erik_nelson

As a point of reference, I'm using the low-end Pantone Spyder2 calibrator with the cheapo low-end software selection. You can buy the package with their better software, and maybe that would be a better choice. But...

I find that it works reasonably well. You get what you pay for. I have a two monitor setup, and I have a hard time getting the calibration to run on the 2nd monitor (both CRT). I have to temporarily disable the 1st monitor to get the software to run on the 2nd. Then I re-enable the 1st monitor.

But the colors coming out of the lab printer seem to be right on as far as I can see.

That said, the Gretag seems to be the calibrator of choice. It's not much more money as I recall, and seems to get better reviews for its software. Unless you just plain can't afford it, I think the Gretag is the way to go. (I bought my Spyder before I did enough research. I'm happy so far, but if/when it dies on me, I'll likely switch over myself.)

Just for what it's worth,

I got my rebate from Lexar with no problems.

Now of course, I find out that my WA card isn't really as fast as it should be, and I have to call them to try to get it exchanged... we'll see how well they respond to that request.

I think I have to re-evaluate my lens choices. On Saturday I went out and shot a hockey game. For about half a period, I set my zoom on 50mm and left it strictly alone. (Nikon D70, so that equals approx. 75mm for a film camera.) You can see the game pictures at:

http://www.gigservices.com/gallery/Kates-vs-Concordia-Moorhead

The first 14 shots are all with the camera set to 50mm. After that, I started using the zoom again.

If you just want to publish to the web, or print 4x6's, I think a fast 50mm lens would be perfect. These were all cropped down some, and I was generally ending up with 1000x800 images or so. But if you want to get high quality prints, you're going to need a longer lens to get in closer and avoiding lots of cropping.

I realized that I was using the wide angles of the zoom to help me get lined up, and then zooming in as much as possible to get the shot. I don't even bother trying to shoot anything at the other end of the ice.

So, if I were shooting a film camera, I think the 70-200 f2.8 would be perfect. With a digital, however, that 70mm is just too tight for me. I'd like to see a 35-105, or 35-135 zoom. Tamron has an SP lens that's a 28-105mm f2.8 that looks interesting.

I've just started shooting college hockey myself. You can see what I've been doing at: http://www.gigservices.com/gallery/Wildcats

I'm using a Nikon D70, and the standard 18-70mm "kit" lens. There are very few spectators (women's division 3 play doesn't seem to attract crowds...) so I can shoot from wherever I want.

I tried my 135-400mm Sigma lens from the top of the arena, but with the 1.5x factor of the camera, it was too much lens for the arena.

With my 18-70mm and standing right behind the glass, I can get just about anything on my end of the ice with no trouble. If the players look like they're going to hit the glass near me, I try to back up some because even at 18mm I can't get a decent shot of a subject only a foot away.

If you look at the pictures I took, you'll see that depth of field is a problem. Also shutter speed. I'm shooting at 1250 or 1600 iso, and wide open on the lens. But "wide open" on that lens is only 3.5. And since I have to shoot at +1.5 or +1.7 EV, I'm not getting the fast shutter speeds that I'd like.

The solution? Well, I'm personally thinking about getting a 50/1.4 prime and using just that. I may have to crop some of the more distant shots, but not too much. The only thing I'm worried about is losing the really close "against the boards" shot. But whatever you choose to buy, I'd suggest you go for wider aperture before you go for longer lens.