Sports Photography with Pentax...

<p>Some day I hope to be able to afford proper sports shooting equipment. Until then, my trusty Pentax K-x and 55-300 lens will have to do.</p><div></div>

<p>Clemson University vs. Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina, April 10, 2012.</p><div></div>

<p>Using this fairly slow lens requires some patience and luck...</p><div></div>

<p>Last one for now.</p><div></div>

<p>Very nice,</p>

<p>I think sport photography (or other fast moving events) is doable using the so called "consumer DSLR." Not impossible, but not easy as well, regarding the exacting standards nowadays (I suppose they are equipment driven?). But if we do it for ourselves, nobody should fuss about it.</p>

<p>Ultimately, we have to know what we're doing, and really know our equipment, there's a steep learning curve there, and a hard one. Once you get your "pro equipment" you can do it with one hand tied behind your back... well, figuratively typing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If sports photography was possible back in the days of manual-advance film cameras and manual focus lenses, there's no reason why it's not possible today. :) Great photos!</p>

<p>Also: the K-x has such amazingly good image quality at high ISOs that you can shoot in situations that would've been completely impossible in the film days, or even in the early DSLR days.</p>

<p>Yeah, the K-x isn't the best sports camera but it sure isn't the worst either. That lens probably hunted a lot under those conditions and it's probably the weak link.</p>

<p>Michael, it would be useful if you provided settings data for each image here.<br>

Thanks,</p>

<p>ME</p>

Nice work, Michael, I think you did very well

regardless of the gear.

 

You could also take the camera out of auto

mode for faster camera response. Manual

pre-focus your subject at around F/8 or so,

bump up the ISO a notch or two to maintain

shutter speeds of 250-500, and let 'er rip...

click, click, click. Next thing you'll know

Sports Illustrated will be ringing your phone.

<p>Not quite Steve T.<br /> For sports shooting you want to use as large of an aperture as possible. This allows you to freeze action, to minimize the lousy backgrounds often found in parks and stadiums, and to isolate the player(s). Ideally a minimum shutter of 1/500 will barely suffice; I prefer 1/1500 -1/2000 if possible. I prefer using the AF button.</p>

<p>It does help to anticipate the action, but you gotta know the sport well enough to do that.</p>

<p>R.T., of course film shooters were creating amazing captures for decades. Digital, however, gave us a higher keeper ratio and more images. I was working at the largest sports image licensing agency many years ago when relatively high-performing DSLRs were coming into use. We would compare both types of images from events daily. For publication it was much better having more shots to choose from.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>To answer Michael's earlier question:<br>

1 and 3 were ISO 400, 1/400th at f5.6<br>

2 and 4 were later, ISO 1600, 1/100th to 1/250th at f4-5.6</p>

<p>I only shoot aperture priority or full manual. In retrospect, I could have bumped up to ISO 12800 and gotten better stop action.</p>

<p>Thanks all!</p>

<p>Ditto to what ME said. Wide open, faster shutter. IMO, sports photog is more about the lens than the camera body.</p>

<p>I learned something new today... Thanks for the clarification, ME.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IMO, sports photog is more about the lens than the camera body</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This part I only agree with if the body is fairly state of the art and you have a few lens choices to make. Otherwise in my experience--shooter skills aside--camera body does matter, at least as much as the lens does. The key differentiators are AF configurability, AF tracking/predictive capability, buffered frame rate, and higher ISO performance.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>Nice work.</p>

<p>I laughed at the proper sports equipment statement. But then again, that 55-300 isn't really the best lens for a lot of things, though it is a nice lens for what it is. The K-x on the other hand could probably give the Nikon F-5's that were used for a few Olympic games a run for it's money. <br /><br />Goes to show us all how as technology grows we think we need more, when the reality is we have a lot more and less idea what to do with it. </p>