Nice shots - and great color saturation. I have to laugh about the expodisc after all the discussion we have had about your success using them.
My last experiance has me looking at an f2.8 lens rather than my current f4 one. I needed the extra stop for the first time last night - the lights were terrible.
It looks like you had some great even lighting to shoot with. Always great to see your shots.
Z
It is the purpose of life that each of us strives to become actually what he is potentially. We should be obsessed with stretching towards that goal through the world we inhabit.
Nice shots - and great color saturation. I have to laugh about the expodisc after all the discussion we have had about your success using them.
My last experience has me looking at an f2.8 lens rather than my current f4 one. I needed the extra stop for the first time last night - the lights were terrible.
It looks like you had some great even lighting to shoot with. Always great to see your shots.
Z
Thanks Z,
I thought you'd get a kick out of me forgetting to take my ExpoDisk
(Murphy's Law at work again)
No daylight during this game, well not for long. The game started at 7:30pm. The lights at this little field really - really suck! Shot f2.8 & ISO 3200 all game.
Get you that bad boy lens... I couldn't make it without a 70-200 f/2.8L IS --- It's my workhorse!
Anyway, thanks for the comments, glad you got a chuckle.
I thought you'd get a kick out of me forgetting to take my ExpoDisk
(Murphy's Law at work again)
No daylight during this game, well not for long. The game started at 7:30pm. The lights at this little field really - really suck! Shot f2.8 & ISO 3200 all game.
Get you that bad boy lens... I couldn't make it without a 70-200 f/2.8L IS --- It's my workhorse!
Anyway, thanks for the comments, glad you got a chuckle.
So the real question is IS or non IS? I have read all the opinions and fnd many feel the non IS is as sharp or sharper and that with thinkgs like football and motion sports the IS isnt the must have feature.
Oh yeah, and $600 more slows me down a little , too!
It is the purpose of life that each of us strives to become actually what he is potentially. We should be obsessed with stretching towards that goal through the world we inhabit.
So the real question is IS or non IS? I have read all the opinions and find many feel the non IS is as sharp or sharper and that with things like football and motion sports the IS isn't the must have feature.
Oh yeah, and $600 more slows me down a little , too!
Good luck with that one
My take for the extra money...
I didn't want to spend the money for the non IS, (and that's not cheap by any means), then find that I wished that I had purchased the IS version. I've tested my IS with my friends non-IS several times, and between our two lenses, I can't see any difference in sharpness from a tripod nor handheld, (with good light for his non-IS). There have been many times that we will be shooting somewhere, and well, he wished he had the IS version.
If you are only shooting sports, and that's "all" you will be shooting with the lens, then you might not want/need the IS. But, if you EVER plan to shoot other things with it, like portraits, weddings, landscapes, you might well wish that you paid the extra to have the IS available to you. I posted some zoo shots a while back, and one of the shots of a waterfall was handheld, 200mm + 1.4 TC at 1/2 second shutter speed and it turned out perfect. Try that with a non-IS.
Come to think of it, even shooting sports, I like to be able to shoot whatever comes along. Meaning, players outside of the lights on the sidelines, etc...
No daylight during this game, well not for long. The game started at 7:30pm. The lights at this little field really - really suck! Shot f2.8 & ISO 3200 all game.
quote]
Randy,
Either your lights are way better than the ones I've got or you are using some sort of very cool pp tricks. I tried iso 3200 last game and my histogram was slammed up against the left side and I could barely see anything on the lcd. It's almost completely black. Without a flash, I can't get anything. I am shooting at f2.8. Would you mind posting a before post and after post for us so we can see what you are starting with.
No daylight during this game, well not for long. The game started at 7:30pm. The lights at this little field really - really suck! Shot f2.8 & ISO 3200 all game.
quote]
Randy,
Either your lights are way better than the ones I've got or you are using some sort of very cool pp tricks. I tried iso 3200 last game and my histogram was slammed up against the left side and I could barely see anything on the lcd. It's almost completely black. Without a flash, I can't get anything. I am shooting at f2.8. Would you mind posting a before post and after post for us so we can see what you are starting with.
Thanks,
Sean,
I'd be more than happy to share what I know & any techniques that might help out.
First note: I see upon review, I need to set my camera's clock correctly. The game didn't start until 7:30pm, but the first shots show 6:16pm, and I'm NEVER early! <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif" border="0" alt="" >
I of course have no clue as to the lighting that you are trying to shoot under, I just know how the lights were at this field in question.
BTW, my contention that this field has crappy lighting is based on the fact that the strongest "hot spot" is only ISO 3200 - f/2.8 - 1/400. Most shots of course don't fall in the "hot spots". Also, from the lighting setup stated below.
The lighting at this field consist of 4 poles with 8 lights on each pole. To make matters worse, the poles are directly opposite each other. This creates 2 "hot spots" in the field. Also they are not aimed to spread the light, they are all focused to the middle of the field. So, with this in mind you can imagine (I will post some pics to show) the field is pretty dark with two light spots in the middle at about the 30 yard line on each end.
The endzones are not even lit.
Here are some pics to show the hotspots, but I will have to go back into another game at this same field (same starting time) due to the fact that after processing the pics I just save them. I take to many sport pics to save both the original and the processed/cropped pics.
Let's start with this picture. It was shot at ISO 3200 - f/2.8 - 1/100 on the sideline. That's not much light.
ISO 3200 - f/2.8 - 1/250
You can tell by the long shadows where the "hot spot" was.
ISO 3200 - f/2.8 - 1/125
This shot shows exactly what I'm describing about the "hot spots".
OK, went to a different night at this same field.
ISO 3200 - f/2.8 - 1/320
ACR set to <0>
Sorry, took the screen shot after opening in CS2
ISO 3200 - f/2.8 - 1/320
ACR set to <Auto>
In CS2, adjusted layers a little and some USM, crop
Nothin' fancy here...
Sounds like you are just shooting "in the dark" completely.
Forgot to add: When the lighting is really compromised, I'll either shoot with the 2.5* spot, or the 9* partial spot on the 30D. Also, if shooting .jpg, lower your contrast setting in camera. That will help a little with the latitude.
Sounds like you are just shooting "in the dark" completely.
Forgot to add: When the lighting is really compromised, I'll either shoot with the 2.5* spot, or the 9* partial spot on the 30D. Also, if shooting .jpg, lower your contrast setting in camera. That will help a little with the latitude.
Anyway, hope something here helps out.
I probably shouldn't be complaining too much as I'm getting reasonably good results with a flash, but I hate red eye and the fire department just lights up like a bunch of fire flies on the opposite side of the field. See the photo below.
It sounds like you are shooting in Apperature priority. I've been shooting manual to keep my shutter speed higher. I'll attempt a few without the flash again at the game on Saturday. Thanks for the advise and help.
Forgot to add: When the lighting is really compromised, I'll either shoot with the 2.5* spot, or the 9* partial spot on the 30D. Also, if shooting .jpg, lower your contrast setting in camera. That will help a little with the latitude.
Randy:
I dont understand this. Can you define further the 2.5* spot?
Thanks,
Z
PS: In another of our threads, there is an interesting discussion on variability in the lights along with some interesting shots.
It is the purpose of life that each of us strives to become actually what he is potentially. We should be obsessed with stretching towards that goal through the world we inhabit.
It sounds like you are shooting in Aperture priority. I've been shooting manual to keep my shutter speed higher. I'll attempt a few without the flash again at the game on Saturday. Thanks for the advise and help.
Sean,
That would be correct. I prefer to shoot AV due to the fact that I can adjust aperture or shutter speed in that mode, and also so that I can force the fastest shutter speed per the given light available. IE: f/2.8
Others have there preferences, and that's OK, but this is what works well, consistently for me.
Question: What good is a higher shutter speed if you don't have the light to support it? Resulting in underexposed images, or non-usable images...
If you force the fastest that your lens and ISO can give (EX: f/2.8 - 3200 ISO), then it's either going to make it, or it's not...
It's been my experience that your WAY better off on this side of the gamble.
I've shot & posted several football action pics that were shot with not much light & they turned out well. Not all do, but the majority.
Forgot to add: When the lighting is really compromised, I'll either shoot with the 2.5* spot, or the 9* partial spot on the 30D. Also, if shooting .jpg, lower your contrast setting in camera. That will help a little with the latitude.
Randy:
I don't understand this. Can you define further the 2.5* spot?
Thanks,
Z
PS: In another of our threads, there is an interesting discussion on variability in the lights along with some interesting shots.
Sure Z, I'll give it a try...
NOTE: Correction -- 30D has 3.5* spot, not 2.5* as stated before.
On your 30D you have different metering modes. 3.5* (degree) spot - 9* partial spot - Evaluative - Center-weighted
Note where each of these metering modes works from:
Evaluative = linked to any AF point
Partial = 9* - this is roughly the circle in your viewfinder
Spot = 2.5* - this is roughly the very center of the circle in your viewfinder
Center-weighted = central area in viewfinder
You change them by pushing the right most button on the top right side of the camera, then rotate the dial behind the shutter button. This button is dual function: Metering mode - FEC
Now, with that info you can choose which will work best for your given circumstance. Evaluative is what I shoot most of the time. Let's say that at a very poorly lit football game you need to get more accurate metering, then let's use one of the two spot meters.
Which one?
If your shooting across the field, then I want to use the 3.5* to get my subject to fill that little metered area up.
If your shooting closer to you, I'll use the 9* spot so that once again I can try and get the "player" of interest to fill the 9* circle. Closer range: if I used the 3.5* spot meter here, then chances are good I would just be metering his jersey due to simply trying to follow focus with the focus point on his body due to composition, not his face or skin tones, therefore would not give you the exposure reading your after.
Give it a try and see if it helps you out any
About your PS --- Yeah, I read that and will have to spend some actual "testing" time during a game. I don't doubt his pics, but his WB was not taken over the full cycle. Notice that his 1/60 sec sequence shows the same exposure and WB. I believe that a WB taken with the ExpoDisk at or below 1/60 sec will average the WB out throughout the cycle. I think that's why I'm not seeing the WB fluctuations. Could be wrong, but we'll see.
Also, let's not forget what were dealing with here.
Were just going to have to do the best with what the lights will allow. We can't make crappy lighting shots look like shots with some decent light.
Great Shots!
I have just recently bought a Canon 30d and have a Sigma 70-210 F2.8
lens, and I am really just trying to figure out how to get some crisp shots at the 7:30 Football games. I normally have it set at F2.8 and 3200 but I don't use a monopod, they are just not that great! Do you have any other suggestions. Thanks, KS
That would be correct. I prefer to shoot AV due to the fact that I can adjust aperture or shutter speed in that mode, and also so that I can force the fastest shutter speed per the given light available. IE: f/2.8
Others have there preferences, and that's OK, but this is what works well, consistently for me.
Question: What good is a higher shutter speed if you don't have the light to support it? Resulting in underexposed images, or non-usable images...
If you force the fastest that your lens and ISO can give (EX: f/2.8 - 3200 ISO), then it's either going to make it, or it's not...
It's been my experience that your WAY better off on this side of the gamble.
I've shot & posted several football action pics that were shot with not much light & they turned out well. Not all do, but the majority.
Try it out, see if that works for you.
And lets see those pics!!!
I usually shoot aperature priority, but have found manual to work better for me in a couple of situations. The Volleyball I shoot is typically in a pretty evenly lit gym, but some objects tend to throw off my exposure. Whenever I put a flash on one of my Nikon bodies, they default to a 1/60 shutter speed. If I want a higher speed, I have to go to manual.
My biggest problem with my flash setup for night games is the recycle time on the flash, red eye, and shinny objects in the background. I will give ISO 3200 a shot though in A mode and post some shots. Thanks again for your feedback.
I usually shoot aperature priority, but have found manual to work better for me in a couple of situations. The Volleyball I shoot is typically in a pretty evenly lit gym, but some objects tend to throw off my exposure. Whenever I put a flash on one of my Nikon bodies, they default to a 1/60 shutter speed. If I want a higher speed, I have to go to manual.
My biggest problem with my flash setup for night games is the recycle time on the flash, red eye, and shinny objects in the background. I will give ISO 3200 a shot though in A mode and post some shots. Thanks again for your feedback.
Hey Sean,
Your more than welcome and I hope some of the info turns out to be useful. If not, well, it didn't cost you much
I have just recently bought a Canon 30d and have a Sigma 70-210 F2.8
lens, and I am really just trying to figure out how to get some crisp shots at the 7:30 Football games. I normally have it set at F2.8 and 3200 but I don't use a monopod, they are just not that great! Do you have any other suggestions. Thanks, KS
KS,
I'd be more than happy to help out in any way I can, but that's a pretty in-depth subject for a single request
My suggestion is to shoot as much as possible, then post some pics here in the sports sections and ask for comments. That way there are specific issues to try and deal with, one at a time. And, more importantly, you might get someone who actually knows what they are talking about to give you an answer
If interested, you can click on my avatar name, then choose "more post by rwells" and have a look to see if there may be some post/info that is of interest to you. I have given some techniques and/or comments about sports shooting on a few threads lately which might answer some of your questions.
Comments
Nice shots - and great color saturation. I have to laugh about the expodisc after all the discussion we have had about your success using them.
My last experiance has me looking at an f2.8 lens rather than my current f4 one. I needed the extra stop for the first time last night - the lights were terrible.
It looks like you had some great even lighting to shoot with. Always great to see your shots.
Z
Thanks Z,
I thought you'd get a kick out of me forgetting to take my ExpoDisk
(Murphy's Law at work again)
No daylight during this game, well not for long. The game started at 7:30pm. The lights at this little field really - really suck! Shot f2.8 & ISO 3200 all game.
Get you that bad boy lens... I couldn't make it without a 70-200 f/2.8L IS --- It's my workhorse!
Anyway, thanks for the comments, glad you got a chuckle.
So the real question is IS or non IS? I have read all the opinions and fnd many feel the non IS is as sharp or sharper and that with thinkgs like football and motion sports the IS isnt the must have feature.
Oh yeah, and $600 more slows me down a little , too!
Good luck with that one
My take for the extra money...
I didn't want to spend the money for the non IS, (and that's not cheap by any means), then find that I wished that I had purchased the IS version. I've tested my IS with my friends non-IS several times, and between our two lenses, I can't see any difference in sharpness from a tripod nor handheld, (with good light for his non-IS). There have been many times that we will be shooting somewhere, and well, he wished he had the IS version.
If you are only shooting sports, and that's "all" you will be shooting with the lens, then you might not want/need the IS. But, if you EVER plan to shoot other things with it, like portraits, weddings, landscapes, you might well wish that you paid the extra to have the IS available to you. I posted some zoo shots a while back, and one of the shots of a waterfall was handheld, 200mm + 1.4 TC at 1/2 second shutter speed and it turned out perfect. Try that with a non-IS.
Come to think of it, even shooting sports, I like to be able to shoot whatever comes along. Meaning, players outside of the lights on the sidelines, etc...
Hey, it's only money... You can make more
www.seanmartinphoto.com
__________________________________________________
it's not the size of the lens that matters... It's how you focus it.
aaaaa.... who am I kidding!
whoever dies with the biggest coolest piece of glass, wins!
www.seanmartinphoto.com
__________________________________________________
it's not the size of the lens that matters... It's how you focus it.
aaaaa.... who am I kidding!
whoever dies with the biggest coolest piece of glass, wins!
Randy:
I dont understand this. Can you define further the 2.5* spot?
Thanks,
Z
PS: In another of our threads, there is an interesting discussion on variability in the lights along with some interesting shots.
Sure Z, I'll give it a try...
NOTE: Correction -- 30D has 3.5* spot, not 2.5* as stated before.
On your 30D you have different metering modes. 3.5* (degree) spot - 9* partial spot - Evaluative - Center-weighted
Note where each of these metering modes works from:
Evaluative = linked to any AF point
Partial = 9* - this is roughly the circle in your viewfinder
Spot = 2.5* - this is roughly the very center of the circle in your viewfinder
Center-weighted = central area in viewfinder
You change them by pushing the right most button on the top right side of the camera, then rotate the dial behind the shutter button. This button is dual function: Metering mode - FEC
Now, with that info you can choose which will work best for your given circumstance. Evaluative is what I shoot most of the time. Let's say that at a very poorly lit football game you need to get more accurate metering, then let's use one of the two spot meters.
Which one?
If your shooting across the field, then I want to use the 3.5* to get my subject to fill that little metered area up.
If your shooting closer to you, I'll use the 9* spot so that once again I can try and get the "player" of interest to fill the 9* circle. Closer range: if I used the 3.5* spot meter here, then chances are good I would just be metering his jersey due to simply trying to follow focus with the focus point on his body due to composition, not his face or skin tones, therefore would not give you the exposure reading your after.
Give it a try and see if it helps you out any
About your PS --- Yeah, I read that and will have to spend some actual "testing" time during a game. I don't doubt his pics, but his WB was not taken over the full cycle. Notice that his 1/60 sec sequence shows the same exposure and WB. I believe that a WB taken with the ExpoDisk at or below 1/60 sec will average the WB out throughout the cycle. I think that's why I'm not seeing the WB fluctuations. Could be wrong, but we'll see.
Also, let's not forget what were dealing with here.
Were just going to have to do the best with what the lights will allow. We can't make crappy lighting shots look like shots with some decent light.
I have just recently bought a Canon 30d and have a Sigma 70-210 F2.8
lens, and I am really just trying to figure out how to get some crisp shots at the 7:30 Football games. I normally have it set at F2.8 and 3200 but I don't use a monopod, they are just not that great! Do you have any other suggestions. Thanks, KS
www.seanmartinphoto.com
__________________________________________________
it's not the size of the lens that matters... It's how you focus it.
aaaaa.... who am I kidding!
whoever dies with the biggest coolest piece of glass, wins!
KS,
I'd be more than happy to help out in any way I can, but that's a pretty in-depth subject for a single request
My suggestion is to shoot as much as possible, then post some pics here in the sports sections and ask for comments. That way there are specific issues to try and deal with, one at a time. And, more importantly, you might get someone who actually knows what they are talking about to give you an answer
If interested, you can click on my avatar name, then choose "more post by rwells" and have a look to see if there may be some post/info that is of interest to you. I have given some techniques and/or comments about sports shooting on a few threads lately which might answer some of your questions.
If not, then just blatantly ask
Looking forward to your pics and questions...