I shot high school football for the first time over the last couple of weeks. Lots of fun as I don't normally shoot team sports. 7D with 100-400F4.5L and 70-200F2.8L IS
I shot high school football for the first time over the last couple of weeks. Lots of fun as I don't normally shoot team sports. 7D with 100-400F4.5L and 70-200F2.8L IS
What ISO were you using? I've got the 7D and I'm renting the 70-200 2.8L for a few days for another purpose, but wanted to try some local HS Football games next Friday night for an NYIP assignment. I'd love to own the new 70-200 f2.8L IS II, but it's just not in the budget, renting works, for now.
What ISO were you using? I've got the 7D and I'm renting the 70-200 2.8L for a few days for another purpose, but wanted to try some local HS Football games next Friday night for an NYIP assignment. I'd love to own the new 70-200 f2.8L IS II, but it's just not in the budget, renting works, for now.
Seriously? Honestly, never really posted on Dgrin before, but if that's the way it works here, I guess maybe I'll stick to my normal forums. Normally posting pictures in a thread about the same subject wouldn't be considered a hijack everywhere else I've ever posted.
Seriously? Honestly, never really posted on Dgrin before, but if that's the way it works here, I guess maybe I'll stick to my normal forums. Normally posting pictures in a thread about the same subject wouldn't be considered a hijack everywhere else I've ever posted.
not picking a fight and please continue posting here...you have some great shots...but just look what happened. Now folks are commenting on your shots instead of the OP..that's all.
I assumed the comments were just on all of the shots, not necessarily mine. Seriously, if thats bad etiquette, here I'll pull them down. Some boards would have had an issue with me creating another thread with similiar shots to an existing thread...
not picking a fight and please continue posting here...you have some great shots...but just look what happened. Now folks are commenting on your shots instead of the OP..that's all.
It's amazing that from a distance the stadiums look well lit. When you get down onto the field though and start shooting action you realize that there isn't as much light as you thought.
I am jealous, my Oly 510 only shoots at 1600 ISO. I have been thinking on something different but have not really started to research a better camera that shoots good at night.
Sony A7ii, Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens, Sony FE85mm f/1.8 Lens, Sony FE 28-70 mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Lens, Godox 860iiS Flash.
Seriously? Honestly, never really posted on Dgrin before, but if that's the way it works here, I guess maybe I'll stick to my normal forums. Normally posting pictures in a thread about the same subject wouldn't be considered a hijack everywhere else I've ever posted.
I'm actually glad you thread-jacked, because we get to see the D3S crush the 7D.
I'm actually glad you thread-jacked, because we get to see the D3S crush the 7D.
One of the nice things about dgrin is the lack of this type of thing. Let's keep the gear snobbery away from the sports forum here. Stick to the images and technique and leave the 'my system is better than your system' stuff for other places.
as far as hijacking, every forum is different. Unlike other forums, the sports forum here at dgrin actively provides critique and feedback. So, it's always good to start a new thread with your own photos unless you're using a photo of your own to demonstrate advice. So, offcamber, please stick around - but next time just start a new thread. That way each thread starter gets the benefit of peoples' feedback.
You have to appreciate that the conditions were not the same so it's hard to compare. There are probably more scientific comparisons somewhere.:D
How were the conditions that different? Shooting at night in poor light. The only way I could keep my shutter speed up was by shooting at ISO6400 and 12,800. Seems pretty apple to apple to me.
And BTW, i'm not saying that the 7d matches up to the D3S, just that in this situation there isn't a lot of difference..
..no offense, but I don't see much difference noise wise in these shots and I paid $1500 for my 7D as opposed to what, about $4500 for the D3s?
It's not just about low noise. It's also about the detail that the D3s is able to retain at 6400. That's why it's so amazing. And I think you're right about the situations being similar. The OP was just being nice.
I own a 7D and I have to say the D3s certainly did out-perform it in this comparison. As it should, for the 300% price premium. No surprise here. Noise-wise, the 7D did pretty well, but the D3s retained a lot more detail and sharpness.
As for the thread-jack, I don't mind it at all, I think it made this thread a lot more interesting and useful. Otherwise it would have been just another thread of "wow, great shots". But offcamber if you do want critique of your own pictures on their own, and not relative to some other camera, I agree it would be good to start your own thread. No need to take your ball and leave.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Comments
Thanks, I think it's the D3s myself, I've shot with the 400 f2.8 with the D3 and not seen results this good.
http://andygriffinphoto.com/
http://andygriffin.smugmug.com/
Canon 7D, 70-200mm L, 50 and 85 primes, Tamron 17-50, 28-135
What ISO were you using? I've got the 7D and I'm renting the 70-200 2.8L for a few days for another purpose, but wanted to try some local HS Football games next Friday night for an NYIP assignment. I'd love to own the new 70-200 f2.8L IS II, but it's just not in the budget, renting works, for now.
www.tangojulietphotography.com
Nice shots.
It might be a good idea to post a link if you have a few snaps or start a new thread. Some might call this a thread hijack.
Rags
not picking a fight and please continue posting here...you have some great shots...but just look what happened. Now folks are commenting on your shots instead of the OP..that's all.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
be honest though..the stadium was enclosed in a giant soft box wasn't it?
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Unfortunately not, there are only 4 small light banks and no lighting at all in the endzones ( would be nice though )
That's too bad. You'd think with all the money they spent on that fake grass, they would have it all lit up like a Pro stadium too.
www.tangojulietphotography.com
Sportshooter Member
***********************
D3, D700, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 VR, 50 f1/8, 200-400 VR f/4, 300/2.8 VR, 400 f/2.8 VR, 85 f/1.8, TC-14E II, TC-17E II, Sigma 15/2.8 Fisheye, SB-900 (2), SD-9, SB-600, AB800 (2), misc. other stuff
I'm actually glad you thread-jacked, because we get to see the D3S crush the 7D.
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
You might like to look into this Better Beemer flash attachment for longer lenses.
This guy morris does real good with birds (Off setting dynamic range) My SB800 is supposed to be OK upto 100' (which doesn't mean much with a 400mm)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/941721/0#lastmessage
One of the nice things about dgrin is the lack of this type of thing. Let's keep the gear snobbery away from the sports forum here. Stick to the images and technique and leave the 'my system is better than your system' stuff for other places.
as far as hijacking, every forum is different. Unlike other forums, the sports forum here at dgrin actively provides critique and feedback. So, it's always good to start a new thread with your own photos unless you're using a photo of your own to demonstrate advice. So, offcamber, please stick around - but next time just start a new thread. That way each thread starter gets the benefit of peoples' feedback.
You have to appreciate that the conditions were not the same so it's hard to compare. There are probably more scientific comparisons somewhere.:D
How were the conditions that different? Shooting at night in poor light. The only way I could keep my shutter speed up was by shooting at ISO6400 and 12,800. Seems pretty apple to apple to me.
And BTW, i'm not saying that the 7d matches up to the D3S, just that in this situation there isn't a lot of difference..
It's not just about low noise. It's also about the detail that the D3s is able to retain at 6400. That's why it's so amazing. And I think you're right about the situations being similar. The OP was just being nice.
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
*shrugs* I see quite a bit of difference.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
It's also probably hard to see the detail difference of the web sized shots.
No, actually, it's not. Stop being nice! Look at their eyes.
please visit: www.babyelephants.net
As for the thread-jack, I don't mind it at all, I think it made this thread a lot more interesting and useful. Otherwise it would have been just another thread of "wow, great shots". But offcamber if you do want critique of your own pictures on their own, and not relative to some other camera, I agree it would be good to start your own thread. No need to take your ball and leave.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.