Equipment for sports

<p>I am searching for equipment to buy for my school's newspaper.  Things I already have: large telephoto lens, monopod, 40D canon camera.<br>

What other things do you suggest I should get</p>

<p>Zach...is the large lens, the only one you have?(which one is it?)<br />Certainly you will need some sort iof shorter lens also if your "large telephoto" is over 300mm. How about a case/bag to put it in? if you are shooting indoors, perhaps a flash?, also, some Compact flash cards couldn't hurt, Batteries/incidentals etc like cleaning kit etc.<br>

I shoot for a larger weekly publisher in the North East. My regular sports kit consists of 2-3 bodies,(D300 and D700's,) a VR 70-200 f2.8, a 50mm f1.4, a 28/70 f2.8, 300mm f2.8 and a 500mm f4.<br>

I use the 500 mm for Lacrosse, and baseball on a FX body the 300mm and everything else is used for everything else like tennis, softball, Etc. for outdoor sports, and 300mm 2.8 and 28-70 is unsed for indoor sports like basketball, volleyball etc.</p>

<p>Ditto: John Vanacore, details please:<br>

<br>

. what sports?<br>

. night or day?<br>

. inside or outside?<br>

. do you have complete site access and there after, the abilty to roam?<br>

. if not, what shooting vantage points are you allowed.<br>

<br>

***<br>

<br>

Generally, sports photography requires fast lenses: meaning Primes and non varying aperture F2.8 zooms. <br>

<br>

However many slower zooms can be used in certain circumstances. For example, the <strong>EF 70</strong>-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM on a 40D with a monopod, might be quite adequate to cover a midday soccer game on a bright winter’s day, especially if one was fit and had full sideline access. <br>

<br>

On the other hand that lens and camera combination would be just about hopeless to cover American College Football, at night-time, especially if one were seated in the Grandstand.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p>The large lens is 170 - 500 mm. I also have a 75 - 300 mm lens.<br>

The sports I cover are both indoors and outdoors. I am considering a flash. However, I am not sure of which one to get. I considered the Canon 580 EX.<br>

I already have a case for all lens.<br>

I heard that the type of memory card you use changes how fast the pictures are taken. How true is this? If so, which cards do you recommend?</p>

<p>Thanks for all of the help William and John. I really appreciate it.</p>

<p>Zack</p>

<p>Zach,<br />WIth that 170-500, your goingto want to use a monopod most likely. ALso, you will be limited as to the indoor stuff you will shoot,without some faster lenses in the kit.<br />You do not inidcate a budget, so i will assume you do have one, but you should without a doubt, pick youself up a 70-200 f.8 zoom. I wouldn't go nuts getting the IS version ,because for sports you will want to stop action, whic means faster shutter speeds. This will negate the usefullness of the IS.</p>

<p>Like Jon, I carry two bodies, more than two lenses, etc...but I think for you a very versatile sports lens would be a 70-200 f/2.8. You can use it in all circumstances and it won't break the bank neccesarily because you don't need IS.</p>

<p>Good luck in your search,</p>

<p>Gabe</p>

<p>Ditto John, again . . . my particular slant on some points: <br>

I would not be without my monopod - very useful even with shorter focal lengths than your monster zoom, when the day is long, just to relieve the carriage weight.<br>

<br>

Indoors you will need a prime, or two: School venues are not usually Television (TV) Transmission quality lighting. <br>

<br>

Re: the 70 to 200 . . . <br>

There are several Canon EF <strong>75</strong><strong >-</strong><strong>300mm</strong> F/4-F/5.6 versions; and I guess the lens you mention is one of them. Frankly, a 70 to 200F2.8L will rip any one of those lenses to shreds for sports photography, if you add a x1.4MkII you also have almost the same compass and at non-varying max. Av = F4 <br>

I have the EF70 to 200F2.8L USM (i.e. non IS): I bought the non IS version because I knew I would really only use it for sports type photography, and if not for sports work, I was comfortable I could manage without IS (i.e. when I use it at Weddings) <br>

The extra $ I saved by not buying the IS version, I bought an 85mm and a 50mm prime . . . but although I agree with John's advice not to worry about the IS version (obviously because that is exactly what I did), I suggest that you look at <strong><em>your</em></strong> situation and analyse what other uses you might have for a 70 to 200F2.8, and if IS would be useful for those uses.<br>

<br>

Back to sport indoors: I cannot emphasis enough that you will need a fast prime, or two just to allow the shutter speeds required to freeze subject motion - even if you use your 40D at ISO3200. <br>

This issue, which John has mentioend, is very important understand: <strong><em >the Minimum Shutter Speed (Tv) suitable: for any sports situation</em>. </strong><br>

For example, I know that for a Backstroke Start, at high level of competition I need Tv > 1/640s. <br>

There are minimum shutter speeds required for all sports, and for all situations within those sports. . . for example Breaststroke front on shot 1/320s, Butterfly transverse motion about 1/800s . . . Striker shooting transverse motion Soccer 1/1000s, striker for Field Hockey > 1/2000s . . . because the head of the stick moves faster than the foot of the soccer player, so does the hockey ball . . . etc<br>

For a specific example, the two mages below are from an International School Swimming meet, at a Pool which does offer TV Trans. quality lighting. The top image was taken with my 70 to 200 set at 130mm: F4.5 @ 1/1250s @ IS01600. <br>

The bottom image was taken after the Full TV lighting banks were switched off, post telecast times, reducing the scene to somewhat less than "normal" lighting for Competition (this was because of a technical electrical malfunction and the result was the EV dropped 4 and 1/3 stops). <br>

But the point is the bottom scene is close to the lighting we can come up against in many School Sports situations. The shooting specs for this image are 85mm F1.8 @ 1/800s @ ISO3200. This bottom image would be impossible to capture with my 70 to 200 zoom, unless I had a camera capable of ISO6400, and then I would need to drop the Tv to 1/640s, which is really right on the limit of shutter speed required.<br>

<br>

WW <br>

<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<div></div>

<p>Zach,<br>

One thing you mentioned also, is the fact that you'll be shooting for the school newspaper. I'm not certain what your experience is shooting for newspapers, but i'll egive you some insight to this also....<br>

Remember, printing on newsprint is similar to prinint on toilet paper, if you can imagine that. you get ink bleed becuase of the the absorbption of the paper. Also, the size of the photos in the papers are generally small, so you don not need necessarily the sharpes of shots and have them look halfway decent in a newspaper. Remember, have you photos document something about the game....you want to tell a story. The offensive or defeinsive stuggles of the team your shooting, a point of dominination by a particular player, a game changing moment..or whatever...tell a story with your photo. A couple things i think add to a better photo....Keep your shots tight, and without busy and cluttered background. Aso, try and keep your DoF as narrow as possible to isolate your subject from any clutter in the background that is not able to be avoided.<br>

I know this info was not in your original question, but it might give you some insight t aid in your equipment decisions</p><div></div>

<p>example2</p><div></div>

<p>example3</p><div></div>

<p>Aside:<br>

John, the female Lacrosse Players do not have protective head gear, is that usual in some competitions / areas?</p>

<p >Curious, WW?</p>

 

<p>IT's normal William...no body contact or using the stick allowed(stick checking) to dislodge the ball from the opponenet basket. i think there nuts personally,lol as even the girls can rip pretty good shots. Get one in the head...and oooh</p>

<p>Yes, I understood the "rules". But it looks to me like there is a little shoulder jolt, which you have captured . . .?<br>

<br>

I sometimes cringe also . . . I do a lot of field hockey . . . the "rules" are that the stick is not to be raised above shoulder height . . . and lobbing the ball is also prohibited in most games . . . but the ball is bloody hard, and a mouth guard is, well is just a mouth guard.<br>

<br>

Thanks for the info . . . <br>

<br>

The Tigers' Girl: you have certainly captured temerity and commitment in her face and her speed past the Red Girls: Really Nice. I like feet off the ground, too.<br>

<br>

WW<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

<p>Not Sure William...i guess the considered it "incidental contact"<br>

Anyway..thanks for compliments on the photos, and to Zack.....remember this rule of thumb.<br>

Sharp but noisy pictures, are ALWAYS better for newspaper shooting, then Blurry photos without noise.</p>

 

<p>John & Gabe - I do have a 70 - 200 mm f/2.8 lens. I just have to work with it more and get more accustomed to it. I was having trouble with it the first time that I used it so I just stuck to the 170 - 500 mm lens because I thought it was the best one that I have. Since everone is saying that lens is great, I will definitly try to understand it more.<br>

William - Thanks for all of your suggestions. I am going to read this many times and understand all of what you said and do a little trial and error.</p>

<p>Thanks for that good rule of thumb John. I've had to get used to shooting pictures for the newspaper instead of just for regular fun. The types of pictures that are good for the paper are different so I've gotten a little better with it but I'm still trying to improve.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of your help everyone!</p>