jean_marc_liotier
-
Posts
210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by jean_marc_liotier
-
-
Sweat, sore arm and longing for battery packs... Thanks for the excellent summary of a typical wedding !
-
My experience in walking the rough parts of some African towns (Somali slums in the suburbs of Nairobi for example) has been the surprising ease of doing it as long as you are accompanying a local. It is probably because that the presence of the local makes your presence legitimate. I also had occasions of walking alone in such places although I don't do it at night if I can (even the locals try to avoid it) and I found it doable either by keeping on the move looking like you know what you are doing or by really getting in touch with people when occasions arise. But at the time photography was not among my primary interests so the camera was mostly sitting in a non-camera bag. But when I used it - and also when I did not I found that almost invariably people are be eager to show their world to outsiders. That said, high-density third world environments, even in reputedly violent cities are not dangerous compared to war zones : you may sometimes be robbed - possibly violently and even by the police (it happened to me once - that is a surprising experience) but at least the prospects of a random and sudden death for no reason at all are infinitely less. I'm not shy about dodgy areas but although war photographers fascinate me the more I know about them the more I realize they are completely crazy.
-
If you are happy with the size of the 350D the only other ergonomical improvement lies in the more comfortable vertical grip - useful if you shoot lots of vertical. Why don't you go to your local shop, try it there and buy it if you like it ?
-
Oh and I forgot <a href="http://www.matphot.com/">Matphot</a>. Those three seem to be the most cited on forums.
-
<p>When I tried renting it was mid-august and that one of the worst holiday week-ends in France. For next time here are a couple of shops in Paris that rent some big glass :</p>
<p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.photorent.fr/tarif.html">Abdon Location</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.abdonlocation.com/canon.htm">Photorent</a></li>
</ul>
</p>
-
I considered renting a 300/2.8 or a 400/2.8 but I was short on time and the shops in Paris I inquired to either did not rent anything or did not return my email so I decided to try with my own gear. But I concur that next time I shall certainly rent the approriate glass. Since I seldom really need such extreme hardware, renting is the solution that makes the most sense, especially compared with buying the mediocre hardware within my means.
-
The issue is of course not binary and price is the major factor : the main significance of new products annoucements for bottom feeders such as me is that the previous generation becomes affordable. I'm looking forward to upgrading my 300D to a cheap 20D or a 30D...
-
Until you rephrase that a little more clearly and provide a little more detail I'm guessing you will get few answers. At the very least tell us exactly what the model of your camera is and give us more detail about the lighting of your subject.
-
After my last post I went reading about light meters. It appears that in some situations the histogram from a digital camera can be used instead. There are many limitations to that approach but it is a good start - and it's cheap ! Two threads about that on Photo.net : <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FUEc&tag=">"should I sell my light meter?"</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BwBE">"Histogram vs. Light Meter"</a>.
-
<p>I'm currently also researching that sort of thing and I'll give it a try as soon as I find a way to obtain a few lights cheaply... Lighting your background correctly is supposed to save you that sort of post-processing step. In <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GwcB">this photo.net thread</a> Paul Chaplo mentions : <i>"you have to get enought light on the white backdrop to raise it to a white just short of blowing it out / overexposing it. Thats high-key lighting. You meter incident then open up to your white point"</i>. There is more detail in this <a href="http://www.lightingmagic.com/bkgndqa.htm#High%20key%20background%20light">short explanation about how to obtain a detail-less white background</a>. But all that requires a light meter which I do not have. <a href="http://www.webphotoschool.com/Hidden/Lexar/Shooting_Product_Shots_on_a_White_Background/index.html">Another white background lighting method</a> proposes just setting a softbox behind the subject. This is much simpler that this <a href="http://adorama.webphotoschool.biz/The_Perfect_Light_for_the_Perfect_Portrait/index.html">complicated multi-light sources setup</a> which produces great results. But from what I have read I guess that proper studio lighting requires learning to use a light meter... So that is now on my shopping list...</p>
-
The game indeed took place in the early evening on a dull day. In the beginning of the game when a reasonable amount of light was available I used a rather small aperture because I was so unsure of my focusing skills that I wanted the relative safety of a larger depth of field. Afterwards when the sun began setting I used the lens wide open, which is not f/2.8 but f/5.6 because of the teleconverter. I agree that high ISO is not good - I thought the increased speed would make it a good compromise but I am not happy with the resulting quality. So next time I'll shoot at maximum aperture all the time and try to stay at the lowest possible ISO that affords me 1/1000s obturations. I have considered using the 70-200/2.8 with no teleconverter but I have found that the 300-400 range is much more useful to me. A second body with another 70-200 - even a f/4 would be nice though... Maybe I'll manage to borrow one next time...
-
<p>I am lucky enough to have attended Guinea vs. Cameroon from the sidelines
thanks to an invitation from the Guinean national team. An international match -
what an awesome way to introduce myself to football photography ! That was was a
great learning experience. Of course I made a whole lot of stupid mistakes - but
I guess that's what learning is about... I look forward doing it again and I'm
sure I'll do better next time.</p>
<p>
I posted a couple of messages on my blog : one <a
href="http://serendipity.ruwenzori.net/index.php/2006/08/16/feeling-a-little-inadequate">about
my preparation (written before the event)</a> and another <a
technical debriefing about my actual experience</a>. I hope other aspiring sport
photographers find them useful.
</p>
<p>
Among the many issues, the one overshadowing all others was the focusing. Now I
really measure how much practice I still need before I master the art of getting
randomly moving things in focus most of the time. Of course the preservation of
my self esteem requires that I blame my hardware a bit for that...
</p>
<p>Attached is what I consider my best picture of the day. <a
href="http://gallery.ruwenzori.net/main.php/v/sports/Football_Guinee-Cameroun/">The
whole gallery is also available</a> but average quality of my take is not so
exciting. Tell me what you think !</p><div>
</div> -
By the way, here is a gallery with the <a href=http://gallery.ruwenzori.net/main.php/v/sports/Football_Guinee-Cameroun/">pictures of the Guinea-Cameroon friendly soccer game</a>...<div></div>
-
Try comparing RAW files from both cameras. The JPEG files they produce are the result of much processing of the raw capture. Different choices of sharpness, color tone, saturation, contrast, gamma curve and proprietary rendering algorithms all produce a large variance in the end product. They may be part of the difference you perceive. Many of those parameters are user selectable so you once you isolate the interesting ones you might begin to have a handle on producing something closer to your taste. From what I have read, the flash exposure calculations also differ quite a lot between Canon and Nikon - I am only familiar with the Canon side...
-
A monopod will make your camera steadier than hand holding, but for what you seem to intend to do, a cheap lightweight tripod, a mini-tripod or even a clamp for attaching the camera on any clampable object will certainly be more useful. I don't find the monopod worth carrying for use with short lenses although it is of course highly valuable for using heavy long lenses while keeping most of your mobility.
-
Yes... It hit me yesterday that I chose the wrong focusing mode. Using AI focus instead of AI servo surely made the focusing on action even worse - Iﾒm quite ashamed of that mistake. Maybe I forgot to set it up properly because Iﾒm not used to do it on my 300D which does not offer that choice... As usual, discovering new hardware on the event is a truly bad idea... I guess that'll serve me as a reminder to force AI servo next time...
-
<p>
Giampi said :
> There is a real difference in AF speed between the</br>
> old 80-200 and the new 70-200, for starters.</br
</p>
<p>
Yes, I noticed that when I switched.
</p>
<p>
> The 300D is not a sports camera either.
</p>
<p>
... And that's an understatement. I'm aware of the problem and I'll soon allocate a budget for a replacement.
</p>
<p>
> You don't say what sports
</p>
<p>
It is a badly lit soccer game two days ago that made me aware of the problem.
</p>
-
<p>
Dave Trayers said :</br>
> with the 2x your f/2.8 lens was really like a f/5.6, which is pretty slow
</p>
<p>
I agree that faster lenses would be nice, but the 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4.5 and 600/4 are way over budget at the moment. For 400mm it seems that f/5.6 is the most one can obtain at a poor amateur price point. And I thought that even professionals routinely used f/4 lenses with 1.4x TC or f/2.8 with 2x TC and were often limited to the same f/5.6 as a result. Do they mostly use f/4 or f/2.8 lenses with no TC ?
</p>
<p>
> I also think that adding a 580EX complicated the focus issues, as the camera</br>
> was trying to use the AF assist on the flash which slows it down.</br>
</p>
<p>
I searched the web and found no mentions of that issue. I thought that the AF assist could do no wrong in that context. But now that you mention that I am in doubt. Has anyone else experienced that problem ?
</p>
<p>
> I don't know if you can disable the AF assist on the flash.
</p>
<p>
Yes you can : that is CF nﾰ12.
</p>
<p>
> I think that a 2x converter is really too much and you should consider a 1.4x.
</p>
<p>
1.4x is a bit short for covering a whole soccer pitch, even from the sidelines and especially when movement around the pitch is restricted. But you are right that 1.4x is much more reasonable, even quality-wise. Choices choices...
</p>
<p>
> I've had pretty good success with the 70-200 2.8L and a 1.4x at airshows
</p>
<p>
At the Paris Le Bourget air show last year I used the 80-200/2.8L with the Kenko 2x TC on a 300D with no problem : clearly defined subject on an uniform background all well lighted is pretty much the ideal case and I found even my limited hardware adequate, even though my technique was quite bad.
</p>
<p>
> If you're going to shoot a lot of sports, you might consider finding a</br>
> used 1D (the 4.15MP version). It has excellent AF performance and would</br>
> work better with the lens/converter combination than the 300D or even the 20/30D.</br>
> They can be had for a less than $1000US now.</br>
</p>
<p>
I have been toying with the idea for a while but I have been put off by high noise, banding at high iso, erratic white balance, 1.3 crop factor and absence of zoom in review mode, not to mention the 4 Mp sensor... But the bigger brighter viewfinder, faster focus, faster motor drive, weather sealing and robustness are all tempting indeed...
</p>
-
Wednesday I shot my first soccer game using a 70-200/2.8L with a Kenko Teleplus
Pro 300 AF 2x TC mounted on a borrowed 350XT (not perfect but still better than
my 300D which I found about useless for that task). I discovered that focusing
is quite a challenge - anticipation helps greatly but it is not always possible.
I was moderately content with the combo's AF performance in good light. As the
sun began to set AF got worse and out of focus images became even more frequent.
I shot at ISO1600 with AI focus in aperture priority at various apertures trying
to keep the speed around 1/1000-1/2000 while maximising DOF.
Considering the distances, the 580EX with a Better Beamer helped a little with
the light but the AF assist was of course ineffective. Apart from improving my
technique by practising, what can I do to better my focusing ? I have found that
prefocusing on a higher contrast subject at the same distance helps, but again
that is not always possible and a nice shiny technical silver bullet would be
welcome - well I suspect there is none but it does not just to ask...
So for starters would the AF speed with the Canon 2x teleconverter be better
than with Kenko ? I got the Kenko at the time when I used the 80-200/2.8L which
did not take the Canon TCs because of its protruding rear element. Now that I
have the 70-200 2.8L I'm wondering if swapping for the Canon 2x would help
improve the focusing speed. I don't really care about the image quality
improvement - improving my technique will probably yield better returns for
quite a long time before I may begin to nitpick about that limitation. I know
that I should invest in a used 20D to replace my aging 300D - that purchase is
already planned as soon as possible. Because the 70-200/2.8L is so useful on its
own and I have no economic justification for dedicated long glass, I would like
to stick with the zoom+TC solution for sports photography on the cheap. I used
it a bit for wildlife with great satisfaction but I am now finding that soccer
is quite a bit more demanding...
-
Anyway the topic was not "how many pictures do we shoot" but "how many pictures do we show". And for that question I would say there is a much better consensus. I would say between 35 and 350 according to how small or humongous the event was. From the numbers gathered around this thread it looks like I'm not the only one...
-
<p>
Bodgan said :</br>
> 5000 images edited down in just 2 hours on a laptop ?</br>
</p>
<p>
Mmmm yeah, this sound incredibly fast to me too. That's 1.44 seconds per frame... The laptop better be a very fast one and the decisions lightning quick. My first wave of weeding out the (blurry/badly exposed/badly framed) frames may be about that fast, but then comes the non-trivial choices and then the selection of the best among the bursts, and then some harder choices to increase the average quality. That takes me much much more than 1.44 seconds per frame... I wonder how that can be done that fast.
</p>
<p>
And about the 5,000 pictures in 10 hours, one photo every seven seconds is my take for sports photography... Or maybe there really is that much action going on at those weddings... I mean no disrespect - whatever floats your boat - but I take four times less and I wonder how one manages to expose that much in a useful way.
</p>
-
<p>
Bogdan said :</br>
> Being able to compose a shot and discriminate is a talent.</br>
> Weeding out 5000 shots isn't...</br>
</p>
<p>
Go tell that to the editor in the press room...
</p>
<p>
I have no problem with people having 1% or 99% of keepers - it is the end results that count, especially the emotions from the readers. I don't quite understand what the flames are about.
</p>
<p>
That said, I also don't understand what's wrong with more frames as long as ruthless editing is enforced. As the saying goes : the most useful tool in a photo lab is the wastebasket...
</p>
-
<p>
Al Kaplan wrote :</br>
> In the heyday of the big picture magazines, Life, Look</br>
> and Paris Match, nobody shot the number of exposures</br>
> that some wedding shooters are knocking out today.</br>
</p>
<p>
Maybe that is because nowadays the cost of exposing lots of frames is practically only the selection time. If you can browse and cull fast enough there are practically no downsides. Of course as with many things, the number of shots taken is certainly subject to diminishing returns. But I have found that even if they are not important for the more formal aspects of the wedding, large numbers are key to bagging good candids, especially when there is more than one subject : the probability of a member of a group blinking or showing an ugly facial expression grows to the power of the group size.
</p>
-
<p>
Kelly Flanigan wrote :<br>
> [..] You might want to check out the screen of your target<br>
> laptop before buying it.<br>
</p>
<p>
Oh yes please do that ! I am currently on holiday and I use a borrowed laptop (quite a modern one with a P4 CPU) and now I understand how good my old Iiyama CRT at home is. I really feel uneasy correcting pictures on that laptop - I always wonder if I am not doing it completely wrong due to the tiny viewable angle and capricious luminosity... Good thing that I always keep a backup of my raw take !
</p>
400D or 30D?
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted