ukaskew
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I’m kinda thinking out loud here, so feel free to shoot me down if I’ve missed something really obvious.
Say you’re about to attempt a standard side-on panning shot, for arguments sake, 100mm, Shutter Priority, 1/50, sunny day, so your camera is probably protesting that it can’t close the aperture down any further. Given that you’re at f22 or something, is AF really doing a great deal? As far as I can tell it pretty much all comes down to panning technique, even with a telephoto the depth of field is going to pretty significant at those apertures (I’m sure there is a way of working it out, but it must be significantly wider than the track, let alone the car).
I ask because in the past few years I’ve used everything from a silly fast Nikon DSLR with even faster 70-200 2.8 AF-S attached, right through to a Fuji X-E1 with 55-200, which doesn't even have a proper continuous AF mode, with quite a bit in between (Micro 4/3, 5D Mk1). For the sort of basic panning described above there has been essentially nothing in it across the systems. The mirrorless gear falls behind for other angles (particularly straight at or away from you) but even then not as much as I had expected as long as you’re always looking to include some movement, but even the most basic kit DSLR I ever tried (Canon 1100D and Tamron 70-300) did absolutely everything I attempted with relative ease.
AF will clearly come into its own if you’re shooting shallow DoF straight at you type shots, and also in situations where you are unable to track the car until the last moment (i.e. coming over a crest, obscured by something etc). For working pros who have to get the shot, and for those that like to freeze action I absolutely understand the need for high-end gear, I’ve just found it interesting looking back over 12 years of shooting with a wide variety of gear, that for the sort of shots I enjoy taking, I would struggle to work out if it was taken with a £3k lens or a £150 lens, or mirrorless or DSLR etc.
I see lots of ‘need a faster body/lens for motorsport’ type queries, and if people want to spend money then I have no problem with that whatsoever, however I just wonder how much of a difference it really makes, particularly when I look at many of the shots that these people like to take (often panning stuff). I used to think motorsport was one of the most equipment dependent disciplines there were, but as I get older and wiser I would almost say the opposite.
Fuji X-E1 & 55-200...
Castle Combe Motorcycle Raceday by Harry_S, on Flickr
Say you’re about to attempt a standard side-on panning shot, for arguments sake, 100mm, Shutter Priority, 1/50, sunny day, so your camera is probably protesting that it can’t close the aperture down any further. Given that you’re at f22 or something, is AF really doing a great deal? As far as I can tell it pretty much all comes down to panning technique, even with a telephoto the depth of field is going to pretty significant at those apertures (I’m sure there is a way of working it out, but it must be significantly wider than the track, let alone the car).
I ask because in the past few years I’ve used everything from a silly fast Nikon DSLR with even faster 70-200 2.8 AF-S attached, right through to a Fuji X-E1 with 55-200, which doesn't even have a proper continuous AF mode, with quite a bit in between (Micro 4/3, 5D Mk1). For the sort of basic panning described above there has been essentially nothing in it across the systems. The mirrorless gear falls behind for other angles (particularly straight at or away from you) but even then not as much as I had expected as long as you’re always looking to include some movement, but even the most basic kit DSLR I ever tried (Canon 1100D and Tamron 70-300) did absolutely everything I attempted with relative ease.
AF will clearly come into its own if you’re shooting shallow DoF straight at you type shots, and also in situations where you are unable to track the car until the last moment (i.e. coming over a crest, obscured by something etc). For working pros who have to get the shot, and for those that like to freeze action I absolutely understand the need for high-end gear, I’ve just found it interesting looking back over 12 years of shooting with a wide variety of gear, that for the sort of shots I enjoy taking, I would struggle to work out if it was taken with a £3k lens or a £150 lens, or mirrorless or DSLR etc.
I see lots of ‘need a faster body/lens for motorsport’ type queries, and if people want to spend money then I have no problem with that whatsoever, however I just wonder how much of a difference it really makes, particularly when I look at many of the shots that these people like to take (often panning stuff). I used to think motorsport was one of the most equipment dependent disciplines there were, but as I get older and wiser I would almost say the opposite.
Fuji X-E1 & 55-200...
Castle Combe Motorcycle Raceday by Harry_S, on Flickr
