Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Sports & Action Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 17, 2007, 7:16 AM   #1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Was definitely glad to have overcast skies today :G Sure beats bright sunlight.

As always, C&C welcome:


















JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 17, 2007, 7:19 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

John, cool shots. I don't think it is just me, but sure I can see the reduced dof from the 1.3x crop, do you notice a difference shooting?

I really like shots 2 and 3 best and I won't mention the horizon in number 4..... oops too late :blah:
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 7:26 AM   #3
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Mark1616 wrote:
Quote:
John, cool shots. I don't think it is just me, but sure I can see the reduced dof from the 1.3x crop, do you notice a difference shooting?

I really like shots 2 and 3 best and I won't mention the horizon in number 4..... oops too late :blah:
LOL!!!! I swear Mark, as I was editing that shot for posting last night - I said "my horizon is way off" - but I liked the symetry of the player in the frame better with the horizon off. But I just knew you'd call me on it

Yes, I notice a big improvement on bokeh with the 1.3 sensor.

However, here's something I suspected was true and now I'm confident of it: I've always said a given lens is only good for focusing to a certain distance. Beyond that quality goes down hill in a hurry. Well guess what? The sensor size appears to make no difference in that regard. I can still accurately focus out to about 40 yards with the mk III. Now, that means I have to crop the results more. So that's something to be conscious of. But, it proves out at least somewhat, a theory I've had - the larger crop factors do NOT give you more reach. They simply make the subject larger in the frame for the given reach the lens provides - so you don't have to crop as much.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 7:32 AM   #4
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

I do agree that if you adjusted the horizon it would take away some of the feel.... I just like messing with you LOL.

One good thing about the focus range is that you are kept further from the limit while filling the frame at full zoom so all results should be sharper where you have done this. It also gives more room for sharp shots when you are pushing the distance a little (which is probably moving to the range where the 1.6x crop would still be filling the frame).

Well I'm impressed and the bokeh as you get more for your settings and could probably stop down to 3.5 and get similar results to the 1.6x crop and get even more sharpness from the lens (not that it is really needed).

Anyway I really should be packing as I'm off to the US tomorrow.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 9:55 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
StevenC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 218
Default

Good set as always John. Seems you've invested in some more equipment since we last spoke. I can certainly see the quality of the images have improved due to the better processing ability of the camera. The pro canon bodies have such an amazing dynamic range and you can see that even in these overcast shots.

First five are wonderfully warm but the color balance seems to change and have a slightly more blue cast. A change in location perhaps?

For me, shot 3 is the best.
StevenC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 10:07 AM   #6
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Steven,

I can definitely see what you're talking about with the color cast. I changed locations throughout the match. My guess is that because it got darker the AWB routine didn't work as well so it produced a strange color cast.

And I also agree with you the image files from the mk III are a definite improvement. There's a steep price to pay for the improvement, but that's why I started selling work so I could afford toys like this. It really is the only reason - sports photography isn't going to pay my bills - just ask Mark - but if it can pay for me to get top of the line equipment then I can enjoy my hobby all the more. Unfortunately, if I figured out my 'hourly rate' based on hours spent taking/editing the photos I probably could have more efficiently made money by getting a 2nd job at a McDonalds :lol:
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2007, 10:14 AM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Quote:
Unfortunately, if I figured out my 'hourly rate' based on hours spent taking/editing the photos I probably could have more efficiently made money by getting a 2nd job at a McDonalds :lol:
Yeah but that would never be any fun..... well not my idea of it anyway...... hmmmm "would you like fries with that".... nope I'm sticking to photography.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:22 PM.