tony_correa1

August 17, 2013

Ry:

Re RAW - for my use I do shot in RAW everything except the actual game images which are in JPEG Normal. For sporting events no point in shooting hundreds or thousands of images in RAW. Slows your shooting and overall workflow from downloading to processing, and consumes additional storage space. Learn to set proper exposure, WB, etc. Priority is on capturing the top action moments for the client and moving on to the next job.

Overall performance of fps and buffer clearing will vary depending on your camera settings, speed of memory card. Some tests:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d7100/nikon-d7100A6.HTM

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100/12

Basically within spec to the Nikon numbers:

http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D7100_EN.pdf , see page 348.

Yes, the D3/D3s would be a better sports/action tool as far as overall performance, but you would have to pick up new glass. The 18-200 would be next to useless being DX only. The 80-200/2.8 (?) if it's the AFS version, pick up a Nikon TC for the extra reach, or upgrade to a 300/4 AFS to get yu back where you where with DX.

August 16, 2013

Manual: http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D600_EN.pdf

Pages 234, 294

August 14, 2013

Having owned and used the D200, D300s and D2x for sports/action among other types of photography shots in the past, I would go for the current D7100 if looking for a DX body for sports today. Dynamic range and high ISO will be better; options for DX (1.5x) 24mp/6fps and 1.3x (2x) mode 14mp 7fps; uses current EN-EL15 battery. The RAW 6 frame buffer might be the only downside. But in practice most sports are shot in jpeg, and usually in 2-5 frame bursts.

Re the D600, the AF is not that bad, at least for night time lacrosse games where the better ISO and dynamic range comes in handy: https://plus.google.com/photos/102373880650694708825/albums/5870157330880191089

July 16, 2013

Nikon's compatibility list, scroll down for exposure and focus chart:

<a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/accessories/mount_adapter_ft1/compatibility.htm">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/accessories/mount_adapter_ft1/compatibility.htm</a>

Note that the specific lenses are those in current production. Other similar lenses will work as well.

July 16, 2013

Here are some recent with the Nikon 70-300 AFS VR on the V1, mostly f/5.6-f/8, Auto ISO. <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/102373880650694708825/albums/5900256236924905825?sqi=110452045154764908444&sqsi=d78a4f34-6410-449d-ba00-a50b6518cdd5">https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/102373880650694708825/albums/5900256236924905825?sqi=110452045154764908444&sqsi=d78a4f34-6410-449d-ba00-a50b6518cdd5</a> With the FT-1 you can mount any Nikon lens. AFS lenses will function fully, including AF-C with recent firmware updates. AF/AFD will work the auto exposures, but no AF. AI/AIS will be complete manual exposure.

March 29, 2013

As Scott said in that video, for the money, the D7100 is a great DX DSLR, no doubt. But while a f/5.6 lens might work in an indoor professional hockey rink with bright lights and a nice white fill card under all the players, but not under how most non-pro arenas are setup. Good to see real world use of the D7100 AF for sports.

March 29, 2013

The D600 is a good option. Refurb plus a used 70-200 VRI would be a nice combo for the OP's budget. Focusing better than the D90, but not as good as Nikon's 51pt.

Here's some real world images at an indoor track meet and fencing match with the 70-200 VRII and D600. ISO 6400, wide open at 1/500 sec to give you an idea of the light levels.

https://plus.google.com/photos/102373880650694708825/albums/5851168351036120145

https://plus.google.com/photos/102373880650694708825/albums/5838231860417787169

March 29, 2013

Hi Stephanie, for indoor sports I'd consider glass first. Even a D4 with a 70-300/5.6 won't do you much good under typical indoor gym lighting.

The basic staple of indoor sports, as well as many different types of photography, is the 70-200/2.8. Very fast focusing very sharp. Takes TCs very well for extra reach outdoors. The current Nikon 70-200/2.8 AFS VR II would be ideal, but also consider a used 70-200 VRI or the older 80-200/2.8 AFS. The latter two easily within your budget while leaving enough for another body if needed.

The Nikon D90 is a nice little body. Had one some time back and used it for sports and wedding, and the like. Not the best for sports, but knowing its limitations and working within them, it delivered.

A D7100 would be a definite upgrade in both potential image quality and overall performance with its advanced AF and drive capabilities. The RAW buffer wouldn't concern me for sports. Except for the team photo, for example, all the actions shots are captured in jpeg normal. Indoors the exposure and lighting are typically constant (although never ideal), once you set it correctly for a particular venue, you're done. No need to play with RAW files in post. Given it's a 24MP camera, for most indoor sports I'd also probably set it to Medium size 13MP. It'll reduce the apparent noise and lessen the workflow burden.

Without knowing the venues you will be in, hard to say if the high ISO of the D7100, or any other DX, would be good enough for your particular needs. Will be better than the D90, but not as good as any of the current Nikon FX bodies. For some of the venues I work in, to get a minimum shutter speed of 1/400 or 1/500 sec at f/2.8, I need ISO 6400-12,800. For that DX doesn't cut it. FX does for me, for my use and requirements.

March 5, 2013

As a general purpose lens the current 24-120/4 is a great lens, esp. on FX. For indoor sporting events shooting with typical indoor gym lighting, the f/4 aperture will leave you lacking depending on the sport, venue, and your expectations. F/4 is a little over 2 stops slower than your 50mm, the difference between frozen action at 1/500 sec and blur at 1/125, or decent noise ISO 1600 vs very noisy images at 6400 on the D300s. Also the f/4 will let in 1/2 amount of light to the camera's AF sensor which would add to AF struggles. For some sports like track, you could position yourself to shoot from the side as they run by and pan with the action, in which case the relatively slow lens could work. Other fast action sports like basketball, it could still work if you train yourself to wait for the peak action at a certain spot (ie under the basket, free throw line, three-point line). Another option is to use flash which may or may not be allowed depending on the sport/venue.

If you find the 50mm lacking in reach, try the 85/1.8G for the indoor sports. Gives you 128mm equivalent - close to the long end of the 24-120. The 51pt AF of the D300s should work well with it. Have a mid range zoom for other school activities?

September 29, 2011

@ Tomas -

Just as an additional piece of information, Bjørn Rørslett rates the 35mm Series E slightly higher optically than the 35/2.8 AIS. http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html

@Rodeo -

Yes, the 35/2 is better optically, but still about twice the price of the 35 Series E, depending on condition. Besides the vast size (83mm vs 35mm) and weight (420g vs 150gr) difference, I would not consider the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 at $500 US "a little more money". It is a good value in a fast aperture wide angle, but still above the OP's budget.

September 29, 2011

@ Tomas

If manual focus and metering is not an issue, the 35mm f/2.5 is probably a decent inexpensive option for a prime lens. Compared to the 18-55 kit lens any Nikon/Nikkor manual focus lens will seem much better in terms of handling, build, and size. I think 75€ is a bit high (102 US at current rates) for the all black plastic version; good for the chrome ring. Here in the US could probably be found for a third less.

At equivalent 35mm setting on the 18-55, the Series E will be obviously smaller/lighter, but probably also less distortion, maybe sharper, would gain a real focus ring and distance scale, plus a faster maximum aperture (f/2.5 vs f/5.0 - about 2 stops) for better focus isolation and higher shutter speeds (ie 1/60 sec vs 1/15 sec)/lower ISO requirements (ie 800 vs 3200).

Nikon also made a 35mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor which has better build than the Series E, but I have no first knowledge of it's optical qualities.

In spite of it's size and extra costs, I still think the 35 DX is a good bang-for-buck among current new lenses for Nikon DX DSLRs.

September 29, 2011

My review of the 35 Series E: http://tonycorrea.com/blog/2011/03/nikon-series-e-35mm-f2-5/

Optically it is fine; typical bit soft wide open, sharp one stop down. I wouldn't worry about the construction. Build quality is better than some of the current AF kit lenses. Note that there are two versions of the lens. One all black plastic, original version (very common). The other (rare) with the signature Nikon chrome ring which gives it a more traditional Nikkor lens look to it.

From f/4 onwards center sharpness is comparable to the 35/2 AF in my test. On full frame extreme corners are a bit softer compared to the 35/2 AF. Do not have the 35 AIS to test. The 35/2 AF focuses closer than either the AIS or E lenses.

Have not compared it head to head with it's 28 Series E brother. A bit of apples-oranges given their different focal lengths. They both share the same minium focus distance so the 35 will give you a greater reproduction ratio, if that matters to you.

If you are using this on a DX Nikon body, I'd save for the 35/1.8 DX lens. Although considerable bigger and more money, it's more convenient in use with AF, and full exposure controls.

September 29, 2011

My mini-review of the Nikkor 55mm f/1.2

http://tonycorrea.com/blog/2011/05/nikon-55f12-review/

In summary: built like a tank, unique character wide open, very sharp stopped down; will take some practice focusing it wide open with it's very thin depth of focus.

July 1, 2011

Current m4/3 cameras are nowhere near the continuous AF tracking capabilities of a modern DLSR.

Quoting from bythom.com:

"Olympus touts FAST as the "World's Fastest AF," which of course is followed by an asterisk. Like Olympus' last claim in this respect (E-5), they're talking about Single Servo focus, not continuous autofocus. And they're talking about "with new lenses." Plus the speed claims do not extend to low light performance. "

June 14, 2011

It's all in the lighting. Light the background separately from your subject AND have plenty of space between your subject and the background. http://youtu.be/55RoPJlcpyU

March 11, 2011

@ Alex - I realize the Sigma 30mm is a prime. Maybe my sentence structure wasn't clear. You mentioned LD glass having variable infinity focus. I stated not every lens focuses past infinity. Not every lens has LD type glass. You stated your Sigma has inaccurate distance scale. I stated not all lenses are as inaccurate. Just because your two lenses are not accurate or are lacking does not mean all lenses are as inaccurate or invalidate the usefulness of distance and depth of field scales.

March 11, 2011

@ Alex - not every lens focuses past infinity or has a totally inaccurate focus distance scale like that Sigma. It has a very short focus throw, and no depth of field marks. You could not use that as I had described. Certain lenses do vary their focus depending on temperature. That's why they have a the variable infinity mark on their focus scales. That should be self evident to the user and it is indicated in every manual of such lenses.

What I said: "they are reasonable accurate on prime lenses. And a whole lot more accurate than lenses without any distance scales. Distance and depth-of-field scales are very useful in practical street photography to enable a photographer to prefocus and set hyperfocal distance at a given aperture" What I said:

Reasonable does not mean they are calibrated to the 1000th decimal places. A lens without a focus scale is totally inaccurate with respect to where the physical focus ring it set to. You wouldn't know where to turn it to.

Hyperfocal...at a given aperture. One not would be photographing just by setting the focus scale when shooting at wide open apertures such as f/1.4. Stopped down the lens a few stops and you cover your depth focus so you can take a reasonable guess at distance and get a zone of reasonable focus. Some people take the time to practice, learn their equipment under varying conditions and judge focus distance fairly accurate. Depth of field covers any focusing discrepancies. Such zone focus/prefocus/readying the camera even before you bring it to your eye is one technique of street photography. Without a distance scale or depth of field marks, one wouldn't be able to do this. You would be handicapping yourself. Unfortunately most newer AF lenses are crippled in this respect with little to no scales.

As far as your Voigtlander, not sure which model you have or what glass it incorporated into its design. If it's a 1.4, shooting it wide open at the infinity might give variable results depending on what exactly you are focusing at infinity. Something at 100 feet is not the same as a mile away, or the same as focusing on a full moon. That could also account for that "wee bit" off at infinity if you're comparing at or near wide open.

Unless you actually tested several different types lenses at their set focus marks, measured it using a tape measure and compared the images to see if they are in focus, you can not state focus distance scales are useless.

March 10, 2011

A 50mm lens is not uncommon for shooting basketball from under the basket area. On a DX sensor camera like the OP, it provide a mild telephoto angle of view of about a 75mm lens (compared to a FX body). That's a decent focal length for shooting close to the basket from about the 3 pt line for capturing a player from head to toe.

March 8, 2011

Craig - keep enjoy the 'new' lens - keep shooting. Best way to develop one's skills.

Re: interesting to learn that the modern AF-S G design involves a compromise between speed and accuracy (wide open).

</blockquote>

This is more to do with the recent 24/35/85/1.4 AFS lenes. Apparently the AF motors that Nikon incorporated into their design were geared for accuracy over pure AF speed. The other AFS lenses such as the 70-200 and the 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 telephotos do not exhibit this characteristic. They are fast and accurate.

Re: I have owned the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, but I found the reach was too tight for me, even for shooting in the corners (and certainly under the basket).

</blockquote>

Everyone has their styles, and that might change over time. I tend to go very wide under the net or long from the corners. Views/details a spectator wouldn't typically see from their seats. I also like to show the players' facial expressions/game face.

Re:

<ul>

<li>AF-C - good; AFC plus CH drive is needed to follow the action. CH is not to gun the camera, it's a good assest to be able to get that quick follow up shot.</li>

<li>Dynamic Area AF (21 points) - I tend to use 9 pts; I find 21 or 51 too much coverage for basketball.</li>

<li>Custom set WB with gray card - good idea but many venues have bad lighting that will vary across your fame or from shot to shot. Just something to keep in mind.</li>

<li>Release+Focus priority - good</li>

<li>AF-ON Only (a technique suggested by a close friend that shoots sports for a living) - many swear by it; takes some getting used to.</li>

</ul>

Re: I tried using mySigma 70-200mm at f/2.8, but found that even though both lenses were shot at f/2.8 in the same lousy gym light---the 50mm was brighter/faster by a full stop. Why is that? I'm sure there is a simple explanation for this that involves a better understanding of optics than I have.

</blockquote>

A few reasons. There's a whole lot of glass in a comple zoom than the plain old 50mm. All that glass and the internal reflections decrease the actual T-stop of a lens. Lens apertures are rated by their physical diamater, f/stop. This is different than the lens actual transmissive qualities, T-stop. Cinema lenses are rated by their T-stops for this reason. An f/2.8 zoom lens might actually transmit f/3.2, 3.5. Also there's light fall off at wide open. In some cases this can be one or more stops of light towards the corner. This will give you the appearance of a darker image, even though the center of the image might be properly exposed.

Re: Baseball is coming up so I was thinking that a 1.4x teleconverter for my Sigma ($249.00) would be something to try (the other option would be to sell the Sigma and get a Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR IF-ED G ($439.00) for outdoor sports.

</blockquote>

Can't comment on the Sigma + TC vs Nikon 70-300 AFS. If the Sigma is not that bright/sharp wide open, the TC will make it worse. If you have to stop down a stop or more then with the TC you're at f/5.6 already - same as the Nikon zoom. Kinda a wash there. But the Nikon gives you VR, which is not all that useful for action sports, but comes in handy at times.

Re: I also want to get a pro/semi-pro tripod and ball head. After breaking a couple of cheap plasticky $30 dollar tripod units

</blockquote>

Cheap tripods tend to cost more in the long run. I'd recommend a RSS or Kirk L bracket for your body and corresponding Arca Swiss type head, plus a good set of legs.

March 8, 2011

Richard we will have to agree to disagree. I have been photographing sporting events since the late 80s having used various bodies from an F2 to the D3. Back then before the digital age Nikon cameras and lenses were designed with good viewfinders, focusing screens, and

manual focus rings. Today's tools are less suited for manual focus. Still usable, but not as good as the pre-digital.

Unfortunately not many new photographers develop those manual focuing skills. The market dictates AF performance.

10 years ago Nikon Pro sports users had the 17-35, 28-70, 80-200, 300, 400, 500, 600 AFS/AFI lenses. If a skilled

football photographer were using the original screw type 300/2.8 they would be at a disadvantage compared to an

equally skilled Canon user with their 300 USM. Doesn't mean the Nikon photographer couldn't deliver great images.

But if there is a better, more effective tool available, they would utilize it. For certain types of sporting events and level

of play, AFS/USM type lenses are generally the better choice.

March 8, 2011

@ Elliot B re:

"I find Nikon screw type lenses like the 50/1.8 are not good enough for fast action indoor sports as far as consistent fast accurate focusing" I think it really depends on the body you are using. I have 3 non AF-S lenses and they all focus quickly and accurately on the D3 even in less than ideal lighting.

True, a D3 type camera with it's better motor and battery will drive a screw type lens better than the Dxx/Dxxx series of cameras. But the inherent design of such a mechanical linkage is not as good as the AFS/USM/HSM type motors when it comes to fast start-stop less than predictable action. It's not just a matter of fast initial focus. It's more of how quickly the lens can react to the constant changing type of action in such sports as indoor basketball. USM type lenses is one of the reason sports photographers moved to Canon when Nikon only had screw type lenses and later a few AF-I telephoto lenses back in the '90s.

I also have both AF-S and screw type lenses. For everything but fast action sports, the screw type lenses are just fine in their focusing speed and accuracy.

March 7, 2011

@ Craig Morton - I see you already have a Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM. Guessing you are looking for a fast aperture lens to combat those high school dungeons called gyms. In my experience I find Nikon screw type lenses like the 50/1.8 are not good enough for fast action indoor sports as far as consistent fast accurate focusing. The inherit play in the mechanical linkage between lens and body makes it less likely to keep up with a fast running sport like basketball. And shooting at f/2.8 and wider will reveal any focusing errors. I'd be more inclined to go with the AFS or HSM type lenses. As far as testing how fast a lens will focus, you're best bet is to try it under actual conditions. Just mounting the lens and letting it rack from infinity to close focus and back will not tell you how well your camera + lens + lighting + subject combination will respond in real life.

Some have suggested to stop down to f/2.8 to give you a bit more depth of focus to help with slight focus errors. But stopping down just brings you back to your Sigma 70-200/2.8 capabilities. Trying to keep a running player in focus at f2.8 is hard; trying to keep them in focus at f/1.4 will be even harder. Using 51 pt focus was also suggested, but I'd recommend 9 pts at most. 51 pts will pick up to much of all the players surrounding and cutting in front of your subject/player as well as focus on a busy/competing background. Also, follow focus your subject and wait for them to fill the frame and reach the peak action. A lot of times when you have the camera focusing on the background is because the subject was too small relative to the AF area.

Of the focal lengths you are considering, if you will be shooting from under the basket, the 30/35mm might work best. If you shoot from about the 3 pt line, the 50mm might work better. If light levels allow, your 70-200 would be great from the 3 pt line to the corner position. The corner spot is my usual location for basketball (http://www.tonycorreastudios.com/p1057953198/h12b58b8f#h12b58b8f).

Whatever lens you decide upon, as you said practice, practice, practice. That's really the only way to learn to be good at photography in general and sports photography specifically. At the end of the day, the camera and lens are just tools. You are the one creating the images.

March 6, 2011

@ the OP:

some more info from the Net including real user images, not just talk.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/1051916@N21/

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/796902

http://esfotoclix.com/tech/nik35sig30/

March 6, 2011

@ Alex Zepeda - I'd have to disagree with your statement that "distance scale ... those things aren't calibrated anyhow" which would imply they are useless. They may not be accurate throughout the entire range of a vari-focal zoom, but they are reasonable accurate on prime lenses. And a whole lot more accurate than lenses without any distance scales. Distance and depth-of-field scales are very useful in practical street photography to enable a photographer to prefocus and set hyperfocal distance at a given aperture. It's one of the reason why Leica M-series cameras and their lenses are considered the quintessential candid street camera. Also a reason some Nikon users prefer the older AI series over the newer AI-S manual focus lenses. The AI series typically have a longer focus throw.

March 5, 2011

For a walk about prime lens on DX, I'd go with the 35mm. Had mine about 20 years, still going strong. Last Fall participated in a photo walk with Jason Odell from Nikonians.org using a 35/2 AF on a D90 for about half of my images. http://tonycorrea.com/blog/2010/10/photowalk-with-jason-odell/

Although the 35/1.8 DX gets good reviews and is a great bang-for-the-buck lens, for myself, the lack of a distance scale kills it as a street lens.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by tony_correa1