dSLR thread

[ddrueding]

Usually people want to see relatively tight still shots of the critical players rather than a play formation, so think about the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8. Amateur and local night sports are often the most difficult since the lighting is substandard. 200/1.8 or 200/2 are also useful sometimes, but more useful for basketball or similar sports. The EF-S Canon bodies are not good at very high ISO and neither are the 1Ds series. You may want to get a camera that is useable at ISO 3200, such as the 1D III or D3, etc.

While all great ideas, they are also all over $2k. At the moment I am torn between the 85/1.8 and the 100/2. Both are around $400, and both are longer than my current primes (35/2 and 50/1.8 ) and faster than my current zoom (75/4-300/5.6). I would love the 135/2 that Handy has, but it is too dear at the moment.

 

[ddrueding]

This one came out OK...

 

[LunarMist]

Why didn't you wait until he was at least partly facing the camera?

 

[ddrueding]

I took that one as well, but it was blurry. The focus was having a very hard time.

 

[LunarMist]

An f/1.8 lens should be decent even in that light. Are you using proper AF technique?

 

[Handruin]

I'm curious...what is a proper AF technique?

 

[LunarMist]

I'm curious...what is a proper AF technique?

The opposite of improper technique. :mrgrn:

 

[Handruin]

That was very enlightening, thanks. I'll try that the next time I attempt to take pictures.

 

[LunarMist]

That was very enlightening, thanks. I'll try that the next time I attempt to take pictures.

Sorry. I was waiting for David's technique/settings.

 

[Handruin]

No worries. I am curious to hear your thoughts after he posts. I tend to use the single point AF with single shot for most of my stuff and sometimes I'll use AF tracking for more action-oriented photos

 

[ddrueding]

Are you using proper AF technique?

"All I know about photography I learned on Storage Forum"

I had it on AF tracking, full-auto at f1.8. It spent quite a bit of time searching for focus.

 

[Handruin]

My 50mm F1.4 can also spend additional time searching for focus. Mine and yours probably aren't the speediest of AF lens which could be part of the problem, but their price also reflects that.

 

[Stereodude]

What AF point were you using?

 

[ddrueding]

Center.

 

[Handruin]

This cheap Ikea $30 dolly looks like fun for whoever might be into the video. Once I get into it, I'll probably try making this.

 

[ddrueding]

An f/1.8 lens should be decent even in that light. Are you using proper AF technique?

I'm curious...what is a proper AF technique?

Lunar, have any wisdom you care to share?

 

[LunarMist]

I don't know about sports but I do some wildlife. Tony could probably help you, too.

I use the * for AF, keeping the AF mode always in AI servo. (IIRC some of the lower bodies have three AF settings, one is a funky auto mode that never works right.) I move the focus point around quite a bit to preserve composition, but always use one (MK III series) or at most two AF points (MK II series). AF expansion is a double-edged sword and you really need to see if it fits the subjects. I found it to cause more misses than it was worth.

In your case the center AF should be best, so there is not much else you can do besides try a better camera. I do keep the AF on when subjects are moving and follow them as smoothly as possible.

 

[ddrueding]

Yeah, the 7D and 135/2 are calling to me at the moment...

 

[LunarMist]

Yeah, the 7D and 135/2 are calling to me at the moment...

I tried the one 7D last year and it was not good. I may try again this summer, and the prices will be less. Make sure to test the body carefully and that there is a good return policy.

135/2 is a rather odd lens on EF-S. :skepo: What lenses do you have now?

 

[Handruin]

I love my 135 F/2 but I don't know if I'd use it for sports. I may just be the odd case, but given its somewhat odd length, I tend to use it for personal/artsy/walk-around photography than for anything else. It's razor sharp, but might not be long enough for sports.

 

[LunarMist]

Yes, and it makes even less sense at 1.6 crop than at the 1.3 crop. 135 is always a portrait lens to me.

 

[ddrueding]

I tried the one 7D last year and it was not good.

Can you elaborate on that? The 7D is certainly the most expensive body I could get away with, so the competition would be 50D or T1i.

135/2 is a rather odd lens on EF-S. :skepo: What lenses do you have now?

Using the 135/2 with a 1.6 crop body makes it a 216mm equivalent, seems pretty sane to me. Zoom lenses are nice, but I can't afford zooms that are fast/sharp enough at these lengths. 90% of my shots are using the 35/2 or 50/1.8, just because they are sharper and faster than my zooms (10-22, 18-55, 75-300).

 

[ddrueding]

...but might not be long enough for sports.

Depends on the sport I suppose, and what your access is. I had complete access to that football game, so long as I stayed out of the ref's way. The 50/1.8 was almost fine for that, unless I wanted sweat on someone's brow, or the kick and the reception. It would be OK for motorsports, if you could camp the corner. I also have a 2x extender around here somewhere that would make an interesting combination.

 

[LunarMist]

I still don't understand your objective. Are those family members/friends playing sports that should be identifiable, or are you trying to capture the play formation? Do they play games during the day on weekends?

At the very least the first lens you should get for EF-S sports is a 70-200/2.8. They are around $1000 used in good condition.

 

[ddrueding]

I take pictures of whatever I feel like or am asked to take pictures of. So far, I get the most enjoyment from walking in the woods or in the mountains. In addition, I've been asked to shoot 3 weddings, 2 football games, 3 parties (confirmation, birthday, batchelorette), a bunch of portraits, some construction sites, some buildings, and some tractors.

On all these assignments, I make sure that if they want a specific shot or list of shots, they tell me in advance. Otherwise it is at my discretion.

So it isn't that I want to shoot sports, or anything else in particular, I just like taking pictures. The 100/2 is so cheap, I might just get one coming and play with it. I really like the fast lenses.

 

[udaman]

dSLR's sure R boring. Nothing new with enough performance increases @prices I want to even look @.

New Nikon 900/700s/x supposedly will come out next month, 24.5MP yawn, too big, heavy, expensive.

What would really be great is a FF Rebel body for <$1k...I'll be dead b4 that happens it seems. Look @the old 5D, still ridiculously expensive, it's the cheapest FF body U can get? Pathetic.

Take a 500D and drop a FF sensor, bigger pentaprism in there, what would that cost? should be able to produce a $1k FF body (500D body is down to $650), just would canaibailize all the other underachiever, profit margin units

R my I's in need of repair?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos500d/page15.asp

Raw noise images on dp, 500D, look at the sculpture> the band of the crown? (on the head), as well as the 'hair' wave lines which would cover the ears.

dp says Nikon is better with more detail yet the hair waves are less distinct/softer to my I's, no?

Actually @iso3200 even the Oly e-620 looks better than the D5000

Then go look @ 7D comparisons of raw noise @high ISO:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page15.asp

The 50d is the worst of 4 compared, but if you open up a window side-by-side of the 2 links above, the 500D looks *better* than the 50d @same high iso, wtf? D300s is certainly better than the D5000 @ISo 3200, but all 4 are pretty decent, but move up to 6400 and the D300s gets soft around that hairwave, better than the 50D but the 7D looks better still? K7 isn't holding much detail, but neither is the 50D.

Just thinking a FF sensor, 12MP, $1k body Rebel would smack all above silly in IQ @6400+, would be the poorman's D900 (poorer build quality, lesser AF, much smaller/lighter weight...yay!, slower continuous fps...like a 5D , could have 1080p HD vid too like a 5DmkII .

Meh, I'll be dead or near that b4 I see the light of day on such an easily produced *practical*dSLR. FF digital Oly OM-1, would of course be better still , if Leica can do it, Y not Oly?


Maybe Nikon will produce a 4/3rds, or some large sensor compact, soon?

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/01/20/interview-with-tetsuro-goto.aspx

• On Micro 4/3 & Nikon: “If we follow this type of equipment, we change our frame (mount). The new frame will provide new opportunities or provide access to new technologies and to use targets smaller and lighter”.

• Large sensor compact camera: “We study this way. You’ll know soon enough.”

^PMA 2010 please, 5x min. zoom starting @24mm too. *must* fit into pocket/clutch (that's a skinny purse, 4U grrlie guys)

 

[LunarMist]

I take pictures of whatever I feel like or am asked to take pictures of. So far, I get the most enjoyment from walking in the woods or in the mountains. In addition, I've been asked to shoot 3 weddings, 2 football games, 3 parties (confirmation, birthday, batchelorette), a bunch of portraits, some construction sites, some buildings, and some tractors.

On all these assignments, I make sure that if they want a specific shot or list of shots, they tell me in advance. Otherwise it is at my discretion.

So it isn't that I want to shoot sports, or anything else in particular, I just like taking pictures. The 100/2 is so cheap, I might just get one coming and play with it. I really like the fast lenses.

I don't know what more to say. If trial and error is your method it will work out eventually.

 

[ddrueding]

I enjoy the trial and don't mind the errors, but I also appreciate any advice thrown my way. I try to incorporate as much of it as I can.

 

[ddrueding]

In addition to the 100/2, a 50/1.4 kinda fell into my lap.

(traded a (broken) remote controlled helicopter for it)

 

[LunarMist]

I was disappointed by the 50/1.4. It's not sharp until 2.5 and not the greatest at f/8 either. Yet there were not many other good options then. Now there are better 3rd party options.

 

[ddrueding]

The 50/1.4 is a massive step up from my 50/1.8. The focus is much faster and more accurate, and it is much sharper at 1.4 than the other is at 1.8. At 2.5 it is one of the sharpest lenses I own.

I do value your opinion and advice, Lunar. But quite often it seems to translate to the following: I wasn't impressed with $$, because $$$$ is much nicer. Not that I don't agree with you, just that it isn't really a fair comparison.

 

[ddrueding]

New Toy.

 

[Stereodude]

Is that the Sigma Bigma?

 

[ddrueding]

Is that the Sigma Bigma?

Very close. Sigma 170-500. Super cheap, quite used from B&H.

 

[LunarMist]

How stable is that setup? It looks kind of scary.

 

[ddrueding]

Fully extended it is a little front-heavy, but not bad at all. Right now I have it set up looking significantly down from maximum extension, and each leg has quite a bit of weight on it. Just testing maximum magnification and minimum focus distance.

 

[LunarMist]

The head looks oddly curved in the cell-phone photo above and barely attached to the foot. A 500 mm lens should have much better support.

 

[ddrueding]

Better support internally? Or am I doing something wrong?

 

[ddrueding]

What happens when you're stuck in the office for a long time with a new telephoto lens? 88MP HDR pano images of stuff in the lobby (like a tractor).

 

[Pradeep]

Truly a thing of beauty (though you may want to link to the "Large" version instead).

Need to borrow one to carve out an ATV track in the back acres.

Love the dug up floor showing it's devastating trail of destruction.