Baseball Photography Tips?

How you photgraph and video depends on your purpose. If you are going to use the video as a teaching tool, showing pitching or hitting mechanics, you will record one way. If you are using it as a coaching tool to show player's responsibilities on cut-offs, etc. you will video a different way.

If you are going to use it as a highlight video, than you will video a third way.

quote:

---

If you are using it as a coaching tool to show player's responsibilities on cut-offs, etc. you will video a different way.

---

That would be tough to do with one camera. I also find that taking pictures can take the fun out of watching the game. You have think about setting up the camera shots.

We mainly take pictures as a momento. So junior can show junior, junior years later.

I do a lot of photography as a hobby, and last year did a lot of still work for our varsity team.

First thing I did was retire my 35mm body and switched to a digital body using the same glass ... Nikon D70. Canon's 10D is another nice high end amatuer body, but I already had a bunch of Nikon glass. If you're going to shoot a lot of baseball ... going digital is key. Film is simply too expensive and too much hassle. I more than made up for the cost of my D70 in one season for what I would have spent on film and processing. The D70's continuous speed of 3frame/sec is on the edge of almost being too slow ... but it takes beautiful pictures and I didn't want to swap out all my glass, and I couldn't justify the cost of a true pro-body ... or getting true pro-level glass like a fixed 400mm/2.8. It's a hobby for me, not a living.

What I shoot and how depends upon whether I'm shooting the entire team/game, or just getting a few shots of my son when he's on the mound. When I shoot for the entire team, I use a 70-200 zoom with a 2x extender, that gives me a fixed F5.6. F5.6 is plenty fast unless it's really overcast or a night game. For night games, or just getting pitchers from behind the plate, I just go with my straight 70-200 at a fixed F2.8. I'm contemplating moving down to a 1.5x extender as the 2x with the smaller effective area of digital over 35MM film almost gives me too much reach (effective 600mm). With this I can zoom out to an outfielder making a catch or pull back in to get an at bat. I usually stand by the fence behind 3B ... where I can get action shots of 1B, 2B, Homeplate ... the only tough one is 3B 'cause I'm almost too close at 140mm. I'll occasional switch to behind homeplate to get a couple shots of the pitcher coming home, and over behind 1B to get some of the RH batters.

The only annoying thing is that you do have to kind of watch the game through the lense or be very, very fast on locking on the target action. I've gotten pretty good at anticipating what type of shot I'm after depending upon where the runners are at, etc., and with the D70 in continuous dynamic focus mode, I can lock on to a moving subject as fast as I can snap the camera up. Using continuous focus mode is key if you are shooting continuous frames or trying to get a shot off at a specific instant ... forcing focus lock before each exposure means you'll only get 1-2 frames/sec and not the full 3 frames/sec ... but you've got to be very good at locking onto a moving subject yourself.

How you shoot your kid at a game depends mostly upon the confirguration of the field. As my kid catches and bats righty I generally shoot stills and video from the 1st base side, unless glare or sunlight are issues. Sometimes I will shoot from an awkward angle to get the scoreboard or name of the field into an action shot.

Film tips:
1. Use 800 or 1600 film to maximize your shutter speed (I prefer fuji over kodak)
2. Use an 80 - 300 zoom for the infield. You need a 400 or 500 to shoot outlfielders
3. Always use a tripod - a good tripod can be adjusted to put the lens up against the fence without leaning the camera against the fence.
4. Use manual focus if you are shooting the batter, catcher or pitcher or expecting a play at a particular base.
5. Bring a lens hood, UV and polarizing filters
6. Unless you have a set of really expensive lens don't bother to shoot at night as people don't appreciate the use of a flash during the game.
7. Bring a chair to sit next to your camera. If its properly set up you don't need to stand up and look thru the lens thereby allowing you to watch the game while taking some shots.
8. Some of the best photos are taken during breaks in the game (i.e. umpire talking to your kid, getting/giving high fives that include his friends that he may never see again after HS.
9. If you can afford it, buy a digital SLR camera body from Nikon or Cannon ($1,000 w/o lens).


Video tips:

1. Pretty much the same as the film tips execpt for the film part!
2. Use a digital video camera . Its easier to burn quality DVDs or copies. I have a sony digital 8 that is reasonably priced and came with a remote, usb and firewire connections.
3. You can put filters and lens hoods on most camcorders
4. Turn off the digital zoom.
5. Be careful to not accidently turn on the night vision feature!
6. Don't mess with the automatic white balance setting as it very easy to forget to reset.

I don't use a tri-pod for my still camera because it's too hard to move around and get all the action across the whole field in the instant the ball is hit and the play is made. A mono-pod works well, particularly if I'm shooting at slower shutter speeds. But most of the time I'm shooting at higher shutter speeds ... particularly if it's bright and sunny ... so I just go hand-held. I just watch the game with one hand under the lens (elbow down) and the other holding the body with my finger on the shutter button. My lense with the 2x extender is about a foot long. When a play happens I can just snap the camera up and I'm right on the action.

Another great thing about digital: while I usually try to find a spot where I can shoot over, around, or through gaps in the side fences, some fields there simply are no gaps so you have no choice but to shoot through the chain link. When I'm shooting zoomed out to 400mm reasonable close to the fence, the fence just appears as a slight 'haze' defocused in the shot ... which Adobe Photoshop will take right out and I've got a nice clear picture as if there were no fence.

I also stay out of and away from the dugouts since as a parent ... that would be a bit 'wierd' ... don't want to intrude on the mojo of the players and coaches turf.

One last big thing about going digital: when I shot film, I'd always had this guilty feeling after I had shot several rolls of film that this was getting EXPENSIVE ... so I'd stop. Then maybe I'd take the time to scan in a couple of the best pictures. With digital, I usually shoot a 100-200 frames per game ... I pick out the best 50-75, upload them to our HS website to create a new online photo album after each game, then burn them all to a DVD-R/W for archiving in case a parent asks for some at full-res. Most parents just downloaded their favorites straight from the website and printed them out. At the end of the season, I take the best 300-400 pictures, pull them into a slideshow, lay down some music tracks and transitions timed to the beat of the music, plug in some DVD chapters at the start of each song, then burn a bunch of DVDs for the team and coaches as an end-of-season gift.

"7. Bring a chair to sit next to your camera. If its properly set up you don't need to stand up and look thru the lens thereby allowing you to watch the game while taking some shots."

Could you please elaborate on this one a bit.

I use a 300mm lense or 80-200mm. Longer focal lengths are needed for outfield if you can't get on the field.
I like film and often shoot B & W which I develop and enlarge. I generally get all the speed I need and less grain/more detail by shooting 400 ISO if it's daytime and 800-1600 at night with available light. Some films are over-rated by a third of a stop so sometimes I'll shoot the 400 ISO at +1/3 of a stop or 320 ISO.
The key to getting speed is going Aperture Priority and opening your lense up to F1.8 or at least F4. This will give you a faster shutter speed to freeze the action and a very narrow depth of field. With a narrow depth of field you can shoot through a fence if necessary and the fence will be so out of focus that the eye will be drawn to the player that's in focus.
I don't think I could get the good shots without constantly moving. Different angles and knowing where the next probably play is very important to good action shots.
I've gotten some good stills behind the plate with the focus on the pitcher and the ball airborn and the hint of the batter out of focus.
I only shoot my kid's games for personal purposes and scrapbooking for his kids to see. I do do a lot of action for hire for others during the summer months and then I usually am allowed access to the field, but I'd never do that with my kid's team. The key is to kind be invisible as you take the pictures. I get good shots that way.

Its all a matter of what you want to take a photo or video of.

My son is the catcher so I can set up the video camera or film camera on the tripod pointed at the plate area. As long as the camera is not moved/bumped I can sit in my chair and reach out to the shutter release or video record button and push as needed. If its a bunting situation I may loosen up the tripod collar so that I can pan the video camera. Every now and then I will double check the camera direction thru the viewer. If you are using a digital camera or camcorder you can easily use the moniter to make adjustments while sitting.

Clearly you will not get action photos of the SS making a great play on the field while sitting in a chair, however you can get a lot of photos of the SS hitting from your chair and you won't need the $700 Nikon or Cannon camera body with continous multi-zone autofocus/metering to take a decent photo.

If I had a Nikon D70 like pbonesteele I'd use the tripod less, although I would still use the tripod for shots at home plate. A tripod makes a huge diffence in picture quality when shooting with long focal lengths and/or relativly slow shutter speeds.

I've heard the general rule of thumb on shutter speed versus and the point below which you need to switch from hand held to mono-pod or tri-pod mounted is the inverse of the focal length, i.e., for a 200mm lens, anything slower than 1/200th sec should be mounted on a pod. Since I'm now shooting digital, I also have to factor in the 1.5x effect of the smaller imaging area of the digital body, so my 400mm lens turns into an effective 600mm, so in this configuration I usually make sure I'm shooting no slower than 1/800th - 1/1000th if I'm going hand held. Since the D70 goes up to 1/8000th, I can usually get enough shutter speed where I don't need to worry about blurring due to being hand held unless its just too overcast ... which is a very rare issue in SoCal.

Let me preface by saying I'm not very bright sometimes. I bought a real nice digital Nikon Coolpix 5700 that I thought would be perfect for baseball and wrestling. I apparently didn't research well enough and certainly exposed my photo ignorance. The camera takes superlative stills. It absolutely cannot capture action. Tooooo slooow with a fixed lens. Low light capability is horrendous as well. $800 Lesson: Don't buy a fixed lens camera for sports action.

pbonesteele

I too try to go by the genreal rule of thumb re shutter speeds but handholding a big lens and shooting a sporting event doesn't seem to work very well for me For me the general rule works if the camera body is stationary (i.e. portrait), if I am trying to shoot action like a football game w/o a tripod I will try to shoot my 300mm at 1/750 to counter the camera body and shake movement.

Using a tripod improves the "technical" quality of any photo taken!!

Taking photos is way too much trouble and a big waste of film and effort to get one good shot. The best thing to do is simply to video. Run thru the video on your computer with some editing software frame by frame until you get the best frames. Then you capture those premier frames as pictures. You can then size them to whatever you want and if you want prints just put on disk and take to Wally World.

quote:

---

Run thru the video on your computer with some editing software frame by frame until you get the best frames. Then you capture those premier frames as pictures.

---

I like videos much better than my stills. I've owned a digital camcorder for 2 years and never tried computer editing yet (one day--I tell myself--the edited movies will go on a DVD).

But I'd doubt that a single frame of digital video would produce a high quality still. Am I wrong?

I reside at the low end of the technical spectrum. What I have really enjoyed taking baseball pictures with is binoculars. You know, the one that take the digital photos. My husband got them for me because I like to look at birds. They were around $200 (depending on how accurate his estimate was this time, on that purchase )

For me, they have been great. Just some closer photos of him at bat, or in the outfield.

micdsguy

The day is coming - but it's not there yet. The trade off is a grainy shot but perfect composition. But the fact is the best choice is one you feel totally comfortable with. A so so shot with a disposable camera is better than no shots if your camera never makes it out of the trunk because it's too bulky.

Personally I still prefer 35 mm because I hate grain. To each their own. (mine is a Nikon 8008S with a 70-300 lens if anyone is curious)

I do believe the most important aspect is
knowing what use you will put the photos to.

If you are building a scrapbook some of those less than perfect composition shots are perfect because you won't hesitate to cut them up for certain shapes - something you won't do with a great picture.

Don't forget to get some emotion shots as well as action shots - and not just the thrill after a big play - get a few of those agony of defeat shots as well. And make sure and get shots with a few opposing players like the pitcher they most hate to hit off etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by micdsguy:
But I'd doubt that a single frame of digital video would produce a high quality still. _Am I wrong?_

---

It's digital video and the quality is excellent in the billions of colors. It's DVD quality and what you see on tv is what you see in print. Here are some examples all captured at the precise frame.
Captured Photos

I bought a digital mini-DV camcorder just before my son went to college. Guess what? No video cameras allowed at our baseball field. Many of their games are televised so I still have hours of video (better quality w/color commentators) I do shoot about a hundred stills at each game using a Fuji digital. I also take my laptop along to the hotel and in addition to checking out the HSBBW, I also edit photos and burn photo CD's. Occasionally I will visit the local Wal-Mart and have them make some prints for the grandparents. I have lots of 35mm and 120 formats but the digital offers more options after you shoot.
Fungo

PS. Using a digital video camcorder is a good way to get action shots. Play them back frame by frame and create a still from the video. I was pleasantly surprised by the quality. My camcorder had a function call "photo shot" that would store your selected frame on a removable card.

Here's what I want Santa to bring me!

Has anyone seen home baseball videos taken in HDTV?

Some HDTV camcorders are now out in the $3500 range

I agree that modern digital video cameras are wonderful. Their resolution tends to be limited to 500 scanlines so that they can remain compatible with NTSC standard broadcast video. I don't know if HD-compatible video cameras are available yet, but they'd probably be very expensive.

500 scanlines is good enough for small prints or the web ... but if you want to enlarge anything or do some quality prints, the limits of digital video vs a 5-to-6 Meg digital still camera become very visible. Of course the opposite is true when publishing still photos to the web ... they are so big, even compressed via JPEG, that in order to have reasonable download times over the web you have to down-size them first.

Another difference with digital video versus a SLR-type digital still camera ... there's just no way a manufacturer can put the same quality glass available in a detachable lens into a built-in lens found in most video cameras and mid-range all-in-one still cameras and keep costs down to market to the mainstream consumer market. You would have to go to a high-end video camera like the one on Fungo's Christmas list to get the same quality glass. If you use digital video capture for printing stills, you will see lens-induced aberrations (flare, spherical, edge distortions) that are fleeting enough in motion video that your eye doesn't pick them up. Also, because of the relatively small aperature of the fixed lens on consumer-grade video cameras, their effective shutter speed simply isn't fast enough to 'freeze' fast action. A line drive baseball off the bat will always be a blurred white streak coming off a blurred arc of a bat.

Occasionally I'll shoot both video and still ... I'll set the video camera up on a tripod (3B line if son is playing 1st, 1B line if he's playing 3B, behind home plate if he's pitching), turn it on and walk away. I don't want the camera (or me .. especially me) to be a distraction, so I move away from it and shoot stills with my Nikon. I'll edit the video down later on my home PC. Sometimes I'll put it on standby between innings to save tape.

How about camera/camcorder recomendations or comments?

pbonesteele would you buy the Nikon D70 again?

Would I buy the Nikon D70 if I had a do-over?

Yes. I already had several quality lenses from my F100 body, so that already tilted me in the direction of Nikon as I didn't want to spend money on new glass. The Nikon's metering system is simply amazing ... exposures, colors, white balance in even challenging high contrast frames are just spot on. The one thing that I found in shooting outdoor sports, s o c c e r, baseball, etc., that I didn't want to worry about messing with metering settings while panning from bright areas of the field to dim or high contrast foreground/background. I wanted to keep my attention on capturing the action. And metering is what Nikon does better than anyone.

The only thing I could wish for in a D70+ is slightly more frames per sec in continuous shoot mode ... my film F100 can do 4.5 to the D70's 3fps. It just forces me to be a little more precise with my shots.

There are cameras out there at similar price points that do more fps, have more autofocus points, do audio and short Mpeg videos, have 8 MB CCDs, etc., but at the end of the day, the one thing the D70 does very, very well is take beautiful pictures. If I were starting from scratch (no previous equipment) I'd take a serious look at the new Canon 20D, but it's $500-$600 more than the D70 for mainly an additional 2 fps and 8.2 Meg instead of 6.1 Meg ... you could buy a really nice lens with that $500-$600.

If money were no object, I'd be all over the Nikon D2X, but my wife tells me that's in the same category as my dream Harley Davidson Roadking Classic ... the "not in this lifetime" category.

Here's a couple of examples of what a D70 can do with complex foreground/background constrasts ... just a warning ... these are big JPEG files.

Pitching 1.6MB

Maui Sunset 2.1 MB

I thought I would share a picture that was taken of our shortstop making a double play last Friday.

Fungo,
That's a mighty fine picture there!

I picked up a Cannon Digital SLR 20D. Don't know allot about taking pictures but this camera allows me to point and click and get some very good results without having to think, (thinking hurts)

Fungo,

That's SI material! Excellent shot.

Here's a link to a really nice resource website focused on sports photography, both amateur and pro:

www.sportsshooter.com

Fungo,
Just an absolutely great shot, I use a Hitachi DMV 230 digital camcorder and it uses the mini dvd format. With the DVD-RAM you can edit the video on the go and still take stills that can be e-mail or kept or your computer just fine. Also keep an old Canon T-50 camera with a 210 zoom for candid shots around the ballfield.

I am considering getting a digital SLR. I am just starting to look so this thread came along at a good time.

DOes anyone have an opinion about the Canon Digital Rebel or the Olympus EVOLT E-300?

I currently have the Olympus C-700 which I really like as a point'n shoot. But I would like more flexibilty.

I have been told that the Cannon Rebel SLR and the Nikon 70D are comparable and at the top of their class after that eh, but this was the opinion of Best Buy sales man. I picked up the low end professional model from Cannon SLR 20D the package set me back over $2500.00 See if you can talk with a local sports photographer.

I think you'll find your local sports photographers usining either a digital Cannon or Nikon SLR "system". I am not sure I ever seen an Olmpus in use. Generally, if you see a photogragher with a big grey lens its a Cannon, if its black its a Nikon.

The answer to which camera to buy depends on which "system" you are currently using or wish to buy into. If you don't have a bunch of Olympus SLR accessories I would buy the Cannon or Nikon system.

The parts of the "systems" are generally not interchangable. i.e. a $350 Nikon speedlight works best with a Nikon but will work like a $50 flash on a Cannon and vice-a-versa.

Link to Nikon reviewhttp://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/ this article also contains links to Cannon reviews.

BigWI, the Canon digital Rebel coupled with the Canon stabilized telephoto lens is outstanding. Several baseball friends have them. I'm saving my pennies & hoping the prices come down some more.

You guys have TERRIFIC knowledge of cameras and how to use them. I wish I knew more, and feel like a dummy! I agree it is hard to photograph a game and still get to see the game. I have a Rebel SLR (I love the motor drive option except it's a film eater!)with a 70-200 lens, and a digital Olympus C740. I choose the Olympus because I couldn't afford my dream camera (digital Rebel) The C740 has a combination 30X zoom which is better for me because I have an outfielder. Also agreed is you have to "plant" on the expected place of action. I've messed a little with Adobe Photo shop to edit, like the cloning feature to "take out" an unsightly fence. But a very bad example of what can happen if you try to alter the size to much can be seen at the following link: photoalbum

I think you can't really go wrong with any of the Nikon or Canon digital SLR bodies. Both brands are simply very good. It then becomes more of an issue of personal taste, a couple of minor feature differences, frames/sec, and then $$$.

I've owned both Canon and Nikon film bodies, and spent a lot of time looking at digital bodies and talking with pro photographers ... the dad of one of my son's teammates was a Sport Illustrated photographer. He shot a Canon digital body, but he had SI buddies that shot Nikon.

Purely subjectively, it seems to me that Nikon puts more emphasis on their metering systems, e.g., the D70 shares the 1002-pixel RGB (Red/Green/Blue) matrix metering system from their professional bodies ... while Canon puts more emphasis on a more advanced (and fast) auto-focus system. With Nikon, the autofocus motor is in the camera body (slow) ... which requires that you step up to a more expensive motorized lens (Silent Wave) to get much faster auto-focus. With Canon, the auto-focus motor is always in the lens ... you just choose between fast and faster versions (Ultrasonic) cost-wise.

I personally like the dual control dials used on the Nikons, which was first borrowed from their F5 professional film body. It's very easy to make setting changes without lowering the camera from my eye. If you use fill-flash photography, the Nikon flash system and the way it integrates into their metering system is just scary good. The Nikon flash will actually send out an imperceptible strobe just before taking the picture to measure the reflectance of foreground, background, and the in-focus object identified by the autofocus system, including location within the frame, and automatically adjust the flash output to correctly expose the in-focus object with correct contrast with the foreground and background. The D70 will do fill-flash synchronization up to 1/500th shutter speeds.

You can find lots of good Nikon vs Canon debates on the discussion forums at www.sportsshooter.com

Thanks to all that replied. I think I am leaning towards the Nikon 70D or the Canon D20.

one thing I want is the burst shooting and from what I read the Rebel is limited to 4 frames in burst mode while you can get longer bursts with the others.

With my film camera I always seemed to just miss the good shot.

I am leaning towards a 70-300 zoom with the standard 18-70 lens.

Do the doublers really work?

BTW, thanks for the links they were informative.

Not sure if we are talking about the same camera. The Cannon EOS Digital SLR 20D will take 25 frames at 2 frames/sec in Auto focus. Manual focus can get to 4 frames/sec.

DIgital EOS 20D

EOS Rebel

Sorry if I just tossed a wrench into the whole thing. I think the Nikon 70D and the EOS Rebel are comparable while the EOS 20D is couple of steps up in price and features. Any body else feels like expanding on this feel free.

A quality doubler made to match the lens works well but you loose f-stops, so it works best if the lens has a large fixed aperature. I wouldn't bother with a doubler on a variable aperature lens.

I primarily use a 70-200 fixed f2.8 (w/ high speed focus motor). Given the 1.5x effect of a digital body over film, this works well for shooting infield, pitchers, batters, and indoor sports like basketball and volleyball using fill flash on high speed sync of 1/500th. For longer reaches, i.e., outfield and s o c c e r fields, I use a 2x doubler that takes me out to 400mm (effective 600 on digital), but that drops me to f5.6 ... fine on sunny days, but a challenge when it's overcast.

I'd love to have something faster than f2.8, but the cost, weight, and shear size take a BIG jump to get anything faster that F2.8 at 200mm or longer ... i.e., you're starting to look at pro level glass, a suitcase to carry it, and a much lighter wallet.

I think the D70 and Digital Rebel are pretty comparable ... though I prefer the D70 because it uses the same metering system found in the Nikon D2X Pro body, it has instant-on, slightly better continuous shoot, and it has the same command dials as the other Nikon pro bodies that I've come to really like.

The Canon 20D is clearly a step above the D70 ... mainly 5 fps, 8.2 MPixel, more advanced auto-focus versus 3 fps and 6.1 MPixel for the D70. The most important difference is the 5 fps, if it's worth the extra $500-$600 to you. It all comes down to how fast is fast enough for your needs, and what's your budget by the time you buy glass and memory cards. I use a 1GB card which lasts me a couple games worth of shots. I love my 70-200 f2.8 ... but it cost almost as much as the camera body. Just remember, high quality glass is just as important as the body when it comes to the finished product.

I find 3 fps the bare minimum. It works good for me, but I'm pretty careful how I shoot ... If I really, really want a precise stop action, I shoot a single frame and I'm just very careful with the trigger. If I'm shooting a batter, I put the viewfinder on the eye farthest away from the pitcher so I can pick up the pitcher's motion using the peripheral vision of my other eye and use it to help time the shot.

Remember, a good fastball takes roughly .4 secs to travel 60'6" ... and the batter swings at the tail end of that. So even at 5 fps (.2 secs per frame), you still only get 1-2 good frames on a complete swing ... so you might as well forget continuous mode and just shoot a single frame on contact. You have to get up into the 8-10 fps pro bodies before you can just blast away in continuous mode and trust you'll get the shot you want.

Disclaimer: I freely admit that I don't know what I am talking about, this is my interpretation of what I read.

The 20D specs say 5fps for up to 23 frames.

"Featuring an all-new 8.2 MP CMOS Sensor, a second generation DIGIC II Image Processor, 5 fps performance for up to 23 consecutive frames ......"

The Rebel specs say 2.5fps and I read that it was for a maximum of 4 frames.

"The EOS Digital Rebel has a host of other great features including a full resolution 2.5 fps continuous shooting mode "

The 70D specs say 3fps up to a maximum of 144 frames.


"Continuous shooting mode: With 3 frames per second and a dynamic buffer that lets you capture up to 144 pictures in sequence with no buffer stall using selected CF cards."

Clearly the D20 is a step above the 70D but I think the 70D might be a step above the rebel, at least in this feature.

I am more comfortable with manual focus, don't know why.

Thank you to everyone responding and trying to help me understand.

BigWI ... that sums it up nicely. You're on the right track.

Just don't buy an nice body and then go cheap on the lens. A nice fixed-aperature lens with low-dispersion glass makes a huge difference in the end result. I do have a small, light, variable aperature zoom (28-105) that I use for just carry around, landscapes, portraits, etc., but I do all my sports shooting with my 70-200 f2.8. It is heavy, but the large fixed aperature allows me to shoot high speed at a low ISO for the best quality.

One thing about auto focus versus manual focus ... unless you are really good at tracking moving objects, or pre-set your focus for a specific spot/distance in anticipation of a play, I've found it hard to match modern auto-focus systems that actually calculate and anticipate the movement of objects. I find that when I try to do manual focus on a very dynamic scene with a target that is moving quickly in distance WRT me, that my eye unconciously tends to bias my focusing efforts towards the most stable component in the frame ... the background. I don't know that I'm doing it, but I get great pictures of the outfield fence. The Nikon autofocus system senses the movement of the primary target object and tracks it across the frame ... Canon's system is similar.