Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 2, 2009, 7:52 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 225
Default

Wow! I dont realy know how to respond to the response that my post generated first let me say that I wasn't in any way claiming that my pic was of pro caliber. Just that it is possible to get nice pics with lesser equipment I guess more than anything I was speaking of the DL body not the lens, even though I did mention the lens.
Next I would be willing to bet that the average pro shoots as many throw aways as keepers.
Another thing I was getting at is that equipment does not make the photographer. I have a friend who has a canon with 8 megapixels. He bought a canon because he believes that since it is a superior camera that HE will take superior pictures. I have a brother in law that paid 2000 dollars for a 6 megapixel nikon and a couple lenses. Nikon of course being superior will automatically make his pictures superior, so HE believes. Both of these men take crappy pictures consistantly. Not because the cameras are inferior but because they think they are good photographers JUST because the own top brand cameras.
Now let me step out on a limb I believe that if I owned a 300 mm f2.8 best of the best lens my little legue pitcher would be look as nice as the volleyball pics or the baseball player who has motion blur . Oh I'm sorry I forgot that the shutter speed for the baseball guy was likely set to feeze everything in the picture EXCEPT the throwing hand.
I am afraid to tell you that I like driving my Chevy Cavalier "fast" on country roads because I'm sure that someone would inform me that it does not even compare with their Corvette!!!!!!! And then they would challenge me to a race and brag to all their friends that they blew me away!
Now that I am done with my little rant thanks for the comments and I will be posting more . And by the way....... I'll race my cavalier for pinks! LOL !! NOT!! I need to keep my car ! bock1965
bock1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2009, 9:16 AM   #12
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bock1965 View Post
Another thing I was getting at is that equipment does not make the photographer.
Absolutely true. A bad photographer will take bad photographs with any gear. BUT a good SPORTS photographer will take better sports photos with better gear. If we kept the same photographer - YOU - and replaced your camera / lens with a Nikon D700 and 300mm 2.8 lens that exact same photo would look MUCH better. Creamy bokeh, accurate WB, great color and sharpness. Same photographer, same shot but a better result. Now, take 100 photos with the setup you used here where your subject is moving through focal planes and take 100 photos of subject moving through focal planes with the Nikon setup and you'll see a dramatic difference in the results. A LOT more keepers with the nikon setup. And the nikon keepers will be of higher quality. In fact, simply replace the lens with a sigma 70-200 2.8 and you'll see an improvement in almost every sports shot. quality 200mm 2.8 will produce better sports photos than consumer 200mm 5.6 stopped down to f8. I'm sorry if that logic annoys people here.

As to your comment about me showing motion in the pitcher's arm - yes it was a creative choice. Could I have frozen it completely? Sure I could have - because the camera I used has excellent ISO 800 and 1600 performance. Instead I shot at ISO 500 and 1/1000 shutter speed - enough to freeze body motion but leave a bit of blur in the hand. If it makes you feel better - I'm fully capable of stopping a pitcher's motion when I decide to


I can even stop motion at night under the lights - while keeping noise low, making colors pop and showing those all-important faces:


Feel free to demonstrate how that camera/lens combo compares at HS football at night. Because your skill is the only thing that matters and you're good enough to overcome the gear limitations and take shots like the above at night.

Or should we not consider shots where we can't pre-focus and have to expect the camera/lens to track a moving subject in low light?

Last edited by JohnG; Jun 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2009, 12:58 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
DMJJR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 927
Default

I do with women's collegiate soccer-all shot with Pentax Super Program, SMC-A 70-200 manual focus, usually with Fuji 400. Shot during the 90's Just have to find my prints & negatives.
DMJJR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2009, 2:14 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
kazuya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,007
Default

i think these topics are great, ive learned so much from them.

when im out shooting the horse shows i get about 80% keepers,
the thing is, one mans keeper is another mans trash, i suppose its down to standards and what your happy with, so out of the 80% keepers how many do i think are a cut above, thats the big question. im pretty sure ive taken quite a few that i think have the WOW factor, and i do have quite high standards, the 10% i bin my partner will say, "theres nothing wrong with them", but to me they dont cut it.
ive even sold quite a few pictures to people that have just come up to me at shows, and not happy with the shoddy event photographers pics. at first i was tempted to give them away but i remembered the "never give pictures away" from another post, so i charged 5.50 each, so far ive sold about 20 pictures and to me its money for nothing because im enjoying myself (does this make me a pro lol)

ok so now ill add my 2 cents to the debate, there were a lot of comments about the picture i posted on the other thread and how good it was "for a pentax" well i think theres a few reasons why the pentax does so well at the horse shows, first off, they are allways held outside and its mostly a summer thing, so the lights allways good, the fences dont move, so its easy to predict where the subject will be, plus you can get close, really close. and lastly, im gaining lots of experience, im thinking about where the sun is, which fences to watch, whats in the background and my timing and framing is getting very good.
so for me the pentax is doing ok, but i think i want better than ok, i want more of my keepers to be WOW pictures, and i dont think i will ever achive this from the gear ive got, so im seriously considering buying a D90, mainly because of the autofocus 3d tracking capabilitys i keep reading about and 96% viewfinder, but ill hold off untill i know more about the new pentax but i doubt it will have as a good a focusing system as the d90, but heres hoping.

Dave
kazuya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2009, 3:35 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Goldwinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 6,515
Default

Hello John G,
I've been following your replies in recent days regarding quality gear for shooting sports, and I'm just curious, from your perspective, what gear would you choose if you were into nature shots and wanted to shot birds in flight, (among other things) seems like you might want the same thing you would want for sports shooting too, yes?

thanks,
__________________
GW

Life's a breeze on a Goldwing...
Goldwinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2009, 4:06 PM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldwinger View Post
Hello John G,
I've been following your replies in recent days regarding quality gear for shooting sports, and I'm just curious, from your perspective, what gear would you choose if you were into nature shots and wanted to shot birds in flight, (among other things) seems like you might want the same thing you would want for sports shooting too, yes?
thanks,
Birds in flight have a lot of the same challenges as sports photography. Your shots are benefited by sharpness, good focus tracking ability, depending on your style an abundance of focus points, good WB, appropriate length lens, clean high ISO. Of birders, NHL is the only one I've run across that does not use continuous focus for birds-in-flight. Most others I've run into do use it.

Unlike sports shooting though, you don't need wide apertures per se. A good example in the system I shoot is many birders choose to use a Canon 400mm 5.6 lens. Canon makes an excellent 400mm f2.8 lens. But the reality is the 2.8 isn't much sharper than the 5.6 but it weighs a ton more. And you really don't want to be using such wide apertures anyway for BIF. For the limited birding I do, I use a 100-400mm 5.6 lens. I don't use that lens much for sports because I don't like the deep dof you get at 5.6. And I don't like to use my 120-300 2.8 sigma for birding because it's heavier and I don't need 2.8. So, the lighter 100-400 (which has IS) is a better fit for the birding and the 120-300 2.8 is a better fit for sports - for me anyway. Both are very fast and accurate to focus and both are sharp - those are the key points to me. But, I'm only a casual birder - I do it occasionally, but don't have the patience or time to do it regularly. But I still try to capture quality shots on the few occasions I do it.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2009, 6:12 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Goldwinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 6,515
Default

Well John, you sure can't complain about that shot! although his supper looks a little small.
I agree with your assessment but, I'm still wondering what body you think would perform best if someone was to go pro, say Canon 50D or the Nikon D300 or would you suggest the 5D or D3 full-frame? if you don't feel comfortable narrowing it down, that's OK, I was just interested in your opinion for perhaps a future purchase if I should ever think about taking that leap.
Thanks
__________________
GW

Life's a breeze on a Goldwing...
Goldwinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2009, 6:40 PM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldwinger View Post
I'm still wondering what body you think would perform best if someone was to go pro, say Canon 50D or the Nikon D300 or would you suggest the 5D or D3 full-frame?
Thanks
Well, first off I'm not sure what opportunities there are to be a professional wildlife photographer. There are some, but not many. But if it's just a matter of investing in professional grade gear the two top dogs would be the Canon 1dmkIII and Nikon D3. The D300 has the focus point matrix of the D3 but not the 'brains'. So the focus performance is not as quick as the D3. From the posts I've seen from wildlife/sports shooters that have shot both Canon 50D and Nikon D300 - the Canon is quicker but the D300 is more accurate. So, I'm not sure there's a winner on that front. For those that shoot small birds, the increased number of focus points on the D300 would be an advantage. I don't shoot small BIF, so on the large ones I prefer single point (vs. multiple points). Other shooters prefer all points - the area where the D300 struggles (there is an in-between option where you use multiple points but not all). I would base my decision on the glass. In the long prime realm, Nikon lenses get VERY expensive. Great results but Canon offers a little better value in their pro grade long glass.

What I can't speak well about is the how much of a penalty there is for full-frame vs. crop for BIF. In my experience with people and sports, a crop body doesn't give you more 'reach' than a full frame body - the limiting factor appears to be the focus ability of the lens. For example, a 200mm lens seems to have a good working range of 25 yards for people sports regardless of body. For wildlife where the subject is often smaller than a human, the crop factor can be a benefit. My recommendation if you are considering Nikon is to look at some Nikon forums - DPReview has a very active Nikon forum with a number of people using the D3. I'm guessing there is probably at least a couple shooters that have tried BIF with both D300 and D3. In the Canon camp, the 1dmkIII is going to be the better choice over the 50D but the 50D - there's still a big gap in AF systems between the two - although the 50D is a very fine camera and I've seen better shots with 50D/40d/30d for BIF than I could ever get with my mkIII. Much in birding is about the lens - sharpness at full length and AF speed. My opinion is 50D + great lens will do better than 1dmkIII + OK lens - and same is true in Nikon camp. Same applies to sports shooting BTW - a 50D with 300mm 2.8 lens will get you better shots than a 1dmkIII plus 70-300 5.6. The challenge is to find a balance. I upgraded to the 120-300 2.8 before I upgraded my body from a 20d to 1dmkIII and I'm confident I made the right call in that progression. Good luck in your search.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2009, 6:43 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 225
Default

Yes I agree whole heartedly that If I had premium gear I would get a bunch more keepers and that I would get great results. But I can only dream of owning such equipment at this point in my life. Now.... should I stop taking pictures with the equipment that I have since It will never produce the same quality of pics that your equipment can? Should I curl up in a ball and suck my thumb because I am just not equal to those who possess better equipment? Of course I would be silly to react in such a way. But , unfortunately, there are those who would respond to your critique in just that sort of manor. And there are those who would have made a critique such as yours with the intent of demeaning the man with lesser equipment.
Lets face it there are alot of photos on this site that aren't that good at all BUT to speak down to those who are trying to improve their skills would only serve to ensure that their pics get no better. Most of us have not reached such a high level of skill that we could not do better with equipment we ALREADY have.
bock1965
bock1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2009, 6:48 PM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Bock,

I'm sorry you took my critique as an attempt to demean. It was, I thought, very even-handed. I pointed out what you did well and also pointed out where there could be improvement. That's what a good critique is all about. Good luck in your future shooting endeavors.
JohnG 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 8:03 PM.