chip_degrace
-
Posts
56 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by chip_degrace
-
-
<p>I am not a lawyer, i'm an engineer, and I've been in a videotaped deposition with a basket full of lawyers...for a 200Million plus lawsuit....don't put anything in writing if you can avoid it.</p>
-
<p>Let me echo a few of the other respondents who like the 17-55/2.8L IS.<br>
I gave this lens to my daughter, to get her started with her xTi3....and I've borrowed it back numerous times. Sharp, fast, and good bokeh.</p>
-
<p>Ray,</p>
<p>I upgraded to 7D 1.5yrs ago, here is what I have.<br>
Canon 10-22, love this lens, great for architectural and landscape work, occasional group shots in tight spaces<br>
Canon 24-105 4L very sharp, IS, my walkaround lens<br>
Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II, it's my sports lens, by itself for Bball and VBall, with 2.0X III extender for soccer, 1.4X II extender for tennis<br>
I've also got the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 for special situations, but rarely use them.</p>
<p>I suggest you prowl Ebay for someone's first generation 70-200/2.8L IS....many are upgrading to the II and selling the I on ebay. I would also check out lensrentals.com, they sell their stuff, usually in very good condition, after they've had it a while.</p>
-
brian, your bball shot looks clean, what noise red. do you use?
-
<p>zack, i agree about the tired wrists, and the balance. used the mk I 70-2002.8 on my rebel, awkward...worked nice on the 40d, and terrific on the 7d with battery grip. love the heft, set it down frequently to "rest"</p>
-
<p>lens rentals is selling a used 70-200 f2.8L IS II for $1790, free shipping.....</p>
-
<p>steve "inertial resistance to motion" EXACTLY. heavy camera, heavy lens, hard to shake.</p>
-
<p>jeff, check out my post on a similar subject in the same forum thread=My 7D and the dreaded basketball shoot.</p>
<p>i've been there, the 2.8 does everything the 4.0 did, you lose a bit of sharpness, but once again i'll say, when you get pictures that you otherwise wouldn't get, there is no room to argue the weight. If money were no object, or i had a bigger bag, i'd have the 4.0 and 2.8.<br>
can't go wrong buying L glass, renting is a terrific option, i've done that too. I had the 2.8L IS first gen for nearly three years, purchased $1569 from adorama, no tax no shipping....sold it last january for $1400 cash, and sprang for the II version. slight improvement, still worth every penny.</p>
-
<p>i would use the 100-400 for football, but you'll have trouble with shutter speeds if the games are played under the lights. for bball, 85 1.8 is hard to beat. please post some pics.</p>
-
<p>marcus, on the contrary, the additional weight actually stabilizes the camera/lens by virtue of it's weight.....that's my theory, and as a mechanical engineer, i could show the math...lol </p>
-
<p>you will never whine about the weight as you're looking through the gorgeous shots the 2.8 affords you. I owned the 4.0, sold it for the 2.8 and i'll never go back.</p>
-
<p>don't be the guy in the gym shooting strobes, even if they're allowed...it's obnoxious and you blow out everyone else's pictures</p>
-
-
-
-
<p>Great feedback you've received from all the posters. I shoot a couple of thousand bball pics per week, with my 7D and 70-2002.8L II IS. I have been shooting 1/500 at iso 2000 or 2400, with the lens wide open. I've shot also at 4000 iso in some gyms, ever since i tried noise ninja. You will think it's magic. remember, you're not taking senior portraits or wedding photos, these are indoor sports action shots. Mine come out very well, and I'm picky. Turn off the noise reduction in camera, to get the faster frame rate, and shoot away.</p>
-
<p>Carol, Tv in canon lingo is shutter priority...which as you know, means YOU set the shutter speed, camera determines the aperture based on the ISO setting, and the lighting conditions.<br>
It would seem that 400 is becoming somewhat of a "native" ISO for digital SLRs, I would start there. The actual shooting wouldn't seem to take all that long, once you've designed your experiement...you may consider duplicating the experiment at ISOs 100, 200, 800. You can then determine if your conclusions are consistent across the range of ISOs.<br>
Either way, you're going to learn more about photography, and that is a good thing.</p>
-
<p>Carol, the three factors which determine exposure are shutter speed, aperture and ISO. You can't hold two of them constant and change the third...as you imply, your exposure will be wrong for all but one of the shutter speeds.<br>
If you are doing a study on the effect of shutter speed, when attempting to capture motion, you can hold the ISO constant, and allow the camera to determine the aperture, for the shutter speed that you are testing.....OR, you can hold the aperture constant, and allow your camera (if it's capable) of choosing the ISO.<br>
What you will learn with your science project is exactly what many of us who shoot sports continually learn, and that is, there are tradeoffs in aperture and ISO which are necessary to achieve the shutter speed required for sports photography.<br>
Best of luck to you, and please share some of your work when done.</p>
-
<p>great timing on the shot. is the background underexposed due to flash use, or are there simply no lights on the crowd?</p>
-
<p>i think i'll spin a couple of 45s now, backward</p>
-
<p>shooting sports, it's simple, if you don't set the shutter fast enough, there is no picture to talk about. shoot high iso, get your fast shutter, and fix, almost like magic, the grain in post processing with noise ninja or similar.</p>
-
<p>thank you Micha for posting this, and to William for answering...I have had this phenomena when shooting indoor soccer, with high shutter speeds with fluorescent lighting. have had to manually adjust WB to fix it.</p>
-
-
best way to shoot football parent's night in the rain?
in Sports
Posted