Football pics film/speed/?

[charles_chesna]

Going to try my new Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS lens with the Canon 2x II

extender at a local football game. I will be shooting from the

sideline during daylight. I am looking for suggestions regarding

the settings for my Elan 7 camera, and film type to get me close to

the right direction for quality photos and freezing the action.

Being a novice, I enjoy the input and experiences of other photo

buffs on this site. Thanks.....

[Greg M]

Well, with that extemder you'll be shooting at F5.6, so my suggestion will be Fuji Press 800 color print film. Even if you shoot without the extender I'd use that film. Most amatuer fields do not have the quality lighting you get at pro stadiums- some are really bad. You don't realize how low the light is until you try something like this.

 

Set your camera on manual exposure mode, meter an average lit area on the field and shoot at that exposure for all on-field action. Sometimes the dark areas behind the play that are not well lit can cause your camera to overexpose. It's not as bad when you are in the stands and shooting down on the action, but at field level in a small stadium with lots of dark background it can play tricks on your metering system, even with evaluative metering.

[beauh44]

Hi Charles, That's a monster lens - you're gonna love it!! I don't own the 2x TC, but I do have the 1.4 and have used it quite a bit. Since you'll be losing some light using that TC, I'd look at least at ISO 400 film, if not ISO 800 in order to freeze some of the action. Film manufacturer's current emulsions are pretty amazing compared to just a few years ago, and the grain can be pretty much eliminated, even with 800 speed film. I've had good luck with Kodak Supra 400 and 800 speed print film, which has good latitude. I was pretty impressed with the 800 - I scan my own film and with a few Photoshop tweaks can get very nice prints that aren't grainy at all. Try a roll of that 800 and see what you think. Best wishes . . .

[stacy_f]

I have been shooting from the sidelines at my son's pee-wee football games the last several years and would recommend 400 speed film also. I used a 400/5.6 lens, so I am used to using a slow lens. The 400 speed film will usually get you at least a 1/500 shutter speed and sometimes a 1/1000 shutter speed (at 5.6 aperture) if there are no clouds. I usually took a meter reading and set the aperture and shutter speed myself to prevent the camera meter from being fooled. The only thing you have to watch out for is when a cloud passes by and your light changes, you must remember to adjust your settings. If you did not want to fool with that, just use aperture priority. Good luck.

[neil_lupin]

if you're in very bright sunny conditions, in aperture priority you'll get plenty of light and can use ISO 200. I know, I shoot rugby at 400mm 5.6 and you'll freeze action at about 1/350 sec, so on a really sunny day, ISO 100 will sometimes even do. If the light is dodgy I'd jump straight to Fuji NPZ 800. Don't forget you may not always want to freeze the action. One of my favourite shots is of a friend on the run towards the try line and his feet at blurred and off the ground, his body is in focus so there is lots of suggested movement in the shot. Enjoy.

[oliver_s.]

ISO 400 should be OK if you're shooting in daylight. It was the standard stuff for sports photographers until the advent of digital.<p>Exposure method: both, manual and aperture priority, are OK. With modern emulstiuons and the even lighting of the field, it's a matter of personal preference.<p>You've probably guessed already how to set film advance and AF, i.e. to 'continous' and 'AI Servo'. For further advice, read Photo.net's <a href="http://www.photo.net/sports/overview">tutorial on shooting sports and action</a> which has a sections on both soccer and football. It makes football look like a slow relaxed event in comparison to soccer, but don't get deceived by that! What you shoud do, unless you already have, is to set CF 4 of the Elan to "1" in order to separate AF from the shutter release; it works wonders! And you'll need it, though American football is less wild than what we over here in Europe call football. I am writing from one of the more soccer-crazy countries in Europe where football--err, soccer--is the bread-and-butter sport for PJs. It has action, rapid direction changes, and fassst movements, so you really don't want to have your forefinger busy with more than releasing the shutter.

[chris_hawkins]

If you aren't manually focusing, then the extender will be more trouble than it is worth. I know this from personal experience using the the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS lens with the Canon 2x II extender at daytime football games. Use Fujicolor Superia X-TRA 400 and crop if you want to get close.

[rod_bunn1]

Hi, everyone gave some great answers. I just wanted to add don't forget to try and fill the frame with the subject as much as you can. Don't back off unless that's what you are going for at the time. Also, look around you you can find some great shots off the fiels also... I have a few samples of football shots on my web page: www.xposeu.com under "Sports"... Same lense for most of those shots... Rod

[peter_luvaas]

Keep in mind that on bright sunny days the shadows caused by helmets will wipe out faces on many of your photos. You will get much better facial detail on an overcast day. To get more speed on an overcast day, use a 1.4TC or none at all. You can get good shots of plays coming to your side of the field using just the 70-200 alone (assuming you are close to the field). Also, you will see a significant loss of sharpness using the 2 stop converter. With a 1.4 you will not notice a loss in detail.

[barbara_perenic]

Charles,

 

I shoot high school football for some of the local papers and have shot some college ball awhile ago. Some advice: shoot with 800 ISO film if you'll ever be shooting at night or on cloudy days. 400 is fine for daylight since you'll want the latitude. Most sports shots look good with a shallow depth of field, which will maximize your shutter. Anything from 1/350 to 1/1000 should do your shots justice depending on the play.

 

I would also advise you to either ditch the teleconverter or get a monopod... the 70-200 f/2.8 is a beastly lens. My 300 f/4 IS is lighter by a longshot (although I have an older 70-200, perhaps they are lighter now). A cautionary note about zoom lenses. THey're very useful if you don't spend all your time zooming and trying to perfect the composition before the play even happens. With a fixed lens, should you be in the market, is easier to work with sometimes because it gives you less to think about (as well as typically wider apertures). The most beautiful shot I've had this season was cropped to be less than 50% of the original frame. But I had all the arms and legs in there too.

 

Move around, get down on your knees, wait for them to come to you, and and try to get the ball in the picture. Best of luck. Shooting football is a fabulous way to spend an afternoon!

[richard_pellom__long_live_]

Petar, you do NOT get a "significant loss of sharpness" with the 2x! That is such crap. You must have super x-ray vision because the sharpness on my set up is EXCELLENT. And as someone stated above, why in the hell would he have to use his manual focus? I shoot moving subjects all the time and have never had to use the manual ring and my autofocus is tack sharp as are my photos. I expect Charles will be very pleased and impressed with his results. The feeling is very much like driving a fine sports car - very satisfying! Enjoy Charles.

[chris_hawkins]

Richard: Show us some tack sharp pictures of rapidly moving subjects using the 70-

200 with 2x TC.

[peter_luvaas]

Richard: A little research on this site will confirm my experience that the 2 stop tc significantly degrades results. If you cannot tell the difference between results with and without the 2tc, you either have lousy equipment or your eyes need to be checked. If you are happy with your results that's great, but it does not change the reality of photo degradation.

[charles_chesna]

Well. there seems to be very different opinions here. I can only relate using a little science. I think everybody is correct. One would have to be foolish to deny the math equations. Of course there will be a difference in sharpness. Question is, will it be acceptable to the viewer? I think the question can best be stated by asking if Mars would look a little clearer if it were another 100 miles closer?? Obviously the math and science would agree with that statement, however, only the scientists will talk about the difference. The other 99% of the population would never recognize it. SO, I guess I will just take myself to the game, shoot a few rolls, and at some point, I just need to take the teleconverter off the lens and shoot a few more rolls without it. Then I will just compare my results. Sounds like a good plan. I will keep all posted to the results. But just to state my feelings based on what I have read here, I think I will be satisfied with the results. Anyway, if I am not, I can always drop a few grand for a better lens for this type photography. Right?