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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 5, 2004, 5:07 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default Hockey Pics

Most of these were shot behind the glass. Not real happy with the results. These were taken with a couple of different lenses as well.

http://www.pbase.com/aaltenburger/no...ockey&page=all
aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 5, 2004, 5:16 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

there are some good ones in there!!! i like the one of the helmets as the players are watching t\he game!
nice shots....
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 6, 2004, 1:06 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

Vito, that one is my favorite too. Actually, that was exactly the shot I was looking for. Blind squirrel found a nut I guess. I was hoping that 0457 showed the puck going in the net. It was real close, but it was already past the goalie.
aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 6, 2004, 1:15 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

well if you wanted that then it wouldn't be a blind shot
i like the last one....gj
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2004, 9:18 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 141
Default

I take it you must have a press pass (or are a really big donor) to get those angles. I don't see anything worng with those photos, even behind the glass. I'd hate to be hit by a puck.
srvsd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2004, 9:25 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
MoonGypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 394
Default

I'm not very knowledgable about hockey. Which period do they start using kittens instead of that puck? :twisted:

Seriously, good shots. How did you get them with out shivering(shaking)? I always get cold around hockey rinks.
MoonGypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2004, 12:10 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Andy...

My name's Andy too, by the way, but my middle name is Norman. Your lens is magnificent but I have a few questions about your info provided:
1/160s f/2.8 at 431.0mm iso400 full exif. That was given for img_0445. I'm somewhat confused about the 431mm. Are you using an extender on your 70-200? Why are we at 431mm?

I can understand why you are getting some blur with a 1/160 shutter. You definitely need to increase that, or find a place where the players are coming "towards" you, rather than across you where the shutter speed is more important.

My suggestions to you are these:

1. If you have a 2.8, non IS, then use a monopod from a distance.
2. If you have a 2.8 IS, then if I were you I'd stop down so you have a larger DOF because that may be one of the reasons for some of the less than absolute sharpness. I've personally read that F8 is often the optimum sharpness setting for many lenses, but I'd suggest that 2 stops down will bring some improvement to your sharpness. If you need light to do that, then increase the ISO and use a processor like Neat Image. One thing is for sure in your photos, you have a talent for finding good shots but you need to find some light for your camera to do it's best.

There is an out-of-focus fuzziness to your shots that can be improved upon, as far as my experience goes, by doing one or more of the following:

1. Stop your aperture down more and increase your ISO. That will increase your DOF and the focus area will increase, allowing for more mistakes in absolutely accurate focusing. Your ISO increase will balance the stop down in aperture.

2. You absolutely "cannot" go below 200 shutter unless you are seriously thinking about direction of motion. If a player is coming right at you then you can use a slower shutter, but if you are panning, or shooting from the side, then you need to have no less than 200 and preferrably 500 shutter.

3. Use a flash if you can, but experiment with the onboard one and a fast lens first before going to the big guns. I've had better results with a 100mm F2 prime and a 50mm 1.8 with onboard flash rather than using the hotshoe. And less shadowing results.

Sorry for being verbose.
2.
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2004, 4:35 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Mr_Saginaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normcar
Andy...

My name's Andy too, by the way, but my middle name is Norman. Your lens is magnificent but I have a few questions about your info provided:
1/160s f/2.8 at 431.0mm iso400 full exif. That was given for img_0445. I'm somewhat confused about the 431mm. Are you using an extender on your 70-200? Why are we at 431mm?
Think it's known problem with the Sigma lens... goofy exif data when zoomed... mine does the same thing...
Mr_Saginaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2004, 7:10 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 165
Default

Hey, not many of us Andy's out there. For that pic, no extenders used. It was the incorrect reading for the Sigma. I need to regroup a little. 1st football shoot coming up in a month. Taking my son to the Notre Dame Blue-Gold game. That'll give me a chance to test out my 1.4 and 2.0 w/ that Sigma. I'm looking for another lens to complement my Sigman 70-200 2.8. Any suggestions?
aaltenburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2004, 8:06 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Andy...

I would "highly" and "highly again" recommend the Sigma 50-500 for your football shoots. It works great with the 2x converter as well but no AF. I don't know why one would need AF at that distance anyway.

I am amazed at the power and quality of this particular lens, and know that you will not be disappointed with it's quality and power. However, some claim that it's weight is a disadvantage. Not me, I relish every ounce of it's weight because, to me, this weight weighs out as quality. I think that Sigma used what was necessary to get the quality, and they didn't even consider the idea of "weighing too much" so the quality remains because Sigma, with this particular lens, decided to focus on one thing....results!

Have a look at the 50-500 I'd suggest.
Normcar 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 3:09 AM.