Reading mode: Light Dark

Help! D800 70-200 2.8 VRII Soft Images

Go to last post
LeeRN said:
From what I've read maybe my expectations were a bit high.

Thanks for all your advice, I'll keep trying to improve my technique for now and see if things get better.
Click to expand...
Here is a crop with a little PP, hope you don't mind. A little, literally, contrast added, a slight drop in exposure and a little clarity added.

Looks mighty fine to me. Don't think it shows anything wrong with your technique.

Although we can all try to get better at whatever we do.

Enjoy your shooting.



f64aeaa9d9824af097a6deedeac65c40.jpg



--
Wishing You Good Light.
 
I'd recommend you at least experiment with shooting in DX crop mode and see if your results are more to your liking. I think your sample photo is fine. It is tough shooting football (at least 11v11) with just 200mm. I find using DX crop gives you not only that extra reach but also improves the AF coverage and accuracy.
 
jep10 said:
I'd recommend you at least experiment with shooting in DX crop mode and see if your results are more to your liking. I think your sample photo is fine. It is tough shooting football (at least 11v11) with just 200mm. I find using DX crop gives you not only that extra reach but also improves the AF coverage and accuracy.
Click to expand...
If I may chime in and add one word of caution on shooting DX(ok, perhaps more than just one).... I shoot American football with both a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII and a 200mm f/2.0 VR and do myself often utilized DX crop mode on my D610. Now that I also have the D750, the in-the-middle 1.2x crop is a welcome addition to the ability to crop at time of shutter release.
DX(or any other crop mode) does not improve or in any way affect your camera's AF accuracy. If by "improves accuracy" what was meant was that the additional DX "box" within the viewfinder might be an aid to the photographer in having it made even more obvious as to when his subject(s) are moving beyond the coverage area of the AF points, then it would have been better to state it as such. Based on the OP's provided example though, I don't suspect his technique in keeping AF points on his subject(s) is lacking.
A bit more fuzzy is the topic of 'coverage'... yes, in DX mode the AF points cover a much higher percentage of the composed area, but I would argue that from an end result, resolution perspective, the AF points are going to cover the same area of the camera's view, regardless of whether in DX mode or not. Similar to my point regarding AF accuracy, if you need or want the 'crutch' of having your AF points reach nearly from edge to edge, do so knowing that the consequence is substantially less total resolution to work with afterwards. BIF is one example I can think of though, where DX mode would be even more so a requirement.

That said, I do use my Fn button to toggle between crop modes and haven't shot a game without having been in DX mode for part of it....but very selectively.

Last thing to keep in mind... unlike landscape and portraiture, I've found myself using composition guidelines such as 'rule of thirds' much less when shooting sports action. Quite often, I want the action front, center, and filling the frame. But there are times when, looking at a shot, I do want 'leading space' in front of a player, as opposed to the player facing right up against the side of the image....even taking into consideration what his/her opponent is doing, or where they are in the shot. Shooting at full resolution is usually the factor that facilitates this flexibility of re-composing in post.
If buffer, workflow, storage, & subject tracking technique permit, shoot at full resolution unless absolutely sure the DX+ area is 'throw away'.

Loading…

stadter.smugmug.com
 
Last edited:
gstadter said:
gstadter said:
. Shooting at full resolution is usually the factor that facilitates this flexibility of re-composing in post.--
Click to expand...
'We truly fail only when we quit.'
Click to expand...
Bingo!! I'm glad someone else feels the same. Sometimes, moving the AF point to one side to favour off centred subject positioning can be frustrating. You either take eyes on off the action, maybe missing critical moments. Or.....you forget that it is on one side and you want the other. Best to leave it in centre, and crop in post.
 
Honestly this looks very sharp. I don't see anything wrong with this.
 
What I meant (based on my experience but I don't claim to be authoritative) is that in DX crop by virtue of the subject being larger, the AF seems to do better locking on to and tracking the target. At least it seems if the subject takes up more of the frame, the AF is less likely to be fooled.
gstadter said:
jep10 said:
I'd recommend you at least experiment with shooting in DX crop mode and see if your results are more to your liking. I think your sample photo is fine. It is tough shooting football (at least 11v11) with just 200mm. I find using DX crop gives you not only that extra reach but also improves the AF coverage and accuracy.
Click to expand...
If I may chime in and add one word of caution on shooting DX(ok, perhaps more than just one).... I shoot American football with both a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII and a 200mm f/2.0 VR and do myself often utilized DX crop mode on my D610. Now that I also have the D750, the in-the-middle 1.2x crop is a welcome addition to the ability to crop at time of shutter release.
DX(or any other crop mode) does not improve or in any way affect your camera's AF accuracy. If by "improves accuracy" what was meant was that the additional DX "box" within the viewfinder might be an aid to the photographer in having it made even more obvious as to when his subject(s) are moving beyond the coverage area of the AF points, then it would have been better to state it as such. Based on the OP's provided example though, I don't suspect his technique in keeping AF points on his subject(s) is lacking.
A bit more fuzzy is the topic of 'coverage'... yes, in DX mode the AF points cover a much higher percentage of the composed area, but I would argue that from an end result, resolution perspective, the AF points are going to cover the same area of the camera's view, regardless of whether in DX mode or not. Similar to my point regarding AF accuracy, if you need or want the 'crutch' of having your AF points reach nearly from edge to edge, do so knowing that the consequence is substantially less total resolution to work with afterwards. BIF is one example I can think of though, where DX mode would be even more so a requirement.

That said, I do use my Fn button to toggle between crop modes and haven't shot a game without having been in DX mode for part of it....but very selectively.

Last thing to keep in mind... unlike landscape and portraiture, I've found myself using composition guidelines such as 'rule of thirds' much less when shooting sports action. Quite often, I want the action front, center, and filling the frame. But there are times when, looking at a shot, I do want 'leading space' in front of a player, as opposed to the player facing right up against the side of the image....even taking into consideration what his/her opponent is doing, or where they are in the shot. Shooting at full resolution is usually the factor that facilitates this flexibility of re-composing in post.
If buffer, workflow, storage, & subject tracking technique permit, shoot at full resolution unless absolutely sure the DX+ area is 'throw away'.

http://stadter.smugmug.com/Gordon-L...014/Vs-LaFayette-Ramblers-Sept-05/i-WVRsL42/A

--
'We truly fail only when we quit.'
Click to expand...
 
LeeRN said:
From what I've read maybe my expectations were a bit high.

Thanks for all your advice, I'll keep trying to improve my technique for now and see if things get better.
Click to expand...
Good luck Lee. By the way, it looks sharp to me too judging by the spots of mud on his shorts.

I suspect that his shirt was blowing as he ran, but still - sharp!
 
jep10 said:
What I meant (based on my experience but I don't claim to be authoritative) is that in DX crop by virtue of the subject being larger, the AF seems to do better locking on to and tracking the target. At least it seems if the subject takes up more of the frame, the AF is less likely to be fooled.
Click to expand...
May be it is true on a DX camera such as the D300s where the 51 focusing points are located right across the image in comparison with a FX cameras where the points are heavily concentrated in the middle. In the FX camera such as D800/750 the crop mode makes no different to the focusing ability of the camera because the points does not move physically as you switch to crop modes
jep10 said:
gstadter said:
jep10 said:
I'd recommend you at least experiment with shooting in DX crop mode and see if your results are more to your liking. I think your sample photo is fine. It is tough shooting football (at least 11v11) with just 200mm. I find using DX crop gives you not only that extra reach but also improves the AF coverage and accuracy.
Click to expand...
If I may chime in and add one word of caution on shooting DX(ok, perhaps more than just one).... I shoot American football with both a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII and a 200mm f/2.0 VR and do myself often utilized DX crop mode on my D610. Now that I also have the D750, the in-the-middle 1.2x crop is a welcome addition to the ability to crop at time of shutter release.
DX(or any other crop mode) does not improve or in any way affect your camera's AF accuracy. If by "improves accuracy" what was meant was that the additional DX "box" within the viewfinder might be an aid to the photographer in having it made even more obvious as to when his subject(s) are moving beyond the coverage area of the AF points, then it would have been better to state it as such. Based on the OP's provided example though, I don't suspect his technique in keeping AF points on his subject(s) is lacking.
A bit more fuzzy is the topic of 'coverage'... yes, in DX mode the AF points cover a much higher percentage of the composed area, but I would argue that from an end result, resolution perspective, the AF points are going to cover the same area of the camera's view, regardless of whether in DX mode or not. Similar to my point regarding AF accuracy, if you need or want the 'crutch' of having your AF points reach nearly from edge to edge, do so knowing that the consequence is substantially less total resolution to work with afterwards. BIF is one example I can think of though, where DX mode would be even more so a requirement.

That said, I do use my Fn button to toggle between crop modes and haven't shot a game without having been in DX mode for part of it....but very selectively.

Last thing to keep in mind... unlike landscape and portraiture, I've found myself using composition guidelines such as 'rule of thirds' much less when shooting sports action. Quite often, I want the action front, center, and filling the frame. But there are times when, looking at a shot, I do want 'leading space' in front of a player, as opposed to the player facing right up against the side of the image....even taking into consideration what his/her opponent is doing, or where they are in the shot. Shooting at full resolution is usually the factor that facilitates this flexibility of re-composing in post.
If buffer, workflow, storage, & subject tracking technique permit, shoot at full resolution unless absolutely sure the DX+ area is 'throw away'.

http://stadter.smugmug.com/Gordon-L...014/Vs-LaFayette-Ramblers-Sept-05/i-WVRsL42/A

--
'We truly fail only when we quit.'
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
jep10 said:
What I meant (based on my experience but I don't claim to be authoritative) is that in DX crop by virtue of the subject being larger, the AF seems to do better locking on to and tracking the target. At least it seems if the subject takes up more of the frame, the AF is less likely to be fooled.
Click to expand...
so, to YOU, if you had a framed 5x7 picture, and took it out of the frame, the 5x7 would now look bigger to you??
If I cut the crusts off of a sandwich does the bread expand and become bigger??

Once you come to the realization that the subject, the AF points, their relative size to one another, AND their size in the viewfinder ALL do not change at all when switching to DX mode, you'll be on course to understanding why AF is no better in DX mode and no worse in Fx mode.
When switching from Fx to Dx crop mode on a Nikon Fx camera, the absolute only thing that the camera is doing when you switch to DX mode is dumping/disregarding the pixels outside of the DX area.
In Dx mode, the subject is not "larger". To my knowledge, current Nikon Fx cameras to not add additional magnification to make DX area consume more of viewfinder, so no, subjects do not become larger.
Here is a test for you..
Be in Dx mode on your camera... frame a car in your viewfinder so that it takes up the lower half of the frame, thus the lower 50% of the AF points are on it. Now switch to Fx mode. Does the car only have 30% or 40% of the AF points on it? Did the subject get smaller? nope...has exactly 50% of the AF points on it.
Now switch back to Dx mode. Did the subject get larger? Do 55%, 60%, or 70% of the AF point cover it?
 
Looks pretty good to me. Remember your depth of field can be measured in inches and therefore you have the ball in perfect focus and both players fighting for it ever so slightly soft, but that's sports photography. Printed at normal size and -- and oftentimes this is key -- appropriately sharpened in post process or else in-camera in your JPEG settings, it will look very good.

Compare it with actual prints taken by big-time pros for newspapers and magazines and I think you'll see your sharpness is competitive once you have your JPEG settings right or your post-process routine nailed down.
 
Daniel Bliss said:
Looks pretty good to me. Remember your depth of field can be measured in inches and therefore you have the ball in perfect focus and both players fighting for it ever so slightly soft, but that's sports photography. Printed at normal size and -- and oftentimes this is key -- appropriately sharpened in post process or else in-camera in your JPEG settings, it will look very good.

Compare it with actual prints taken by big-time pros for newspapers and magazines and I think you'll see your sharpness is competitive once you have your JPEG settings right or your post-process routine nailed down.
Click to expand...
Dof at 195mm f4 assuming he was 20 yards away from the players is over 7 feet from near to far. 30 yards away would be more than 16 ft. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 
Pure pedantry. You will still, in practice, notice some softness within those ranges, and I think that's exactly what the OP is seeing. DoF ranges are a tolerable range, not an absolute rule.
 
Daniel Bliss said:
Pure pedantry. You will still, in practice, notice some softness within those ranges, and I think that's exactly what the OP is seeing. DoF ranges are a tolerable range, not an absolute rule.
Click to expand...
Huh??? You said Dof was in inches...I guess 84" to 196". Shouldn't be softness with respect to Dof unless there is excessive front or back focus. The shot looks OK, just trying to keep it real...
 
Let me clarify. When you get a DoF range from a calculator, it's a range of what one might charitably call "acceptable sharpness". I'm fairly sure with this OP, two things are going on; first, he's noticing (as I am) stuff within the, let's say, sticker specification depth of field range, that's not quite as sharp as the ball that the focus is on, and second he's fairly particular about it and third he doesn't appear to have done any sharpening on the image. Fourth is the very high resolution of the camera, which means that what's sharp when reduced to 12 megapixels doesn't necessarily stay that way at 36. And I might even add #5 which is that the subject doesn't come close to filling the frame and so these issues are going to be much more noticeable to do the blowing up and cropping that's needed. It's sort of a "perfect storm" for noticing how in practice depth of field can be much narrower than a calculator or a table would indicate.
 
soloryb said:
LeeRN said:
Ive tried using VR On and VR Off, Ive found at high shutter speeds VR Off is more effective.
Click to expand...
You should not be turning off that VR if you're shooting hand-held. Unless that monopod you're using is rock steady, I'd still keep on the VR. I would only turn it off for tripod work - where VR could be detrimental.
Click to expand...
You need to do some reading about VR.

http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

At 1/500 and faster VR is not quick enough to be helpful and can actually degrade the image.

--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html
When you look through the viewfinder do you see an object or do you see a picture?
__________________
"I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them." — Ansel Adams, 1981
 
Last edited:
Thanks for taking the time to explain this and I agree with you. Perhaps my results in DX mode are illusory or maybe with the DX rectangle I am more careful about ensuring my moving subject is well framed for the AF points. I'll have to experiment more but this is good to know and I will try to shoot more carefully in FX.

gstadter said:
jep10 said:
What I meant (based on my experience but I don't claim to be authoritative) is that in DX crop by virtue of the subject being larger, the AF seems to do better locking on to and tracking the target. At least it seems if the subject takes up more of the frame, the AF is less likely to be fooled.
Click to expand...
so, to YOU, if you had a framed 5x7 picture, and took it out of the frame, the 5x7 would now look bigger to you??
If I cut the crusts off of a sandwich does the bread expand and become bigger??

Once you come to the realization that the subject, the AF points, their relative size to one another, AND their size in the viewfinder ALL do not change at all when switching to DX mode, you'll be on course to understanding why AF is no better in DX mode and no worse in Fx mode.
When switching from Fx to Dx crop mode on a Nikon Fx camera, the absolute only thing that the camera is doing when you switch to DX mode is dumping/disregarding the pixels outside of the DX area.
In Dx mode, the subject is not "larger". To my knowledge, current Nikon Fx cameras to not add additional magnification to make DX area consume more of viewfinder, so no, subjects do not become larger.
Here is a test for you..
Be in Dx mode on your camera... frame a car in your viewfinder so that it takes up the lower half of the frame, thus the lower 50% of the AF points are on it. Now switch to Fx mode. Does the car only have 30% or 40% of the AF points on it? Did the subject get smaller? nope...has exactly 50% of the AF points on it.
Now switch back to Dx mode. Did the subject get larger? Do 55%, 60%, or 70% of the AF point cover it?

--
'We truly fail only when we quit.'
Click to expand...
 
I don't use the DX crop mode, I like to keep focus point in the center of the viewfinder using 9 Point AF-C. I dont have to worry about whats in/out of frame or where my focus point is. This allows me space, to crop the images in post. Ive tried it and I didn't like it, I kept getting parts of the shot outside the DX image area. I'm no expert, it just doesn't work for me.

Here is a link to my Sunday League Album on Flickr. Sunday League Football

Processing is my weak point, Ive not mastered it yet. I am going to partly blame the crap monitor on my ageing laptop for this, I usually find my images are under exposed and over saturated, when viewed on other monitors.
 
LeeRN said:
I don't use the DX crop mode, I like to keep focus point in the center of the viewfinder using 9 Point AF-C. I dont have to worry about whats in/out of frame or where my focus point is. This allows me space, to crop the images in post. Ive tried it and I didn't like it, I kept getting parts of the shot outside the DX image area. I'm no expert, it just doesn't work for me.

Here is a link to my Sunday League Album on Flickr. Sunday League Football

Processing is my weak point, Ive not mastered it yet. I am going to partly blame the crap monitor on my ageing laptop for this, I usually find my images are under exposed and over saturated, when viewed on other monitors.
Click to expand...
Keep your laptop, just get an external 27" monitor ;-)
 
I agree with the other's that this isn't terrible considering the huge crop. IMHO, it isn't going to get much better than that when you are so far from the subject. You'd be better with a longer lens so you got more pixels on the subject. I used a 100-400 IS lens on my Canon for football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top