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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 29, 2005, 6:39 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 106
Default

tightshot with the 50mm.
Attached Images
 
bugshutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2005, 6:26 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,538
Default

Bugshutter,

Thanks for posting those shots, as I'm contemplating getting a Canon 20D and putting a 50mm F1.4 lens on it.

Yah, the 1/200th shutter speed isn't going to freeze fast action. I usually have to shoot 1/500th to get rid of the blur of hands and feet with running or jumping subjects.

Have you tried the same type of shots with 1/500th and use ISO3200? Maybe the noise tradeoff isn't worth it, but I've heard some noise removal software can clean up the photos a bit.

-- Terry




terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2005, 7:54 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 106
Default

Thank you Terry,

I will definately try 1/500 the next time out, as I havent went over 1/250 as of yet.
bugshutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2005, 4:22 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 269
Default

I agree with terry, 1/200 usually won't be fast enough to capture sports. I've found 1/250 to be pretty much my bare minimum, but 1/320 and up is usually needed. I've found the 85/1.8 usually lets me get 1/400 or so at ISO 1600 (on a Nikon D1H) so you should be able to get at least that speed with a 50/1.4 lens.
Terry, if you can swing it I'd recommend going for the 85/1.8. At least with Nikon, the 85 focuses notably faster than the 50 lens and I believe with Canon's 85 you get USM so it should certainly be quicker, with is very handy for sports.
murphyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2005, 5:11 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,538
Default

MurphyC,

Wouldn't the 80mm focal length be equivalent to a 120mm lens (in 35mm film terms) when attached to the 20D?

That would bemedium telephoto. I usually take pictures of runnersat the side of the trackfrom about 20-30 feet way so I figured the 50mm would be better.

Certainly ifI were up in the stands, taking pictures of basketball I could see the 80mm being better.

What is your opinion, given the above?

Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2005, 6:12 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 269
Default

Terry, if I'm not mistaken doesn't the 20D have a 1.6 crop factor? As such the focal length would be 85 * 1.6, whatever that comes out to be. With my D1H and D70, I stand at the corner during bball games and find the focal length quite useable. I prefer using my 80-200 if lighting allows since that allows me to not only get closer on my end of the court, but to also shoot some stuff at the other end of the court.
For track, I'm thinking a zoom lens might be handy, especially a mid-range zoom. If the track events are during the day lighting wouldn't be as critical so I would be tempted to use my 18-70 since it's an AF-S lens. I'm not sure what the Canon equivalent to that lens would be, but you could always get one of the various 2.8 midrange zoom lenses for about $300. Based on my research, my first choice would probably be the Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di. The problem with the 50, at least my Nikon 50, is the relatively slow focusing speed.
murphyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2005, 6:22 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,538
Default

MurphyC,

I appreciate your thoughtfulness in the discussion.

The problem I have with track is indoor track, where the light is as low, and probably one or two stops lower than indoor basketball.

With an F2.8 lens, at 1/500th, I can't get the shot unless I add about five stops of light with a flash, which results in a very dark night looking background.

Your right , that 28-75 tamron lens would certainly be the right way to go for outdoor track and cross-country running where the available light isn't much of an issue.

In the final analysis, I might need a couple of lenses, like the28-75 for general photography and outdoor sports, maybe the 50mm f1.4 for murky indoor shots where I can get really close to the running athlete, and possibly an 80mm lens for more far away stuff indoors (although, I don't really shoot any basketball or football, just indoor track, outdoor track and cross-country events where I can get close).

I appreciate your comments and any more feedback you'd like to provide.
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2005, 9:46 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 40
Default

I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice on choosing a camera/ lens for shooting my kids sports , basketball, wrestling ,volleyball and softball. I currently own an Olympus 750 ultra zoom and it only goes to iso 400, and i shoot at 125-250 shutter speed to try to allow more light on th e sensor but still the pictures come back with noise or grain in the facial area.,and lack detail . Is there something i am missing ? or should i step up to a dslr? Owe and i open the aperture all the way open usually . I was contemplating a d70 or the rebel , based on feel of camera and the way the features dials ,switches etc are laid out the nikon feels more natural like a true camera and easy to use. But i have hears mostly from the canon dealer that canon will take a much better (clearer detailed picture when enlarged past 11x14 ) he claims that nikon creates noise ,and moire in the highlights or fine details when enlarged. He had a picture they took of an employee blown up to a 30x30 picture and the detail of her hairs was awsome , very sharp and detailed .He claimed nikon would produce a red haze in the same area. is this true? I did try totake in account that it was processed with there professional equipment not a home printer. I then went to a different camera dealer in the mall ,and shot some pictures using both camers in their high or fine jpeg mode . I took pictures of people walking by , i had trouble figuring out the focusing .but did take some pictures with shutter set at 125, iso at 400 tostart with then went to 800, then 1000 but noticed canon didnt have a 1000 or at least i couldnt find it . But the pictures with the nikon came out the same as i would see them with the eye but the faces were blurred , and i noticed when using the burst that the first two or three were more blurry than the last two. The canon produces extremly dark pictures ,and had to be lightened ,but once they were lightened the persons faces were very clear in compariosn. I beleive the apeture was set to auto on both camers and that it wasnt fully open...no flash was used ... I was trying to see how existing light would work so i could see or try to estimate how the camera would work in a gym. The colors seemed about the same on both ,the images appeared very flat ,matted looking , not real sharp ,in comparison liek shooting a 35mm in dim light at iso 200 ....I am going to try to reshoot again and compare mbecause i want the camera that will produce the best and most accurate prints i ususally blow up to 8x10 or 11x14 in size...Does anyone have any recomendations ? I dont want to break the bank right away just get some good shots of the kids that arent blurry or real grainy and i can actually get good detail... my email is zwdb08@yahoo.com
zwdb08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2005, 12:28 AM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 39
Default

I have a canon digital rebel and I absolutely love it. I have no problems with noise, only if i put the iso up to about 1600. For sports, I don't ussually go above 800, thats the point where the grain is to much. I use my rebel for everything, from rocket launches to hockey, to basketball...etc. And your problem with noise is because its a point and shoot. Point and shoots just can't overcome that noise problem. The rebel is great, and you can't beat the price. I got mine for 700 when canon had the rebate going. Good Luck and let us know what you decide



DannyO
DannyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2005, 9:04 AM   #20
Member
 
MitchInOmaha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 41
Default

Here's an example of one I took. Canon 20D, EF50f1.4 at f1.4, ISO1600, 1/250th, auto-wb (should have used custom wb; the lighting in this gym was horrible!). This photo is completely un-retouched except to be resized. This fellow was about 10' away. I was standing just to one side of the hoop at the end of the gym.
Attached Images
 
MitchInOmaha 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 4:35 PM.