kbroderick

<p><a href="http://killingtonmountainschool.smugmug.com/Sports/US-National-Championships-1/22100888_qdd6c7#!i=1763950356&k=3HJdwDL">U.S. Freestyle Championships</a> (and <a href="http://killingtonmountainschool.smugmug.com/Sports/US-National-Championships/22088747_pnKJqd">here</a>) at Stratton Mountain Resort</p>

<p><img src="http://killingtonmountainschool.smugmug.com/Sports/US-National-Championships/i-wN8sfHq/0/L/20120323MG9003-L.jpg" alt="Bryan Zemba performs a back-X in the 2012 U.S. Freestyle Championship" width="400" height="600" /></p>

<p>...but remember to pull your CF cards out of the camera and stick them in a pocket before going inside, as they do not need the same type of acclimatization, and it stinks to be waiting an hour or two to start downloading images. </p>

<p>I had the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC) for a couple of years before getting the 28/1.8. Since then, I've found that I'd almost always prefer the 28 except when going into particularly rugged environments (e.g. shooting rally racing) where swapping lenses in the field is ill-advised. In my experience, the image quality out of the 28 is lightyears ahead of the 17-50, both in terms of sharpness and in terms of color rendition.<br>

Based on what others have said in comparing the two, I'm guessing that perhaps I have a bad copy of the 17-50 (and we'll see what happens when it comes back from the shop; it's currently under repair due to the zoom mechanism crapping out, among other issues).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.gnucash.org">Gnucash</a> is not web-based but can use a SQL backend for data storage and is Open Source. It's not the most polished program out there, but I've been using it quite happily for about eight years now.</p>

<p>You've already gotten a lot of good advice, but I'll add one a bit more:<br>

1. When you're on the hill, <strong>never loose track of what is happening above you</strong>. Particularly when you're focusing on a few racers, it's easy to glance down to chimp because you know that you don't need a shot of the next racer. Murphy's law suggests that racer will be the one who comes off course in your direction.<br>

2. Generally speaking, shooting through the inside of the turn to the outside produces better angles than shooting in from the outside; the athlete will be looking (and turning) towards you as you get the. Directly from below also tends to be a good angle, with the caveat that it often puts you in a bad position.<br>

3. If at all possible, spend some time before the event shooting training of similar-level athletes. The speed at which things happen and the timing to get the right shot take some practice, and it varies with age and skill level—shooting 12-year-olds running slalom is very different from shooting internationally ranked athletes.<br>

4. Keep terrain in mind. Shot with "angles"—i.e. the athlete angulating substantially to the point where the inside hand is near or on the snow surface, while the upper body is still mostly upright—show athletic prowess and look cool. Athletes will have more angulation where the course is offset most severely (i.e. they must change direction across the hill the most, from one gate to the next). Fall-away turns will exaggerate this, on-camber turns will not. However, athletes are more likely to be right on the gate when the turn is on-camber and more likely to be away from the gate on a fallaway. Shots where the athlete are closer to the gate are generally preferable; in slalom, having the boots adjacent to the pole is ideal.<br>

5. I prefer to seek a spot where I can shoot 2-3 gates and track the athlete through, as described above. This provides a better chance of getting a useable shot if the athlete flubs one turn. This can be challenging, particularly if you need to provide more of a safety margin (as a former racer, certified coach, and certified official shooting mostly regional races, I can generally get away with standing in places that put a premium on point 1 above).<br>

6. When on a steep, icy pitch, be careful about putting down your backpack—I've had the pleasure of chasing mine downhill next to the World Cup mogul course at Lake Placid.<br>

7. If you haven't shot for extended periods of time in the cold before, be prepared. The camera should be fine with cold weather, but batteries won't be as happy; your hands will be even less happy, as the hunk of metal capturing images will also suck the heat right out of them, even with gloves on.<br>

8. If using AF, remember that trees in the background, B-net, and other gates provide nice, sharp lines to focus on; you may need to make a concerted effort not to pick those up when attempting to track racers.</p>

<p>If you want to shoot racing, it depends on the level of racing. At the JIV / JV level (kids 12 and under), you can probably get away with 200mm just fine. If you want to shoot upper-level events, 200mm tends to be either not quite enough or not nearly enough depending on the venue and how seriously they take safety requirements. When I've shot J1/J2 athletes with a 70-200 and 1.4x on it, I tend to find that for GS and faster events, I'm in places where I really need to stay on my toes. Given that I coach, I get a bit of leeway on that, and I also end up not shooting from a lot of places I'd like to because I can analyze the fall zones and realize that it's not a good place to be. If you're not as familiar with ski racing, you'd probably be better off with more reach. (I'd like more reach, but I can generally make do with the 70-200 and sometimes the 1.4x).</p>

<p>For general skiing use, I'd consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8 a reasonable addition to fill some of the hole between the 10.5 and the 70-200. Build quality is less than ideal, but mine still works okay after several years of hard use, and it covers the normal zoom range on a crop body. If I'm working with athletes and can talk about line choice, the 17-50 tends to work pretty damn well.</p>

Just to update, I did print the image I attached above at 8x10, and I rather like it. There's some chroma noise, visible when

I stick my nose about 4-8" from the print, but it looks great (to me, at least) at arm's length.

 

I also tried printing an ISO 6400 print 8x10; the results were rather yucky, as could be expected.

100% crop attached.<div></div>

The low-light performance in the 50D is a substantial improvement on the 20D. Sure, the expanded-ISO settings come

with a bucketload of noise...but the ability to even shoot at all in a situation that takes ISO 12800 @ 1/30 f/2.8 is

amazing. I picked up a 50D early this week (when it dropped to $1200 + shipping at B&H) and I just got a chance to do

decent amount of shooting with it yesterday. More importantly, ISO 1250 and 1600 look like they should work fine at

8x10 (which was *not* the case on the 20D...I felt that anything over ISO 400 was questionable at 8x10, at least with my

workflow). Result: I'm impressed.

 

There are a lot of nice usability enhancements, as well--the LCD is a huge leap, even if I'm constantly smudging it with

my face/nose. The ISO in the viewfinder is a rather nice touch, as is the 1/3-stop increments rather than full-stop ISO

increments. The camera feels and sounds a little more solid, but that's just impression at this point (and could be me

wanting to justify the money I spent on it).

 

I haven't used Live View yet...I wanted to last night, but I couldn't figure out how to engage it (I suppose I should look at

the manual more closely).

 

Overall, I purchased the camera because I've got something like 85-90k shutter actuations on my 20D and I'd rather

have a new camera in hand before the 20D fails; I decided that I'd go with the 50D once the price hit $1200 (which it did).

Of course, I didn't factor in buying a couple more, higher-speed flash cards (pesky 15MB files), a new L-bracket, or a

focus screen (I've got a split-prism Haoda screen in my 20D), but I'm still glad I went with the purchase. I do intend to

do some A-B comparisons on a tripod, particularly in low-light situations, once my L-bracket shows up; my initial

impression is quite favorable, though.

The Tamron. It's a good walkaround lens on a 1.6-crop camera, and the reasonable aperture

makes it usable in a variety of situations (including those that move quickly). The only place I

can see an advantage with the 18-55 IS is shooting a static scene with limited camera

support (e.g. off the top of a fire tower where the whole tower is swaying in the wind and a

tripod won't help much).

If you're planning to go to a 1-series camera in the future, I'd go with the 5D simply

because the crop cameras mesh with crop lenses better (particularly in the wide and

normal zoom ranges); if you get a wide and normal zoom for a 40D (e.g. 10-22 and 17-

55), you'd end up needing to replace them for the 1-series; if you buy the 5D and stick

with full-frame lenses, you'll be looking at a body, not a body and glass, when you go to a

1-series.

 

(my two cents. I'm committed to the crop bodies myself, as I've got the glass to go with a

1.6-crop body and expect to add a 40D to my 20D sometime in the next 6-8 months;

however, that's largely because I'm at almost 90k frames on the 20D and I don't want to

have just one body that's nearing MTBF on the shutter; if the shutter didn't have that many

frames on it, I'd have no problem with continuing to shoot with the 20D; the images I get

aren't any worse just because the 40D performs better.)

I've got a 20D, and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM provides comparable performance in both

focus speed and image quality to a friend's 70-200/2.8 L in field use. I haven't used the 17-

55/2.8IS, but I own a Tamron 17-50/2.8, and the IQ and focus speed have both been good

enough to keep me happy. I suspect the 17-55/2.8 IS is probably quicker-focusing, though

it's also a lot more expensive and a bit heavier.

<p>Visit <a href="http://www.wheelsandwax.com/">wheelsandwax</a>, read the forums,

read the tutorials, lurk, look at the photos.</p>

The 40D is quite capable of taking action sports shots. A 1D MkIII would be better, but there

are a lot of other ways to spend the same amount of cash. If you don't have a good

collection of fast glass, that should probably be your first priority. A lighting setup for off-

camera flash would also be a really good thing to have for both of the sports you cited; use

of some sort of off-camera lighting in skate and snowboard shots is fairly common.

I consider AI Focus to be useless because of the additional lag it introduces--the camera has

to *notice* the subject is moving and *then* switch to Servo and try to maintain focus. With a

moving subject, I want it attempting to focus as soon as I hit the button, which is why I leave

mine in AI Servo with back-button focus almost all the time and just use a short burst of AI

Focus on stationary objects (well, except for macro and some landscapes, in which case I go

to either one-shot or manual focus.

I'd put a vote in for the Tamron 17-50/2.8 as a good lens to go with one's purchase of a

1.6-crop body. It's not nearly as expensive as the Canon (especially if you can find a good

one used), but it covers the coveted standard zoom range with an f/2.8 aperture.

Personally, my 50/1.8 has come out once or twice since I got the 17-50/2.8, although it

had been a regularly-used lens prior (in conjunction with the Tamron 19-35/slow and a

telephoto zoom). Plus, it's generally well-liked in the used equipment world, so it

shouldn't be terribly painful to sell it if you decide you don't like it it.

 

For indoor photography, I agree that a good flash would be helpful; I'd budget for either

the 430EX, 550EX, or 580EX, in the near-term future if not right away. All of them have

some degree of manual control available in the event you want to go off-camera at a later

point in time, and it's a lot cheaper to buy good gear up front than to buy cheap stuff and

then sell it for a significant loss in the process.

I owned a 70-210/2.8 Tamron for a while and used it, generally with success, on my 20D.

AF worked but was painfully slow at times (for sports use); the image quality was quite solid.

However, I paid substantially less than $500 for it (I think I bought and sold it for something

around $325 or $350). I did upgrade to the Sigma 70-200/2.8 after selling the Tamron, and

the AF improvement was extremely welcome.

<p>I'd actually agree with the salesperson that the 24-70 is not a particularly useful focal

length <em>on a 1.6-crop camera</em>. With a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Canon 17-

55/2.8 IS (depending on your budget, need for IS, and weight considerations) and a 70-

200/2.8 of some sort, you can cover the most important focal lengths for both

"walkaround" ranges and telephoto ranges. I've got a 17-50 and a 70-200, and my next

zoom will be a 10-22 or 12-24, not a 24-70--the length gap from 50 to 70 just doesn't

seem to be a problem very often.</p>

 

<p>(And yes, I do shoot some snowboarding comps, and the 17-50/2.8 is almost always

my weapon of choice...but I can be pretty much wherever I feel is safe, so I'm not limited

in the same way that you might be at a larger comp with crowd control and

whatnot).</p>

With the 1D, you have a weather-sealed body. The Canon L lenses are weather-sealed; the

Sigma is not. Although I'm generally a big fan of the Sigma (the image quality and AF

performance on my 20D are comparable to a 70-200/2.8L--I couldn't tell much of a

difference when I borrowed my friend's lens), but I'd think the extra couple hundred would be

worth it when combining with a 1-series camera.

<p>You're comparing an apple to a candied apple. In the 70-200/2.8 range, you have

three main options, in order of increasing cost:

<ul>

<li>the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM</li>

<li>the Canon 70-200/2.8 L</li>

<li>the Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS</li>

</ul>

<p>The first question is whether or not you need IS. If you regularly see yourself in

situations where the IS will allow you to get a photo that you wouldn't otherwise get

(particularly shooting relatively static scenes at higher focal lengths in low light, or at

smaller apertures), cough up the money for the 70-200/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>The second question is whether or not you need the weather sealing. If you have, or

plan to soon have, a 1-series body with weather sealing (or the EOS-3 film camera), then

it probably makes sense to get one of the Canons so you maintain the weather-sealing

advantage. If you don't, I'd seriously consider the Sigma 70-200/2.8. I've got one, and

I've found it to be just as quick to focus and optically equal to my friend's Canon 70-

200/2.8 L (in real-world testing, not shooting test patterns on a tripod, so there may be

some nearly indiscernible differences in quality).</p>

<p>You may also be able to find an older, 70-200ish f/2.8 zoom around; I had a Tamron

70-210/2.8 before I switched to the Sigma. It worked fine, the optics were reasonable,

but the autofocus was slooooow, which was a major impediment for me (I shoot a lot of

sports). Of course, it's also tough to actually find one of these beasts if you're on a

schedule, so YMMV.</p>

I don't tend to do street photography, but I'd suggest that if you're convinced that 70-200

would be a good focal length, you should consider the Sigma 70-200/2.8. It's still big

(comparable in size to a 70-200/2.8 non-IS), but it's matte black instead of being look-at-

me-white, and it's a couple hundred dollars cheaper than a 70-200/2.8L--almost in the

$500-600 price range, especially 2nd-hand. The image quality and AF speed are on par with

the 70-200/2.8L, at least on my 20D (I've heard that the 1-series AF shows a marked

difference between the two, but I couldn't perceive any difference when I used a borrowed

70-200/2.8L myself).

I'd suggest that the Sigma 70-200/2.8 is worth a look if you're at all cost-conscious and can

live without the weather sealing on the Ls. For me, the decision came down between the

Sigma and the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS; I've borrowed a friend's 70-200/2.8 non-IS, and the

performance seemed on par with my Sigma, in both optics and AF speed. In my case, I just

can't justify the extra cost and weight for the 2.8IS when the Sigma 70-200 gives me just as

many stops for less than half the cost.

<p>As another poster said, your best bet is remote flashes and pocket wizards. I've

found the eBay radio slaves (I use the YHDC-B model, but there are more advanced ones

available now) are much more economical and still work reasonably well. Better glass will

help, too, but I've gotten some pretty good results with a relatively low-end lens (Tamron

19-35 f/slow), both with and without the remote flashes--e.g. <a href="http://

www.kevinbroderick.com/gallery/v/BoltonValley/MTB-2005/">these shots</a> using

only ambient light (and a lot of luck) and <a href="http://www.kevinbroderick.com/

gallery/v/BoltonValley/06MTB/">these</a> from last summer, many of which did involve

off-camera flash. Better glass helps, though, and will allow you more options for shutter

speed and lower ISOs.</p>

<p>As another poster mentioned, <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/">the

Strobist</a> blog has some pretty good ideas about low-budget off-camera flash; <a

href="http://www.wheelsandwax.com/">wheelsandwax</a> is a good place to check out

if you're interested in action sports photography.</p>

I've got the Tamron 17-50 and am generally happy with it, but I the f/2.8 aperture was a

major feature for me (that and the L pricerange wasn't really in my budget). My biggest gripe

about it is the lack of FTM (and, as another poster pointed out, it's rather crucial to keep your

fingers clear of the focus ring while using the lens in AF mode).

Unfortunately (for your budget, at least), the most useful focal lengths for field sports will

differ significantly from basketball (assuming that you have the same level of access in both).

If you can make the 50/1.4 work as a basketball lens, I'd seriously consider a used Sigma

70-200/2.8 HSM to get a little bit of reach involved. You'll probably find that you'll want

more reach for field sports, but getting beyond 200mm in a lens that's still fast enough to

use for sports gets expensive quite quickly. The 70-200/2.8 probably won't be fast enough

for indoor sports use (unless you've got a particularly well-lit gym), while the 85/1.8 would

be quite limited in usability on a football field or a baseball diamond.