drawnbylight

<p>I think Olympus decided that we had everything we need with the 7-14, 14-35 and 35-100 and the few longer lenses. From their perspective they covered all the focal lengths. And they're not completely wrong in that view, even if I would like to see a few more options.</p>

<p>But I don't see that decision as an end of product line indicator. Just that they don't envision a need for a new kind of lens.</p>

<p>I do think the E-5 shows that their development isn't keeping pace with Canon or Nikon. That is a problem for me whether or not they come out with an E-7 in three years or just give up. It probably isn't a big problem to a more casual shooter.</p>

<p>I don't really expect the dynamic range to improve from the E-3 much, which is what I really want. I would have to see the real performance of an E-5 to know what the digital processing improvements are. Even if they are using a similar sensor to one of the new small cameras, those cameras aren't comparable because they aren't testing them with an SHG lens. So perhaps the results will be much better than I would predict otherwise.</p>

<p>Three years from now Canon will have gone through a couple of development cycles and their equivalent body will be many times better than Olympus. Just think to three years ago when an E-3 was price/performance better than the Canon option. Today Oly is clearly behind. In three years it will be twice as behind.</p>

<p>The problem for me is that the E-5 plus the next lens in my wishlist costs about 70 percent of what it would take to start the switch to Canon full frame with a couple of L series lenses. I suspect I'll buy the discounted E-5 and save my lens money for the future. So I see the lag in the body development lowering demand for the lenses.</p>

 

<p>The approach I will be attempting will be to rent hotel meeting rooms as I start out. I abandonded the idea of studio at home because of many of the limitations that have been pointed out. It is fairly easy to find them at sizes of 20x30 feet and ceilings 10-14 feet tall. And at the same time the expense is controllable compared to a commercial lease.<br>

There are bathrooms and waiting areas built in to the hotel. I'm still thinking about some kind of simple changing area that might be more convenient.<br>

Has anyone else tried this?</p>

<p>I've had a lot of fun with mine in the swimming pool with my kids. Really unique shots from a relatively inexpensive camera. I love mine for when I don't want the big DSLR. And I'm not afraid to damage it.</p>

<p>Absolutely the 35-100 F/2. Portraits and indoor sports are what it does best, but I only take it off when I need a wider view or more magnification. When I do I use the 9-18mm or the 50-200mm Zuiko lenses.<br>

I also use the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 for normal shots or where I don't want the size of the 35-100.</p>

<p>National NBTA Baton Twirling Championships at Notre Dame.</p><div></div>

Swimming underwater.<div></div>

<p>I agree with Mr. Gaylord, the 35-100 is the best Zuiko for portraits. Of course, it costs at least 4-5 times what the E-420 itself costs.</p>

<div></div>

<p>The 35-100 f/2 is what you need. With that and an E-3 you can go up to 800 ISO (or even 1600 if you have to) and shoot in pretty dark rooms. Since I got mine it has become my primary lens.<br>

With that many weddings I would think it would pay for itself easily?<br>

And btw, when I bought mine, I didn't tell my wife right away. I let her catch on slowly that I had bought something. Later she got the idea it might have been a little more than a typical lens. Quite a while later she realized it was unusually expensive. I don't think she ever saw the actual amount.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I would like to know for sure what settings on the E-3 do or do not affect the RAW image.<br>

I know that the NOISE FILTER does affect RAW and the NOISE REDUCTION does not. (correct me if I'm wrong).<br>

I know that COLOR SPACE does not affect RAW, only JPEG.<br>

But what about GRADATION, PICTURE MODE (with it's general type, CONTRAST, SHARPNESS and SATURATION)?<br>

Is there are source for more information about the settings beyond what the manual describes?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Exposure is important at the higher ISO levels because the dynamic range of any camera drops as the ISO setting increases. A camera might lose 2 or 3 EV by 1600, meaning a smaller range of light can be recorded. So the image must be exposed in that smaller range to look good, making a difficult situation worse.<br>

And that is why nearly everyone that tries this for an extended period of time will shoot manual mode after trying to figure out how much light there is available. They search for where that usable exposure range exists for their camera at various settings.<br>

For me it is still a lot of trial and error, but I'm starting to get a feel for the best ranges for my cameras and what the local gyms have in the way of lighting.<br>

I'm not sure, but I've been wondering whether getting an accurate white balance reading set in the camera or set early in post processing will help with the quality of the image (beyond just the color balance). Does anyone else know?</p>

 

<p>I've been shooting basketball lately. I have an Olympus E-3 and use my 35-100 F/2.0 zoom. I shoot mostly from the baseline 1/3 of the way from one of the corners.<br>

The field of view is the 35mm equivalent of 70-200 and to me this seems to be very advantageous to get shots from the three-point line or far side as well as under the basket.</p>

I agree with William W about the front-focussing and his solution for getting better shutter speed with what you have.

 

My other suggestion is to frame as tightly as possible. It will help with auto-focus, light metering if you don't go to manual control and post production clean up will be better with more pixels.

 

You can see the main arena lights are off in the ceiling. What kind of lighting were they using? I've seen baton twirling events where they eliminate the overhead lighting and light from the edge. You end up with spotty, inconsistent light. And when the lights are like that, William W's suggestion of shooting a little dark will benefit not only the shutter speed, but preventing blown highlights from the uneven lighting.

Middle School Basketball<div></div>

I have shot a lot of baton twirling comptetitions, regional and national. Individual is fairly simple, but the team competitions sound like what you are trying to capture. And they don't allow flash which I am guessing is the same with your situation.

 

I'm not familiar with Sony equipment, but f/2.8 or faster is a must. For most gyms f/2.8 at 1600 ISO will get you 1/250 to 1/500 of a second. In baton twirling 1/250 will get you most shots because they tend to keep their heads still part of the time. When it comes to their Pom competitions that doesn't happen and it needs to be 1/320 or faster for clean shots. I'd be interested in what dance is like because I will be attending one next week.

 

As for the distance, If I can get to the front of the bleachers, first row or a few up, then a full frame 200mm will get most close ups. I use an Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 (which is the 70-200mm equivalent). As you get the faster lens you have to worry about depth of field. So I usually don't shoot the entire group at once while they are performing. I frame individuals, smaller groups, rows.

 

Take a lot of shots. Try to catch them when they pause or at least their heads are motionless. Images with clear faces but arms blurred slightly are very appealing. Blurred faces don't work.

 

Regards,

 

Jeff<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

And one more<div></div>

More Fencing<div></div>

My first attempt at shooting fencing<div></div>

First attempt at shooting fencing

<div></div>

And one more<div></div>

National Baton Twirling Competition at Notre Dame.<div></div>