mhgreen

Leon:

 

Yes, the 10D, like many digicams, is deliberately calibrated to err toward underexposure. From all of the extensive reading I've done on the subject over the past few years, this is due to the fact that digital images are difficult to render usable when overexposed. In other words, once the highlights are burned out by overexposure, it is virtually impossible to regain any image detail in those areas. But, as anyone with any experience doing digital manipulations of photos will tell you, dark or underexposed images have a much greater margin for error and detail can be greatly enhanced by adjusting levels and bringing up the brightness/contrast, etc.

 

I have read that even the professional film cams like the EOS-1v were deliberately designed to lean toward underexposure. This was to prevent burnout of slide film and prevent professionals from losing images to overexposure. The slight underexposure isn't a problem for print film which tends to have more exposure lattitude.

FYI, many of the above posted shots were cropped to some degree to satisfy my sense of composition. The last shot of Jeter being congratulated was actually a vertically composed shot that looked much better when the center, horizontal third of the frame was used--therefore that's what I did.

 

I shot all of these wide open (f/5.6 because of the 2x extender) at 200 ISO on my EOS-10d with shutter speeds around 1/1250th.

The celebration.<div></div>

The game winner coming off the bat. (Thank God!)<div></div>

Jorge Posada rips one...<div></div>

Looks like Manny knows I don't like him. :-)<div></div>

Captain Caveman---Johnny Damon<div></div>

Jeter on deck<div></div>

Sidewinder.<div></div>

Tony Womack steals second base<div></div>

another......<div></div>

Here's another....<div></div>

Mark: I find that the 70-200/2.8 works best in high contrast, bright lighting. About a month ago I was at the Yankees / Red Sox game #2 of the season opening series and grabbed a few shots that I thought were pleasantly surprising. Admittedly, I bought the 2x extender when I got my 70-200 a couple years ago and I don't really use it that much since I'm not shooting serious telephoto that often. It's certainly no substitute for a 400mm/2.8, but for the money, it's pretty damn good most of the time. I'm going to post a couple shots here if I can. By the way, I had GREAT seats about 10 rows back from the Yankees dugout but did not have access to any photographers' pit next to the field.

 

~Mike Green<div></div>

One more thing: Tell your son to watch out for arm bars and the guillotine and triangle chokes! :-)

Chuck:

 

I've shot many, many amateur No-Holds-Barred fighting events using both film and digital and have been a regular contributor to Full Contact Fighter magazine, so I feel qualified to comment here. As mentioned by others, the location from which you'll be shooting is probably the more important question here than the max. aperture ratings of your lenses--especially since even the slowest lens of the two is still pretty fast. I'm assuming that since it's an amateur event you won't have a big problem getting ringside, which is where I always shoot from. From ringside, I have found that the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens is just not wide enough unless you're shooting at a professional event and the fighting ring or octagon is fairly large. To put it another way, for amateur events (where the lighting usually sucks), I have never been able to use the 70-200 effectively. It's just too long unless the fighters are at the opposite side of the ring or I'm shootin from a more remote location than ringside. When ringsinde, as soon as the fighters get close to your side of the ring,your limited field of view in the longer lens makes shooting it all but useless. Even in the large rings, the 70-200 is too long for many shots from ringside and I keep it next to me just for the occasions when the fighters are far enough away to use it effectively.

 

If your only other lens choice is the 50mm f/1.8, then I'd use that. I usually use the 28-70mm f/2.8L lens for general purpose fight photos. You're shooting a film cam, so depending on your applications, you might need to do some cropping in shots where the fighters are a long distance away and they therefore only comprise a small percentage of the frame.

 

Another tip: I have no idea what state you're in, but many of the athletic commissions have allowed me to use flash at these amateur, MMA-NHB fighting events. Since you're shooting an amateur event, there might not be much restrictions on shooting with a flash. If that's the case, the 50mm lens with a flash will suit you just fine. (especially if you're ringside). My approach is to start shooting with the flash. If someone complains(be it a competitor, cornerman, or commissioner) and tells me that flash is not allowed, I explain that since it's an amateur event with inadequate lighting, a flash is pretty much essential and must be used. I also assure them that I will never fire a flash directly in a fighter's face and cause them any distraction and that I'll "turn down the power" on the flash as a further precaution. This is somewhat BS since once allowed, I fire away at will, though I usually do tone down the flash a bit for a better look anyway. The flash is usually the way to go in these amateur events because I have found the lighting to be so atrocious in most cases that 1600 to 3200 ISO film (or 800 pushed) is your only alternative and it's just too damn grainy if you're not using flash. With flash, 800 ISO works great and keeps the grain manageable. I shoot wide open the whole time as well, though many guys I know stop down for more depth of field when using the flash. Also, I have never had a competitor or cornerman complain about me taking pictures with flash. And as a former NHB competitor myself, I can tell you that I was never, ever distracted by any ringside camera flash. (Fighters are usually WAY too focused on their opponent to give any thought about flash photography. Plus, the fighters want to see pictures of their fight as well, so they don't want to cause any problems with the photographers.)

 

Sorry if I'm rambling here, but if you are shooting available light only (meaning without flash), the 1.8 aperture of the 50mm lens will also be the way to go. Another factor to consider is that if you're using a 70-200 lens, you will be zoomed onto the fighters so closely that image blur is even more pronounced than in a wider lens. This means you have to shoot at even faster shutter speeds, which are often unattainable at amateur events due to poor lighting. If you're using flash, also be sure to get right up between the ropes with the lens/flash because if you are even one foot behind the ropes, you will get useless images because of a) the ropes being way overexposed in the foreground from the flash, b) an abundance of bad focus because the autofocus will be constantly distracted by attempting to focus on the ropes, or c) dark horizontal bands of shadows across the fighters that are left by the ropes being between the fighters and the flash. If the fights are in a cage and not a ring, then flash use is pretty much out of the question because you can't get your flash between ropes, like in a ring, and you will get nauseating reflections off the cage's fence every time. (Fortunately, however, with any lens that's f/2.8 or better, the fence will be virtually invisible in available light shots as long as you're right up against it due to the limited depth of field.)

 

I could go on for another half hour, so I'll leave it at that. If you have any further questions, shoot me an e-mail and I'll help out as best as I can.

 

Good luck, -Mike Green

 

 

Javier:

 

I always use a filter on my 70-200L IS lens for the many reasons stated above: scratch protection, sand, sea spray, etc., etc. This is just my personal preference and for those that speak of the image degradation, I challenge them to objectively differentiate between any shots taken with/without the filter. (I use a very good, multi-coated B&W filter.) I can assure you that the difference, if any, is negligible and probably far less than the human eye's ability to detect--(direct sun and other serious flare conditions excluded, of course.)

 

But with all that being said, the lens hood provided with that lens offers a tremendous degree of protection. Without having ever actually measured it, I think there is about 3.5 to 4 inches between the front lens element and the end of the hood. So with the hood attached, it takes a pretty deliberate effort to actually reach the lens surface under any normal shooting conditions.

 

In summary my advice would be to get a filter (and a very good one for best image quality) if you're a nervous nellie like me about scratching the front lens element. But if you're low on cash and aren't that meticulous about things, you probably don't have to worry about anything as long as you use the lens hood. I certainly wouldn't let any worries about image degradation be the deciding factor.

 

Hope my input helps. ~Michael

Hey, thanks for all the great info, guys. I appreciate it and I have been successfully dragging and dropping files onto my CF card for use at the lab. Much more convenient than having to burn CD's all the time.

 

Thanks for the info on the dpi stuff also. It was good to learn that the Fuji Frontier (which is what my lab uses) prints at 300 dpi. I was wondering about that. ~Mike Green

P.S. I apologize if this sounds stupid, I just have never done it and have only downloaded onto my pc and burned onto CD for such purposes in the past.

I'd like to run to a local lab tomorrow and print something that I

have saved only on my computer. Is there anyway to record the image

onto one of my CF cards for my camera rather than burn it onto a

CD? For instance, is it possible to save the image from my hard

drive and have it downloaded onto the CF card through the CF reader?

Or is it possible through the camera itself with the CF card in

it?

 

I have an EOS-10d with Lexar 512mb 40x CF cards if that means

anything. Any info would be appreciated.

Apparently digital sensors are much more sensitive than film: I recently saw some documentary show which had a part about one of the huge telescopes out west (in the USA). They were discussing the fact that modern digital photography has vastly expanded the astronomers abilities to photograph the heavens and extra-terrestrial matter. If my memory serves me correctly, they said that the special application camera that mounts to the telescope costs $17,000 and is so sensitive that it can capture images never before possible with film. That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.....

I tried to post this question once already with no success, so here

it is again:

 

I recently shot several rolls of film with my 1v / 550 ex combo only

to find that all of the pics were underexposed. A further inspection

of the prints revealed that the flash had not fired during any of the

photos. This was extremely surprising to me as I had seen the flash

(or maybe just the pre-flash) in the viewfinder when I took all of

the pics.

 

I have taken thousands of photos with this combo in the past and

never had any problem such as this. As a result, I had failed to

check if the green "confirmation" light had illuminated after any of

the shots. (my stupid mistake that won't happen again) But when I

check it now, I can not get the confirmation light to illuminate--

even though the flash appears to be firing when the shutter release

is depressed.

 

I switched the flash to my back-up body, Eos-3, and it works

flawlessly with the green confirmation light coming on after each

shot. I figured that perhaps the contacts on the hot shoe of my 1v

were dirty or corroded, but I cleaned them off, as well as the metal

contacts on the bottom of the flash foot, and still can't make it

work.

 

Anyone have any problems like this? Have I inadvertently activated

some strange custom function that would produce these results? Any

responses will be greatly appreciated.

Correction on my last post: I meant to say f/8 where I put f/11. Dumbass me!

You made a great choice when you bought the f/2.8L lens. Although I have heard great things about the f/4.0 version, I'm partial to my f/2.8 IS lens for the faster speed. Another often overlooked advantage is that aperture loss with the 2x teleconverter will only bring you up to a f/5.6 as opposed to an f/11 for the f/4.0 lens.

 

I use my 70-200 for a lot of portrait work and it really rocks.

 

Good luck with the pictures!

I recently broke the small, dark red, plastic lens on the front of my

550 Speedlight. This is the small lens directly below the flash

head, not the larger focus assist lens at the lowest part. I'm not

sure exactly what this lens is for (meter of some sort?), but it

cracked in half and one of the tabs that secures it in place is

broken off as well. In other words, it can't be used without doing

some gluing or something, which I'd rather not do.

 

My questions are the following: 1) What is this lens for and what

does it cover? 2) Will I be able to take properly exposed flash

photos without the lens in place? and 3) Does anyone know the best

Canon phone number to call to get another one sent out to me ASAP?

 

Any information will be greatly appreciated. ~Mike Green