conrad_stoll1

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/119/305885149_c689c649c8.jpg?v=0" border="0" />

 

<br/><br/>The Lonestar Shootout in Austin, Tx

Texas Basketball, day before the weekend :P

 

http://static.flickr.com/109/293614373_868cc6d365.jpg?v=0

Yeah, the best way to isolate the subject using DOF is by getting as close as possible. The

relative distance between you and the subject, and the subject in the background, will

determine the isolation. Sometimes it is all about luck. Hope that the play runs to your

side of the field, and that way, you'll get much better isolation, than if they are on the

other side and the relative distance will be virtually the same.

 

Also have fun since if it is a #1 team you'll be in for a heck of a game I trust :)

 

And finally don't be afraid to play around with the settings and compositions. What I like

to do is try very hard for the beginning of the game to get my safety shots, QB throwing,

running back, etc. that I know can be printed. Then you can play around with the settings,

try getting some crowd reactions in the background, or sit at the corner of the endzone

and try some wider shots. Anything you want to do to be creative. Never stand in the

same place for an entire football game, unless they force you to. Try and move around to

get different perspectives.

"Is there any harm in using Tv at 1/250 (or whatever you guys think is appropriate)--that

way if needed the camera can open all the way up OR, if it's a bit brighter, it will

automatically stop down a few stops to give me a greater DOF. Does that sound like a

good approach?"

 

Honestly, with sports, you very rarely want a "greater DOF". Especially at a high school

game, where the stadiums are ugly, there are virtually no fans in the stands, and there

usually isn't much to make the background very interesting. You want it to just be the

players, so that the focus is ONLY on them. I suppose it depends on the effect you want,

where you are standing, what the fans that are there are doing, but generally speaking,

subject isolation (lower depth of field, wide open aperture) is better.

 

And all that Av or Tv will do is set the shutter or aperture to the setting that will give

correct exposure for the given aperture or shutter setting. It isn't very "smart" when it

comes to DOF assistance.

 

So I still recommend Av at f4.5

1. Use the center focus point only, for basically everything to do with sports.

 

2. I would go as low as you can go and still have at least a shutter speed of 1/500. To

stop motion in football you need at least that, and when you're using a 300 lens (400

equivalent on digital) you need at least 1/400 to avoid having any camera shake when

handholding it.

 

3. AI Servo, which has the ability to continuously focus on moving subjects, is the best.

 

4. Use Av an set it to f4.5 with the lens wide open (75mm) and it will scale up and down

as you zoom in and out. Yes with that lens you will get less sharpness than if you had f8,

but you will at least get some amount of subject isolation, which you won't get any of at f8

or 11.

 

I will say this. I used that exact same lens for two years shooting high school sports. Yes

for 150 bucks its decent, but it doesn't produce high quality sharp images. If you

continue to do this, invest in a 70-200 f4, which you can get for around 500 bucks. I've

shot college football games, at night, with that lens, with amazing results. You won't get

much more than light from it than the 75-300 USM, but the image quality will be leaps

and bounds better.

"when I press the * button it focuses and the only the center light blinks. Is that correct?"

 

yes

 

"Once I have focused with the * button will need to hold it down while following the player

or will it track automatically?"

 

No, you need to hold down the button. Tracking just means the AF leans towards focusing

on moving subjects rather than stationary ones.

 

"Should I press the AF selection button before each picture?"

 

Prefocusing is always a good idea since if nothing else, the lens doesn't have to move as

far to get to the right point.

 

"Also I set the C.Fn. 4-3. What should the C.Fn. 17 be set to (0,1,2)?"

 

Its up to you, but mine is usually set to 3. The only difference is that 1 does the same

thing but has the shutter button set to AE lock. I always have 17 set to 0.

Try to use a single AF point to spot focus on the subject. I have always found that the

selective AF picks the wrong spot too often, and if it ever decides to focus on the fans,

thats one time too many.

 

To do this, press the button thatt has the crossing white dots, and rotate through the

points with the wheel, I think.

 

Another trick that I personally use for football/soccer is custom function 4, where I switch

the AF control button to be the AE button, and not the shutter release. That way I can tell

the camera where I want to focus with one finger, pan around, and take the picture

somewhere else. If nothing else, at least switch the AE button to AF lock so that you can

keep the focus from changing while you pan (sometimes it will decide to focus on the

crowd if you pan past a running player).

 

And by the way the exposure on those looks fine. You won't get much more stopping of

the action from a high school game in that light without making your pictures darker. Just

work on your technique with focusing and following the action.

Thanks carl

 

And the only aspect of volleyball i'd be using the lens for would be floor side shots of digs

basically, since either an 85 or a 100 is plenty good for that, since its so close. I already use

a 70-200 for everything else (or a 300 f2.8 when the office will let me borrow one that all of

us share).

yeah i use a 10D (hopefully eventually to be a 30D)

 

the 85 seems like a pretty good option, since its probably close enough, and the extra light

can't hurt...

Honestly i'm trying to decide if the 100 is too long...

 

For basketball i'm literally sitting 3 feet behind the back line a few feet next to the hoop. For

volleyball I can sit on the center line. For swimming I can go anywhere I want.

 

Its quite a tough call honestly, heh.

I know that either of these is the lens I want for basketball, but for the life of me I can't choose.

 

The 100 would be a little better for getting in nice and close, but its slightly slower. I've heard that its

sharper than the 85 though.

 

The 85 is faster than the 100 but i'm not sure how sharp it is at the f1.8 aperture, which is where i'd be

using it the most by far.

 

The price on the two is basically the same, within 30 bucks.

 

Other than basketball, i'd likely be doing some volleyball work with either lens (100 would probably be

better for that) and maybe use one as a backup for night time football on my close quarters camera

(maybe). My other interests include nature (closeups of flowers etc., as well as scenery) and portraits. I

know both lenses are good for portraits, but does anyone have a favorite for either of those other aspects?

 

My principal focus for this thing though is basketball, so if anyone has any feelings about either one vs.

the other for that, please let me know.

 

Thanks

Don't feel too discouraged laura, that environment is extremely difficult to shoot in. The

lighting in that gym looks awful. Its very hard to get good action shots in those

conditions.

 

You've been given lots of great suggestions about volleyball, but for basketball I just

wanted to mention a few things.

 

1) Try and get behind the basket if you can. Up against the wall or in the lower bleachers

should be fine. Get some angle between the basket, like 10 feet to the left or right of it.

2) That 85f1.8 or a 100 f2 are definitely your best bet here.

3) As far as focus goes to avoid focusing on the crowd by mistake, you can manual focus

on the hoop, or maybe a little closer or further, and your shots should be about the right

focus. Thats just another trick to shooting basketball that sometimes helps.

 

Good luck.

Canon 50 1.8 (for sure)

and

Canon 28-135 IS (or possibly the 17-40 f4 L if you want something wider)

Football is all about luck: sometimes they run it your way...sometimes they don't.

Currently my only image backup solution is my ipod, since I can upload all the pictures to

that (80gb). Now that could certainly work, but I do want a secondary option, because like

you said, hard drives can and do crash. This canon M30 could be just what I need, but if the

price is too much...then maybe not.

 

Hopefully we'll find out about that soon.

How useful do you think they are, photo storage devices i mean (since you have the epson

one)?

The way I see it i'll be gone from home for almost 3 months, so the extra storage may be

worth it. However if the price is too high then I may just opt for a new macbook since I can

grab one of those for like 1100 and just use that...but we'll see.

http://www.photokina-show.com/0426/canon/usbflashdrive/canonm30/

 

Did anyone else see this?

 

This is unbelievable, I want one! Does anyone have any ideas about pricing yet? I've looked around and I

don't even see it on canon's website. What do yall think?

Yeah it looks like the 17-40 is most likely the answer. The only other 2 I was looking at

were the 24-70 and 24-105 L's. Either would make a good walk around lens, but I already

have a decent one in the 28-135 IS, and what I don't have at all is any sort of wide angle.

 

Is it possible to do a star track with a dslr? Will the battery just simply die after an hour or

so? Will that cause the shutter to close? Whats the consensus on this issue. As much as I

used to love my film slr's it seems like such a hastle these days :(

 

Two other questions:

 

Any use for some of the smaller primes for this sort of application?

 

How well does the 28-135 IS perform for landscape work? Its always worked well for me,

but some people complain its soft. I was wondering what you all thought.

I have a canon Elan 7NE that has served me well, but I don't know how much I want to put

into film/post processing. But you're right that is also an option.

I'm starting to plan my summer a little early this year as you can see. So the story is that i'm spending

the summer backpacking and leading trips around north new mexico. This is quite a thrill for me

because i'll get to spend lots of time in the mountains with my camera, and i'll have a base to recharge

batteries and upload pictures every few days (so i'll be using digital, my canon 10D). Its also a thrill

because although now I work doing more journalistic and high level sports photography, I started out

doing scenery and landscapes when I was younger and less experienced. It will be great to finally get a

change to dive back into that.

 

So anyway, i'm looking for some advice about another possible lens to add to my lineup for this

expedition. I'm planning now because i'll probably want to use it for my current work and freetime

shooting.

 

Currently I have a:

 

Canon 10D

Canon 70-200 f4L

Canon 28-135 IS USM

Canon 50 1.8 USM

 

I'm sure the 70-200 will suit me well for most landscapes in the medium to longer range so i'm not

worried about that, but I am a bit more worried about wider angles. What do you guys think? Is a wider

lens a pretty useful tool for serious landscapes? I'll have the opportunity to shoot very wide open

backgrounds and landscapes. There will probably be a lot to see in the frame, so it seems like a wider

lens would be a great help (especially on a crop body like the 10D).

 

I've been looking at the 17-40 f4 for a while and it seems like something of a front runner. It fits the

budget (under 1000 preferably, but I do have the rest of the year to save up, so maybe 1200 or so

would be a max).

 

So I guess i'm just looking for general opinions and advice. Are my current 3 lenses a good enough

setup? Could I do a bit better for what i'm looking to shoot? Any recomendations would be greatly

appreciated.

 

My primary interest in subjects are: mountain ranges, trees, some flora and macro work (I think the 50

will probably be enough, and i'm not really looking to invest in a high dollar macro lens at this time),

stream and river water flows, some wildlife (so maybe a tc for the 70-200, because its a lower priority

for this trip), and finally people and landscape portraits.

 

The other primary interests are star tracks and astro photography.

 

I'm looking to bring back a few thousand images from the entire summer, so I am definetely looking for

a quality lens to bring great returns and produce good images from the lengthy trip. Something else to

consider is that most of my current photo work is with sports (indoor and outdoor) and with journalistic

work with covering local events. Although this isn't the sole purpose of this lens purpose (my 70-200

was purchased exclusively for sports for example) it would be wonderful if whatever I add to my kit was

also useful for either of these applications.

 

Thank you.

I certainly don't think so. I'm using the same set up and I left all the canon software

uninstalled. Aperture is amazing, I hope you like it as much as I have.

UT Soccer

I have to agree with michael in some ways. I get paid shooting big 12 college sports and it certainly is a blast for me. Fortunately I don't have to provide all of my own equipment, so I don't worry about the pay as much, but even though i've only been doing it almost 2 years now, its still one of the best jobs i've had. I'll certainly be enjoying it while it lasts.

Texas Football

Canon 10D, f5.6, 1/1500, 200iso<div></div>