eric_freedman

<p>Try that again - been awhile since I posted a pic to a thread. . .</p>

<p><img src="http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa120/elfreedman/Trees/tn_2A7B5769%20-%20Copy2.jpg" alt="" width="560" height="700" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa120/elfreedman/Trees/tn_2A7B5769%20-%20Copy.jpg" alt="" width="560" height="700" /></p>

<p>Haven't signed in or posted to photo.net in a long time. Here is one I took last week - not sure which I liked better - color or b/w.<br>

<img alt="" />http://www.photo.net/photo/18002604<img alt="" /> <img alt="" />http://www.photo.net/photo/18002603<img alt="" /></p>

<p>William - I will try to post some bigger images in my portfolio tomorrow.<br>

I am not sure what "H" means. The last shot is not the greatest. It's a little soft - I was shooting handheld and I noticed the shutter is 1/100 as opposed to some higher speeds for the others. The first shot of the flutist is nice, but that is in daylight during warm-ups prior to the game.</p>

<p>Dave - while all of those bodies would have handled shots better, I will be using the 70D for sports - high school baseball/pony league - much more so than shooting the marching band. The frame rate is not there on the 5D2. The 6D I have read over and over on the net that focus tracking is not as good as the 70D or 7D and would not be that good for sports+has a slower frame rate than both the 70D/7D. And the 5DIII is just a lot of money for my amateur needs. Plus if you look at my gallery - you'll see a red car - my other expensive toy - she needs a new engine. My list of things to spend money on keeps growing :)</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17527624-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17527625-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17527626-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17527628-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="252" /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17527629-lg.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="600" /><br>

Here's an update and a few photos attached from the first halftime show of the year. I would appreciate feedback on anything I could improve.</p>

<p>I rented a 70-200 2.8 II. I think I had more than enough reach without any extenders - I would maybe use a 1.4x to isolate some individuals better. But, as the band marched on the field, 70MM was almost too much reach with the crop body to fit the whole band into the shot. However, this lens rocks!<br>

I pushed the 40D to ISO 1600 - its limit. I felt I needed even more ISO to keep my shutter speeds up. Results were not horrible, but they were not fantastic either. I need a body with higher ISO capability.<br>

I tried to play around with the 10-22 and my 28-135 as well. The 28-135 seemed to show a lot more noise. Again not horrible results; however, after 14 years of a lot of use, my 28-135 zoom ring appears to be permanently jammed as well. And, for as old as it is, it's not worth fixing.<br>

I am going to be ordering the 70D and maybe get a used 24-105 f4 L. I think with the higher ISO capability of the body, I can get my shutter speed to a decent level. I will continue to rent the 70-200 2.8. I think there are only 4 home games; so, it makes more sense to me to rent the 70-200 vs buy.<br>

Dave and William - I hear you about the 5D3 vs crop argument. I would love to get the 5D3, but money is a consideration. Didn't really mean to start a FF vs crop battle - it seems there are opinions for both. As a frequent lurker here, that seems to be argued a lot here in varying forms on which body is better; however, the one constant, most everyone agrees that the better improvements come with better glass, and I will continue to rent a 70-200; but, I think I'll be able to use the 24-105 f4 and 10-22 with the new body. I considered the 6D, but I use my cameras for a lot of my kids baseball and from what I read, the 6D would not really work that well for sports.<br>

I very much appreciated everyone's help and opinions. We'll see how well the 70D works when I put it through it's paces. I think it will perform much better. If not, I can always sell it for a small loss and bite the big bullet for the 5DIII.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks everyone. I do plan on using the 40D with the 70-200 and will start with the 1.4x extender. We'll see if I need 2x. I hear you guys that the crop most likely will be better for this situation. And, as I stated above, I am going to wait on spending funds on a new body until I really see how well the 40D behaves on the football field.</p>

<p>Sarah and William - thanks for the extensive info and for the tips. I'll keep the step in mind. :)</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>That's what I was thinking David. I searched around today for high iso pics with the 60D and 70D. I think I saw one test where the 70D and 60D were pretty similar in that regard. And I did not like the noise. I thought the 6D was noticeably better, and that's why my post has been slanted towards the FF. I'll probably couple that with the 70-200 and a TC. <br>

I don't have the 70-300 L - yet, lol. I am considering that too. I have the old original coffee grinder 100-300 5.6L which has really served me well through a lot of kids baseball/swimming. But lighting was good. I knew the day was coming when my eldest was entering high school that I was going to have to up the game somewhere in my equipment arsenal for night shots.<br>

I will probably see if can rent a 70-200 for the first game to see how that does with my 40D. Plus I am not sure how close I am going to be allowed to get on the field. I am supposed to be one of four band photographers out there. We'll have to see how it goes, but I don't think I am going to be happy with the noise on the 40D at higher iso's</p>

<p>So, I think the consensus is 70-200 2.8 - possibly with the 1.4 extender. - I think that gets me to F4 and around 280MM.<br>

Just a question on the body. Does the crop camera (thinking new 70D) really outweigh the low light/high ISO performance capability of the FF 6D?</p>

 

<p>I am also thinking about the 70-300L for a little bit longer reach. Can I push up the ISO with this lens and get some decent shots in a stadium setting?</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>It's been a long time since I have posted/asked a question.<br>

Today, I have my poor man's kit, lol - 40D, 50mm 1.8, 100-300 5.6L, 28-135, 10-22<br>

My son is now in the marching band and will be in a stadium for night football games. I will probably take a few football shots too.<br>

So, I'm thinking I probably need a new body that handles low light better and a faster lens.<br>

I am thinking of getting the 6D and non-IS 70-200 2.8. I do have a monopod. <br>

Will that fit the bill? What do you guys think?</p>

<p>Rented a 10-22 to take some pics of my car. It rocks.</p><div></div>

<p>BelAir Camera in Westwood. Online website has 100-400 at $1499. interesting. BH Photo has it for $1679. wonder if some prices aren't updated. Tamron 17-50 is $449 and BH Photo is the same price $449.<br>

Here is the address:<br>

10925 Kinross Ave.<br />Los Angeles, CA 90024<br />310-208-5150 or 800-200-4999 FAX 310-208-7472</p>

<p>Alright, I am going to try to talk you into digital. Sound like you are a little skeptical or leery of it of autofocus let alone going digital.<br>

I came from using an AE-1 then bought an Elan IIE - just prior to or right at the beginning of digital's introduction. If digital had been a little more mature and a little less expensive at the time, I would have gone digital. I finally transitioned to a 40D at the beginning of last year - it is terrific especially for chasing around little kids.<br>

While a digital body may be more expensive, I think it's worth it just for ease of sharing photos digitally with friends and family. You don't have to worry about purchasing film and processing/printing costs as much - you print only the shots you want to print. And for the bad shots, you just delete them. However, I am spending time on the computer with digital workflow rather than having/paying a lab to do the post processing.<br>

You will have to invest in new lenses to use autofocus. I would recommend you do a search of this site on the lenses that interest you as there is already quite a bit of info here. The sky's the limit on pricing for some of the better lenses, but you will find that there are some cheaper gems that perform very well - like the Canon 50mm 1.8. If you are still undecided on film vs digital, you can search here for already asked pros/cons questions of film vs digital.</p>

 

<p>Frame rate is important for sports - so, I wouldn't nessarily go with the entry level bodies. The 40D/50D go 6+ frames/sec. Best bang for the buck in my opinion. That's one of the reasons that I bought the 40D over the Rebel bodies. Good luck with your purchase.</p>

<p>I once had seats that started the hockey rink - row 1. Just about the best seats in the house for the opening game after Chick Hearn passed away, and the Lakers were getting their championship rings. Took a point and shoot, and it was pretty much a big waste of time. <br>

If you're lucky to get your camera in there with the highly restrictive policy, maybe the 50 1.8 with the lighting or really pumping up the ISO as your telephotos are not that fast.<br>

But got to agree with the above posters - I would skip it and enjoy the game.</p>

<p>Sorry, above are from the time trial on Friday for the Tour of California in Solvang. I don't post here much - it was a lot of fun. Levi just won it.</p>

<p><img src="<a href="http://s199.photobucket.com/albums/aa120/elfreedman/2009%20Tour%20of%20California/?action=view&current=tn_a95_0189.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa120/elfreedman/2009%20Tour%20of%20California/tn_a95_0189.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>" alt="" /><img src="<a href=" alt="" /><img src="http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa120/elfreedman/2009%20Tour%20of%20California/tn_a95_0172.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" />" alt="" /><img src="<a href=" alt="" /><img src="http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa120/elfreedman/2009%20Tour%20of%20California/tn_a95_0208.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" />" alt="" /><img src="<a href=" alt="" /><img src="http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa120/elfreedman/2009%20Tour%20of%20California/tn_a95_0222.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" />" alt="" /> <img src="<a href=" alt="" /><img src="http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa120/elfreedman/2009%20Tour%20of%20California/tn_a95_0217.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" />" alt="" /><br>

<img src="<a href=" alt="" /><img src="http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa120/elfreedman/2009%20Tour%20of%20California/tn_a95_0225.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" />" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>Yes. The aperture is limited by the lens. It's the measurement on how wide the lens will open. The lower the number, the wider the opening - this is also what is also called a "faster" lens. However, lenses typically get more expensive as they get faster or longer in range and way more expensive when you increase both.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A couple of more thoughts for Robert's question:<br>

One alternative is to rent a lens - maybe a 300mm prime for your photo shoot. <br>

The other is an oldy - the 100-300 5.6L. While slow and grindy autofocusing, it is a sharp solid performer and light weight You will only find it used. I bought mine used at KEH.com years ago It has served me well. Until I feel the need and have the funds to go with a 70-200 2.8, I won't be parting with it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you can, visit the site for a test shoot and experiment before you get to the actual wedding day. That way you will know what works and what doesn't.</p>

<p>Well, I do not think you will see an image stabilized camera for quite some time with Canon - they have too much invested on the IS lenses.<br>

As for ECF - somewhere I read that Canon didn't think there was much demand for it. So, I highly doubt that ECF will be on a digital body anytime soon.</p>

<p>I went from an Elan IIE to a 40D. I really did like the ECF on the Elan - but I bit the bullet early this year and bought the 40D. I actually haven't missed ECF one bit. With the 40D and others, you pick your focus point with a little dial at your finger tip ( I usually have it on the center). Focusing hasn't really been that much of a problem.<br>

I was really conscious of film and processing cost with the Elan. I have never had so much fun than with the 40D. It's addicting. Though, there's a lot more time spent on the PC with downloading and adjustments.<br>

Anyways, good luck with your new purchase, you won't look back.</p>

 

Thanks for the responses.

 

I like the reach of the 300mm. So, at some point I might get the 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4x extender (from what I have read - not much degradation of quality vs the 2x extender which does).

 

I get pretty good results with what I have now - the lens is not that bad. Just couldn't figure out whether it was the lens, me or the camera. Tried the 100-400 - didn't like it that much even though it is push pull like the 100-300. So, when I can afford it, and I would like to get through the end of 2009 - to make sure I still have my day job with this crazy economy, I might take the plunge.

 

Thanks all.<div></div>

So, I know that this question has been asked numerous times before..

 

I seem to have better luck with focus using AI Focus even though AI Servo has been recommended. I take a lot of

baseball shots of my two sons and their teams.

 

I have tried a few times - focusing on the static player at the plate and then tracking the player running after a hit, and

I get blurry shots in servo mode. My shutter speed is up there - 1/1000 + to stop the action - so I shouldn't have

camera shake.

 

I'm just wondering if it is the lens - given that it is the old slow grindy 100-300 5.6L. Any thoughts? Let me know. If

I have a chance maybe I will try to rent the 70-200 L just to see, but the fall season is over for now.

 

Thanks.

For some reason mine seems to do that as well - under exposed. Not sure if it is user error on my part or the camera or the light situation. For most of my shots, I have dialed up exposure by 1/3 stop and that seems to have done the trick for me.

Attached is a shot with the 28-135 that I tried to attach in my earlier post.<div></div>