AI Servo - Number of Focus Points

[Waddizzle]

I am basically a still photographer.  Apparently, my renewed interest in photography has created a reputation of me being some sort of photography guru.  HA-HA    So, folks with smartphone cameras have begun asking me to come and take pictures for them of this, that, or some other event.  No weddings, just Little League games, and the like.

Shooting stills means using One-Shot focusing mode, which may not  be best for moving subjects.  So, I've been exploring and experimenting with AI Servo mode.  Which, brings me to a question that I cannot answer. 

Does it matter if I am using just the center focus point, or should I need to turn of manual point selection altogether? 

So far, my experiments have been inconclusive.  My shots are in focus, but I am attributing that to pre-focusing.  I get much better results by pre-focusing, than when I don't.  Keeper rate is pretty much the same with manaul AF point selection, no matter if I use One-Shot or AI Servo modes. 

I pre-focus on a player, or where I expect a player will be: i.e.; focusing on the base ahead of the base runner.  I can get good shots, like the above play at third base.  [the shot has been cropped to remove faces and team information]

But, forget about refocusing on an outfielder chasing down a ball.  The kid is running, so One Shot doesn't work out very well, but neither has AI Servo with only the center point, manually selected.  Turing on all of the AF points, 9 in a 6D, results in the camera frequently focusing where it wants, not where I want it to.

I guess I am saying that it seems that I have not been able to have the camera actuallly track a moving subject.  So, do I need to turn on all AF points, in order to make it track in AI Servo, or not?  For me, I am having bad luck relying on automatic AF point selection to pick out the running kid in the outfield, instead of a background tree, or something.

[Waddizzle]

"Who is Bo, and how did he make his way into this conversation? I thought I'd been paying attention, but maybe not." 

Multi-sport star, Bo Jackson.  It began with a subtle word pun on my part.  Ernie questioned my sports knowledge.  I responded by saying, "I know Bo", which alludes to the "Bo Knows" advertising campaign that Bo once did.

I prefer to remain somewhat anonymous because of past bad experiences with malicious trolls.  They're out there, folks.

[ebiggs1]

Sometimes it's good not to be famous.  Just another guy.

[Waddizzle]

"Ernie, I've never understood your preoccupation with using only the center point. It's a fairly well accepted principle of composition that the main subject shouldn't always be centered in the frame. So you're left with either re-positioning the camera after focusing or focusing away from the subject. Why either of those options is A Good Thing requires further explanaton which I don't think you've ever provided." 

-------------------------------------------------------

If someone were using just a single point, assuming we're talking handheld here, I cannot understand why someone would use anything other than the center point.  I lock focus, and recompose a shot all the time.  I find it to be the best method to use for "One Shot" mode. 

When shooting sports, I don't think composition is as much of a priority, as it is simply getting the shot.  Using just the center point seems to be the fastest way to focus on a moving subject, or any subject.  Using the same modus operandi for non-action shooting scenarios makes sense to me. 

Overall, I'd say the "center point only" practice is consistent with the "K.I.S.S." principle, and a principle that I wholeheartedly agree with..  My point in this thread has been about what AF point setting is best for "AI Servo" mode..  Ernie's reply seems consistent with the "K.I.S.S." approach.  The best answer seems to be use the center, but with AF Assist points, wihch my 6D lacks.

[ebiggs1]

As one gains experience actually doing this and shooting, I believe they, too, will come to the realization that the center point is best. That's why it's what the high dollar pros use.  They know what works.

In this area of photography we agree. There is common ground.  

[ebiggs1]

"Ernie questioned my sports knowledge."

Actually this isn't correct either. At least it isn't as I wanted it to be understood.  I simply questioned your sports knowledge as it pertains to photography.  I am sure Alex Gordon, our (the Royals) multi-Gold Glove outfielder knows baseball but I doubt he knows how to photograph it.  Just my take and of course I could be wrong.

[Waddizzle]

"I am sure Alex Gordon, our (the Royals) multi-Gold Glove outfielder knows baseball but I doubt he knows how to photograph it. " 

You're still talking about knowing your gear, and how to use it, whether you realize it or not, more than anything else. 

Most of the sports photographers I have known were always trying to pick your brain to learn how athletes see their own particular sport.  The best guys seemed to realize that the best shots were about what some guys used to refer to as the "perspective of the objective", particularly from the first person perspective of the athlete.

That approach is what is drives the classic, "over the shoulder" view of how a pitcher sees home plate, and the batter, when he is throwing a pitch.  Ditto for the "batter's perspective" shots from behind plate.  Ditto for the shots where an infielder is seemingly throwing the ball directly into the camera.  Ditto for shots that look along the foul lines, which are representative of the umpire's perspective. Many baseball shots give a "from the dugout view" of the action.

Football.  Ditto for the shots from behind the kickoff, or the receiving, team.  Shots down the goal line are a textbook example of "perspective of the objective" appproach.  Ditto for shots down the line of scrimmage.  In recent years, they have introduced "sky cams" that hover over the field to give the viewer a perspective what it looks like to be on the field. 

I think you would be stunned about what athletes could teach a photographer about how to photograph their particular sport.

[ebiggs1]

"You're still talking about knowing your gear, and how to use it, whether you realize it or not, more than anything else."

Thanx for clearing that up for me. I was so confused but now I know where I have gone wrong.

"I think you would be stunned ..."

Yes, I am "stunned" but possibly not for reasons you mentioned.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I hope a 6D mark II ..."

"BTW, I am 6'8" and 220 lbs."

If anybody I have ever met should get a 1 series it is you.  Your size is a match.  I can't imagine you are comfortable with a Rebel.  Or even a xD series for that matter.  My size and the total lack of being impressed by a 6D was just another plus sign for a 1 series.  If you can't drop the coin on a 1Dx look for a clean 1D Mk IV.  Once you go 1 series, you will never go back. That's a fact, Jack!  IMHO, of course, as always.

---

Oh, I meant to tell you, that I use a battery grip [Canon, of course] on my 6D.  The grip gives you a little more "pinky room" to hold the camera, which comes in handy with big lenses.  And, yes, I do support the weight of heavy lenses with my other hand.

The 6D is a great camera for what I've done for years, which is taking stills.  Action shots?  Meh.  I can get some great shots with the 6D, but it is not easy to keep tracking on a subject with just one focus point.  I can just about do it with outfielders, using a tripod.  Infielders?  Switching subjects on the infield results in lost shots because I'm not locking and staying on the subject I want quickly enough.  Some AF assist points just might be the ticket to track infielders.

But, I just may look into that idea of a clean 1D Mk IV, because it seems my hobby is rapidly exploding into a part time career.  I don't know what to think of an APS-H sensor, though.  I wish it were full frame.  But, I have to trust the fact that Canon wouldn't release it as a flagship model if it couldn't perform, and perform well. 

This Little League stuff seems like it is about to take off.   Baseball demands better AF tracking than what I can get out of the 6D.  At the rate I'm going, I'll have a 1D X Mark II by next year this time.  But, I may need something to get me there.  I think a 1D Mk IV would be a better choice than a 1Ds Mk III, mainly because of frame rates.

[jrhoffman75]

At the time Canon was producing APS-H sensor cameras the technology was such that full frame sensors couldn't match the frame rates of the smaller sensors. The 1D series started out as a sports/journalism camera. Shoot JPEGs to the SD card for rapid response to get to press and shoot RAW to the CF card for later processing.  With wifi capability and advances in full frame cameras that is no longer true with the 1D X and 1D X Mk II; no advantage to the smaller sensor and cost of FF have dropped. 1D Mark IV was $5K back when 1Ds was $8K. Now the 1D X Mk II is $6K.

But, for equivalent dollars, if you can get a low mileage 1D Mk IV I think you will find it surpasses any equivalent cost camera.

[Waddizzle]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:

At the time Canon was producing APS-H sensor cameras the technology was such that full frame sensors couldn't match the frame rates of the smaller sensors. The 1D series started out as a sports/journalism camera. Shoot JPEGs to the SD card for rapid response to get to press and shoot RAW to the CF card for later processing.  With wifi capability and advances in full frame cameras that is no longer true with the 1D X and 1D X Mk II; no advantage to the smaller sensor and cost of FF have dropped. 1D Mark IV was $5K back when 1Ds was $8K. Now the 1D X Mk II is $6K.

But, for equivalent dollars, if you can get a low mileage 1D Mk IV I think you will find it surpasses any equivalent cost camera.

---

Thanks, for the insight.  My instincts seem to be on the mark.

BTW, I sold four more pictures today.  Folks actually frame them and hang them on their walls.!!!  A 6D has been great, for me.