebly.com/index.html
Some of my Photos
http://ronfrankweb.weebly.com/photos.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76853294@N05/
Last edited:
So we all agree on two things:
- that the OP can find more suitable settings for the a6000 as we all have experienced or see better results
- that we cannot agree on the settings. Some of us prefer AF-lock-on, some of us don't. Also some believe that center point is also better while other prefer the zone area.
...posted here...
some have found them to be predominantly front-focused on the "closest" but spurious quasi-targets in the FG;
yet others postulate the opposite: mostly back-focused shots
!!jpr2
clearzoom
Senior Member
ok, I can try some diff settings to see in the weekend
does anyone think sony 18-200 lens (original silver) , a guy in photo club can lend for a week end or two
Don't hide in a cave! It would be hard to get an Internet connection in there! :-D
My response was more for others. I tend to come down hard, in a forum which is about sharing opinions, when the suggestion appears that opinions are being seen as no longer acceptable to share.
jack scholl
New member
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
clearzoom,
If you are asking whether it is worth trying the SEL18200 with the A6000, the answer from our shooting so far is definitely yes.
That combo seems very capable in AF terms for what we have seen so far.
Jack
tarjei99
Senior Member
The head-on BIF shot was of interest to me.
Have you tried something similar with a seagull? Preferably in bad light (grey sky).
I'm trying to find out if there could be some improvement of my current gear for relatively close bird coming at me head-on. Sideways is no problem.
I'm trying to get an image of a puffin with fish in its beak.
Have you tried something similar with a seagull? Preferably in bad light (grey sky).
I'm trying to find out if there could be some improvement of my current gear for relatively close bird coming at me head-on. Sideways is no problem.
I'm trying to get an image of a puffin with fish in its beak.
Jack,Quercy,which wasn't the case hereQuercy,...above all much more useful - for this type of dynamic action shooting the 105mm is barely adequate enough = these 100% crops use about 1/2 of the whole 6000 px frame's width, or even less than that, yet wast amounts of water are still present, which does not help at all.
However, a direct comparison btw. the 18-105/4PZ and the Canon's EF 70-200/4L leaves only 105mm as the longest reach common to both!! The 18-105 is a huge compromise, but... the next native option: 16-70/4 Zeiss is even shorter, and all consumer zooms in E-mount are much darker, esp at their long ends
jpr2
The SEL18200 would be a better test than the 105 for all the reasons mentioned previously. And it has proven to be a very fast AF combo with the A6000. This link was from April in Fla, but we were very surprised how well the lens did with the A6000 AF system.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53551141
That would be an interesting comparison . . .
Take care,
Jack
best,
Quercy
At over 9" long and more than 5 lbs in weight . . . I don't care how good it is!
To each their own . . .
it is not that I'd try make you switch, but the EF 300/4L IS is pretty compact for what it does extremely well.
At 1190g it is way less heavy lens than 5 lbs, and with the long dimension of 221mm it also shorter than 9", but it gladly trade 9" for a stellar performance in a relatively bright package
jpr2
scottyinfrisco
Leading Member
Has anyone tried that with action shots on the A6000? Just a thought.
jack scholl
New member
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
Quercy,Jack,Quercy,which wasn't the case hereQuercy,...above all much more useful - for this type of dynamic action shooting the 105mm is barely adequate enough = these 100% crops use about 1/2 of the whole 6000 px frame's width, or even less than that, yet wast amounts of water are still present, which does not help at all.
However, a direct comparison btw. the 18-105/4PZ and the Canon's EF 70-200/4L leaves only 105mm as the longest reach common to both
jpr2
The SEL18200 would be a better test than the 105 for all the reasons mentioned previously. And it has proven to be a very fast AF combo with the A6000. This link was from April in Fla, but we were very surprised how well the lens did with the A6000 AF system.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53551141
That would be an interesting comparison . . .
Take care,
Jack
best,
Quercy
At over 9" long and more than 5 lbs in weight . . . I don't care how good it is!
To each their own . . .
it is not that I'd try make you switch, but the EF 300/4L IS is pretty compact for what it does extremely well.
At 1190g it is way less heavy lens than 5 lbs, and with the long dimension of 221mm it also shorter than 9", but it gladly trade 9" for a stellar performance in a relatively bright package
jpr2
I got the specs from the f2.8, not the f4.0 . . . sorry. Big difference between 5.8# and 2.6#.
Jack
Galleries by Jack Scholl
www.pbase.com
Shutterfly: Photo Books, Cards, Prints, Wall Art, Gifts, Wedding
Create photo books, personalize photo cards & stationery, and share photos with family and friends at Shutterfly.com.
jackschollphotography.shutterfly.com
Maybe so, I'm just describing what I see.
I find it strange that noone is acknowledging the cause.
...we seem to have at least TWO completely opposing descriptions of what can be observed in these images from the a6k - yours and... here is the other one.
jpr2
The DOF of the 70D ones are much deeper, makes me think they're taken from a different distance, and cropped to make it look the same. It's as if the 70D benefitted some downscaling.
- all the a6k 100% crops are 2850 x 2850 px;
- whereas many of the 100% crops from the 70d are more tightly cut, which can make them to appear as taken from a closer distance (the topography of the LE site is such, that unless a photog will wade into water, the shooting distance can't be shortened);
- all shots taken at f4, that is wide open;
- the a6k are taken at 105mm, the 70d at 104mm (from respective EXIFs); unless of course the a6k's reported FL of 105mm at long end is not overstated (it happens pretty often that the nominal zoom FLs are reported from focusing such lenses at MFD);
,jpr2
--
~
Nex-7 classic:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157629823874033/
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum